Well, it arrived after all. Horowitzmas Day, the day the big (500 page) report on the FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton email probe by IG Horowitz and crew. Available in toto here.
Did you get what you wanted from blessed St. Horowitz? My expectations were tempered, so I got pretty much what I expected. Comey and Lynch blasted for screwing up the procedural aspects and making the FBI and DOJ look bad, but we got no statement that the case was wrongly decided for political reasons, while lots more examples of FBI bias were revealed.
I'm gonna take Ace's takes on the relevations in order, because his titles are so descriptive
Early Leaks About IG Report Indicate That It's a Whitewash
I pretty much expected this.Update: Why Did the FBI/DOJ Redact Strzok's "We'll Stop Him" Response to Page's Question About Letting Trump Become President?
It claims there was no political bias shown by Strzok and Page (!), faults Comey for discussing Hillary's crimes but not for absolving her of crimes, and finds fault with Lynch for not talking to Comey.
That's the claim -- that Lynch wasn't talking to him through this period.
Maybe these are the quotes that are exciting liberal reporters -- so maybe the full report (which will be released at 3pm) is more honest, but so far, it's not looking good. And Bloomberg claims they obtained all the conclusions in the report. So my hope that maybe these are just the conclusions Democrat congressmen wanted to leak seems to be a false hope.
I failed to pick up on this being new. I had read the "Trump's not going to become president, right?" text before, and assumed I must have just forgotten Strzok's reply: "We'll stop him."
But in fact that wasn't previously disclosed. Did Rosenstein redact it for, ahem, "national security concerns"?
How is it that Lisa Page's question ("Trump's not going to become president, right?") was leaked, but Peter Strzok's response ("No, we'll stop it") was not until now? And how is that not a massive deal?— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 14, 2018
My mind is boggled.
Fox reports Rosenstein is actually at the White House now as they await the IG report.IG Report Released
I hope Trump is preparing to fire him.
It's here. It's 500 pages so... I don't know, I guess I'll rely on Twitter and your posts in the comments for a roadmap. It seems like a whitewash.That's pretty damning.
In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions
pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok's August 8 text message ("we'll stop" candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.
. . .
We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless infrequent contact with reporters. Attached to this report as Attachments E and F are two link charts that reflect the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016. We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.
In addition, we identified instances where FBI employees improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social
events. We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the Inspector General Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy.
OIG Report, Thread Two - Plus: Another Mueller Prosecutor Finally Removed Over Anti-Trump, "Viva La Resistance!" Texts
See below for the earlier stuff we've collectively found.
Here's some new stuff, starting with faulting McCabe and Peter Kadzik for not recusing themselves from these matters.
With respect to these investigations, we agreed with the FBI's chief ethics official that McCabe was not at any time required to recuse under the relevant authorities.However, voluntary recusal is always permissible with the approval of a supervisor or ethics official, which is what McCabe did on November 1. Had the FBI put in place a system for reviewing campaign donations to Dr. McCabe, which were public under Virginia law, the sizable donations from McAuliffe's PAC and the Virginia Democratic Party may have triggered prior consideration of the very appearance concerns raised in the October 23 WSJ article.
Finally, we also found that McCabe did not fully comply with this recusal in a few instances related to the Clinton Foundation investigation.
Former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik:
In Chapter Fourteen, we found that Kadzik demonstrated poor judgment by failing to recuse himself from Clinton-related matters under federal ethics regulations prior to November 2, 2016. Kadzik did not recognize the appearance of a conflict that he created when he initiated an effort to obtain employment for his son with the Clinton campaign while participating in Department discussions and communications about Clinton-related matters.
From the Daily Caller: Viva La Resistance, writes one of Mueller's Murderers Row of partisan I'm With Her Democrats:Foreign Actors Had At Least One Hillary Email Marked "Secret;" Nevertheless, The Exoneration Speech Was Edited to Change The Wording That It Was "Likely" Foreign Actors Had Secret Emails to Merely "Possible"
An FBI attorney who worked on the special counsel’s Russia investigation until earlier this year sent anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, including one exclaiming: "Viva le Resistance."
The attorney's comments are revealed in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Thursday.
The lawyer is not identified, but he worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and was the FBI’s lead attorney on the investigation into Russian election interference. He was assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation soon after it began in May 2017 and left in late February of this year after some of his private messages were shared with the special counsel.
"I am numb," the attorney wrote on Nov. 9, 2016, the day after President Trump's election.
"I am so stressed about what I could have done differently," the lawyer continued, apparently referring to the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe.
The attorney's messages show that the was distressed at the FBI's decision in October 2016 to re-open the investigation into Clinton’s emails. Democrats have claimed that decision hurt Clinton at the polls.
The FBI lawyer also suggested that he would work to resist the Trump administration.
"Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration"” one FBI lawyer wrote on Nov. 22, 2016.
"Hell no. Viva le resistance," the future Mueller attorney responded.
And they shouldn't have even have said "likely" -- they knew of at least one.FBI Agent Assigned to Clinton Email Probe: I'm Getting Out My Guns If Clinton Doesn't Win the Election
Knowing that a foreign actor has a secret email is not a "likely" thing; it's a fact.
The article says the email is "assessed" to have been gotten from one of the people Hillary emailed.
But the fucking emails should never have been on a nonsecure system in the first place.
. . .
Fox News also reported in March that Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Clinton's server that suggested a possible breach, but there was no significant follow up, according to sources with knowledge of the matter.
John Sexton points out it was the very-unbiased Peter Strzok who changed the exoneration memo's wording from calling Clinton's actions "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."
Did Strzok also make the edit changing the assessment from "likely" that foreign actors had accessed secret Hillary emails to merely "possible"?
FBI agents mused about riots in the event of a Trump victory. One said he'd walk around w/ both of his guns if Clinton lost. https://t.co/1VSSfCqUFO @dailycaller pic.twitter.com/JdUBWN0rM8— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) June 14, 2018
From IG report: Agent discusses interview with a witness who assisted the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence:— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) June 14, 2018
FBI Employee: "how did the [witness] go”
Agent: “Awesome. Lied his ass off."
Agent: "Even if he said the truth ... aint noone gonna do shit” pic.twitter.com/LNKzP5pFxA
New texts from IG report show FBI agents calling trump supporters "retarded" https://t.co/OSzCOywCSX pic.twitter.com/4XJdmCRXGF— Eric Hartmane (@erichartmane) June 14, 2018
Standard Everday Cucks Vs. Super Mega Incel Cuck
On Clinton and classification, FBI/DOJ officials "found her claim that she did not understand the significance of the '(C)' marking strained credulity." Inconceivable that she did not understand. https://t.co/GzZnMmRTW3— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) June 14, 2018
Yup, and the “gross negligence” legal analysis — as applied to these facts — is extraordinary. She violated the law. Period. https://t.co/kv0szBQbop— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 14, 2018
The defense that Strzok didn’t actually stop Trump isn’t all that relevant to the problem of intent. There is more than enough reason to terminate him and place every single one of his actions under the highest degree of scrutiny. Transparency is absolutely vital.— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 14, 2018
And serendipitously, speaking of absurdly pompous government pencil-pushers, I came across this old Iowahawk post:
And it's just beginning. I'm not even breaking even on material.How civil servants see themselves / how everybody else sees them pic.twitter.com/HeMVZKGjWA— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) March 17, 2018
Post a Comment