1) Tape was to be used to damage BHO in Dem primary;
2) Use of tape was conditional...no release because if BHO wins primary then he will be damaged beyond reparation for the general election.
Then why wasn't it used in the primary to defeat him then? Makes no sense. Its not like the Dem primary wasn't close, and I'd find it utterly unbelievable that the source didn't retain the original.
What if that was what it was intended for and the LA Times stabbed Hillary in the back? What if they wrote the article mentioning the tape because they fully intended to release it, but then were ‘dissuaded’ from doing so somehow?