Replies

TASHINA GAUHAR

PART TWO

IG Report: FBI Lawyer #1 Tashina Gauhar and The Huma/Weiner Laptop Issues

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/15/ig-report-fbi-lawyer-1-tashina-gauhar-and-the-huma-weiner-laptop-issues/

June 15, 2018 by sundance

One of the information issues with the IG report is that it’s written entirely from an insider’s perspective. Therefore without an understanding of how divisions within Main Justice related to the discussed activity within FBI main DC offices it can be very confusing to understand.

The ‘insider narration’ makes it difficult to see what happened with the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop; and how the Clinton emails were discovered. However, because the issue is so important the IG report spends three chapters on this time-frame between September 28th and October 29th, 2016; and ultimately the next day, Oct. 30th, when a search warrant was executed for the laptop content.

IG Horowitz takes this aspect of the investigation into granularity and nuance (Chapters 8, 9 and 10).

AT THE HEART OF THE ACTIVITY DURING THIS CRITICAL PERIOD IS FBI LAWYER #1 TASHINA “TASH” GAUHAR WHO WAS ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE FBI NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE (NYFO) AS THE DISCOVERIES OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLINTON EMAILS WERE RELAYED INTERNALLY TO THE MID-YEAR-EVENT (MYE) TEAM IN DC ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2016.

Almost a full month went by until October 27th, 2016, when the MYE team all gathered with James Comey to talk about the laptop issues and the emails. Within the IG review of this period, there is a bunch of ass-covering documentation that takes place in hindsight to the events. The IG is careful to point out each time his investigation is presented with documentary evidence that was clearly written long-after the events being questioned.

THE CENTRAL IG QUESTION IS: WHY DIDN’T THE FBI TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO REVIEW 725,000 CLINTON-CENTRIC EMAILS ON THE HUMA/WEINER LAPTOP? WHY DID THEY WAIT A MONTH BEFORE SEEKING A SEARCH WARRANT? WHY WERE THEY DOING NOTHING?…

The long article continues.

The final three paragraphs:

...However, what is missing from the report is an explanation for: ‘why the FBI didn’t initiate the review’?

The IG gives a reason for the excuses not to be believed; gives a reason for the FBI finally taking action; but it never gives the reason why the Clinton email review was not undertaken….. the report leaves the actual biggest point as a dangling question.

EVERY INTELLECTUALLY HONEST PERSON READING KNOWS THE MYE TEAM DIDN’T INVESTIGATE THE LAPTOP BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO RE-OPEN THE INVESTIGATION; AND THE FBI TEAM (VIA MCCABE, PAGE, STRZOK AND TASHINA GAUHAR) FIGURED IT COULD SIMPLY BE AVOIDED. However, the IG cannot prove that, because the participants deny it. So the IG can only disprove the FBI assertions and excuses…. and he did. But that leaves the FBI getting away with the corrupt part of it…. and leaves all of us frustrated, again.

END PART TWO

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

However, what is missing from the report is an explanation for: ‘why the FBI didn't initiate the review’?

Actually it does have an explanation and it's lame. It's in the IG report summary page 10.

As we describe in Chapter Nine of our report, the explanations we were given for the FBI’s failure to take immediate action on the Weiner laptop fell into four general categories:
• The FBI Midyear team was waiting for additional information about the contents of the laptop from NYO, which was not provided until late October;

• The FBI Midyear team could not review the emails without additional legal authority, such as consent or a new search warrant;

• The FBI Midyear team and senior FBI officials did not believe that the information on the laptop was likely to be significant; and

• Key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.

The troubling thing about all this was: "No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station." ( from Chapter 9 footnotes)