Posted on 06/17/2018 5:38:33 PM PDT by rlmorel
NOTE: I am taking much of this from the Dan Bongino podcast "Episode 743: The Aftermath". I am listing these in the order he presents them.
Here are EIGHT major points to take away from the Inspector General Report.
It is wise to keep in mind that this report was NOT about spying on Trump, and it was NOT whether Hillary Clinton used an unauthorized private email server.
This IG report was about the conduct of the FBI and the DOJ during the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal.
We should keep in mind what this report is, and isn't. This may very well net some high people and result in some criminal prosecutions, but that isn't what is most important about this report.
What is important are the things contained in the report that are going to have a bearing on other investigations that are certainly going to come down the pike. This was NOT an insignificant or empty report. We shouldn't fall into the trap the media sets to dismiss this "as a nothingburger". Here's why:
"...We identified three categories of text messages that raised concerns about potential bias in FBI investigations. The first were text messages of a political nature commenting on Trump and Clinton. We specifically highlight these text messages because Strzok and Page played important roles in investigations involving both Trump and Clinton, and the exchange of these text messages on an FBI-issued device potentially created an appearance of bias. The second category we identified were text messages that combined expressions of political sentiments with a discussion of the Midyear investigation, potentially indicating or creating the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. The third category raised similar questions with respect to the Russia investigation.
So, they definitively state what is obvious to anyone who had read the transcripts of messages between Strzok and Page, as well as comments from McCabe and Comey...that there was indeed political bias.
DEFENSE FOR TRUMP: Mr. Comey, what were you in charge of investigating regarding email during the 2016 Presidential campaign?
COMEY: I was running an investigation into whether then candidate Hillary Clinton had been using a personal email account for official government business on an unauthorized server.
DEFENSE FOR TRUMP: Mr. Comey, have you ever, in violation of the law, used personal email accounts for official FBI business?
COMEY: Er...uh...yes.
DEFENSE FOR TRUMP: These proceedings are closed.
PAIGE TEXT: “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
STRZOK TEXT: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Strzok's response in red above was in the IG report, but was missing from the original "comprehensive" collection of the texts. The text itself is bad enough on its face, and can be interpreted in a number of ways, but the bigger question is: Why was it originally missing? Why? And if removed deliberately...by whom? This is NOT an insignificant item.
good job.
I hear you discostu, but I would like to think this is going to be a signal point in the downfall of the media as we have known it, and a dawning of the “new” media. (Note: not that this process below hasn’t been going on for some time, but now, with the credibility of the media diminishing to the point the President can safely point out how biased or ill-informed they are, and their audiences are beginning to see it too, whether they want to or not.
I think that the days of having a small handful of analysts at CBS, CNN, or Fox who take in the data, provide their version of context to it, and disseminate it to people who consume it unthinkingly (as if they were eating potato chips) is over as the dominant model of both dissemination and consumption. Those people are often bound by contract to their outlet, and their interpretation is often subject to approval at a corporate level.
In the “new” media, you are going to have people like Jeff Carlson at The Markets Work and Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller doing incredible specialized work, both independently of each other (or not!) and someone like Dan Bongino who can provide context and take content from other authors and like them and make the sum of everything better than the individual parts. And these people aren’t bound by contract to each other or even to anyone apart from themselves.
I am hopeful we see something new.
I just went back and listened to the podcast, and basically he said, in the IG report, they stated for fact and on record that Hillary Clinton’s private email “system” had been compromised and stolen by foreign actors. Dan Bongino has sources that say the server was hacked, but the report says “email stream” or something like that. Not as specific as I had thought.
But that is indeed on par with your post! Thank you for the explanation.
What is the significance of “Email Traffic being compromised, rather than the server hacked”? Here is a speculative answer:
That sounds to me like they have discerned that data sent from Hillary’s Blackberry and/or iPad devices was being intercepted by someone before it ever got to her home brew server. The important thing is that her server wasn’t the weak point. The weak link was the Blackberry, and it’s user. That should not surprise anyone.
IIRC, some if not all of Hillary’s many Blackberry devices were NOT specially secure devices. She asked for one of Presidential timber and was turned down. Hillary was warned that Blackberry’s were susceptible to having the signal intercepted if used outside of secure settings, such as special areas at her office. She reportedly ignored this routinely, even using a Blackberry device in Russia to correspond with Obama.
The distinction you have focused upon is potentially the key to showing Clinton’s contempt for data security rules clearly laid out for her. Her crime was not “gross negligence” — it was deliberate misconduct.
Thanks, LS...
I like to look at current events and view the as if it is fifty years in the future, just to imagine how significant or important a thing is that is occurring today.
Granted, things may not play out the way I think they should, and this will be a tiny blip, but I hope that the events we currently see are, from the perspective of the dangers of societal surveillance, viewed fifty years down the road as something that slowed or stopped our republic’s slide into a surveillance state.
(I know it is likely a pipe dream, but I have always been optimistic!)
The media as we know it has been falling for 20 years. They still control the narrative. The new media is nothing more than people spreading the same narrative they get from the old media. Again look at the UN report. All the new media was around then, and it didn’t change a damn thing. The new media is a waste of 3 characters, cause it’s still just the media.
You are on the target, breaking in to a server is a far cry from monitoring traffic, especially that on a channel or stored in a repository that is in violation of the law.
Man in the middle is more likely, or tap an save if unencrypted etc. Once someone slips up then an opening occurs for evidentiary exploration. The use of servers outside of established and mandated one is a violation of the law and that opens the door for a whole different perspective on how things can and were done
Great post!
Point #9
Page 294
“crime against children”
It is not about Weiner’s weiner photos. It was what was in the “Life insurance” file.
Thank you! I have put it on my Favorites for quick referral later.
Freedom of speech is one thing, but being called to task for saying it if it is false or being done deliberately in support of criminal activity a whole different thing
On one hand, we understand completely it was deliberate misconduct, and was likely done for two main reasons: First, she wished to avoid communications that could be obtained for scrutiny via a Freedom of Information Act request. Secondly, she was lazy and arrogant, and didn't think she should be subject to the rigors of security the way the rest of us are.
But on a different level, we all knew she felt this way: Reading Gary Aldrich's excellent book "Unlimited Access" where he described in excruciating detail the attitude the Clintons and their associates had about security, from absolute top to absolute bottom, was abysmal to the point of traitorous.
They WANTED to flout security, and they WANTED security to fail. Security was part of "The Man".
Exactly, and if they (White Hats) had figured out the routing algorithms being used to shunt copies of traffic to alternate addresses (Cisco Routers, F7 algorithm) to hide it and create a sort of private network then we are in RICO territory, big time
I don’t think we disagree.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility, and part of that responsibility is being subject to having that speech scrutinized, deconstructed, and disproven.
Where I have an issue is some entity (the government) looking at speech, deciding if it is acceptable or unacceptable in some way, and acting unilaterally on that before it is even allowed to see the light of day.
I think we agree on deliberately false or in support of criminal activity.
LOL, I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!
When I heard that the NYPD and the NY Attorney's office were up in arms with what they found on Weiner's laptop, and were threatening to leak it to the media, which caused Loretta Lynch to threaten a federal investigation into the death of Eric Garner....your "life insurance" reference was the first thing I thought of.
IIRC, Dan Bongino sounded like he had some connections up in New York who gave him the gist of the hostile environment. (That is where he was from)
Depends on link encryption. The traffic to and from is trivial to intercept and it is likely that 100% of her traffic was intercepted at every foreign hotel she stayed at. But whether the eavesdropper can do anything depends on link encryption. I'm pretty sure the blackberry used HTTPS to interact with the mail server. I'm not 100% sure, but I'll look for a reference.
Glad you found it helpful...I found his explanation to be both upbeat and easy to understand. I was falling prey to thinking how useless it was, as I had been to busy to dig into it.
mark -
rlmorel, good job!
I remembered reading somewhere in the report that Hillary had instructed her IT Goon to obtain a certificate and a domain...that would imply secure traffic, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.