[No_Doll_i]

Maybe this version is not worth the trouble to report on.

What do you guys think? Wait til the Original is out?

Thanks!

[bitt]

I agree - it’s fairly obvious to interpretation - anyone can take the time to read it - let’s just post responses from
KNOWN GOOD GUYS as to what they intent to do!!

This looks like a [RR] apologia....

stand down, diligent freeqs!

[Cboldt]

I don't think it is urgent to read at this point. So many eyes on this right now, the hot spots will surface pretty quickly.

See, e.g. Mark Meadows, Nunes and others. Plus we have the Grassley softball hearing coming up.

There is evidence of bias all over the place, then the OIG says "no evidence of bias." Shades of "Hillary did nothing wrong."

[Jack Black]

I think the people that think there is some huge difference between the supposed "original" and this one are probably going to be very disappointed, if the "original" (aka: draft) report is made available.

I suspect very little was changed.

It's 550 pages, rewriting large parts of it in a week just wouldn't be possible.

[Jack Black]

Also, I scanned the entire document. The only obvious redactions are in Attachment C: which is a copy of a memo. One name in the "to:" list is blacked out, and McCabe's signature is blacked out.

That's IT.

So, if redactions were done a lot of work was put into simply removing the material in it's entirety from the report. Which again, seems unlikely given the time frames.