This is rich... something I missed in yesterday's Patch article that a friend brought to my attention today.
A word that speaks volumes.
Yes, the FBI agreed to release emails at Mason's request but... she's getting them back watermarked.
Watermarked.
FBI property on loan to the City.
Meaning the federal law enforcement agency has telegraphed a message to the public (and Mason) that they don't trust her with the emails in her custody. Is there any other reason for watermarking? No. So if Mason feels like she's flexed her authority to the Feds, they've returned the favor by treating her like a person-of-interest.
Wow. The subtext is ominous. I'm guessing she doesn't get it.
She can't leak them. Anyone possessing a copy without a watermark will have an illegally obtained copy. The FBI may wish to track the custody of the watermarked emails; how ironic if they turn out to have evidentiary value in the criminal case?
Well, well.
Mason may think she got what she wanted. Maybe more than she bargained for.
Comments
Post a Comment