Posted on 12/09/2019 6:08:59 AM PST by janetjanet998
I am not sure of the time of the release..it is 9 am now....there was some talk last night on twitter that there will be a short press conference in the morning but the report won't be made public until the afternoon....but take that info with a grain of salt
This is from the report:
“We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. - That is on page iii.
"We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigations was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among the Crossfire "Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigat ions." p iii and iv.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.p vi
"While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified." p viii
"In our review, we did not find any evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UC Es to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." - page 312
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced Priestap's decision to open Crossfire Hurricane. - P 349
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page. - p 359
"We found that FBI policy permitted the receipt and use of Steele's election reporting in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that this decision was the result of political bias or other improper considerations. - p 381
"We concluded that AD Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. - P 410
"We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign - p 411
Dana Boente is Wray's general councel at the FBI. He signed off on the 2nd renewal while he was acting AG in April 2017..
No we wouldn’t but the swamp people are. Double stand.
How about this?:
“On September 19, 2016, the same day that the
Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele’s election
reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about
seeking a FISA order for Page and specifically focused
on Steele’s reporting in drafting the FISA request.”
They got denied on their first request, and then, as soon as the Steele reports hit their hot little hands, they were already using them to file another request. How did they even have time to read them, much less try to verify anything in them?
Thanks, grey-whiskers.
Here are my translations of this giant wad of lies. (See what a difference it can make when you write with a political bias? Let’s substitute my bias for the DS bias in the report and see how it reads.)
“at least 17 significant errors or omissions” = 17(!!!) or more crimes
“and many additional errors” = more crimes
“providing wrong or incomplete infor mation” = lying
“failing to flag important issues for discussion” = sweeping facts under the rug
“did not receive satisfactory explanations” = ... because there aren’t any satisfactory explanations, because there was no excuse for this, because the only logical explanation is that this was a criminal invasion of privacy with no legal basis
“did not know or recall” = lied because if they told the truth they would be incriminating themselves
“may have been an oversight” = was in no way an oversight, but saying it was sounds a lot better than saying that they were conspiring to bring down Trump and ensure Hitlery was elected
“did not recognize at t he time the relevance of t he information” = Hahahahahahaha! = FULLY RECOGNIZED the relevance of the information, but admitting so would have halted their criminal acts. Hahahahaha. Whoo boy! Tell me another whopper. I can hardly stand it.
“did not believe the missing information to be significant” = knew the missing information was crucial
“may have improperly substituted their own j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he information” = didn’t give a damn about what was the right and legal thing to do. They substituted their own POLITICAL BIASES for judgment.
“a pretty solid basis” = a pretty flimsy basis, in fact, really no basis whatsoever
“I don’t think we are quite there yet, but given the sensitivity and urgency of this matter, I would like to get 01 involved as early as possible.” = HURRY UP, YOU FOOLS! If we don’t get on this RIGHT NOW, Trump could be elected and we are going to jail.
“did not accurately describe to 01” = Hmmm. This one has me stumped. Could either be that they lied to 01 OR that they are protecting 01 and trying to deflect any blame from 01. Based on my guesss that 01= 0vomit, I’d go with the latter.
“did not inform” = withheld important information
“a lapse in judgment” = bias against Trump
Read my post#241 and you tell me what the real takeaway is. Those are all quotes taken directly from the report itself. You tell me if you agree - 100% with every single thing that is said there. I’ll wait for you to read them and then wait for your response.
BTTT
Lastly, Steele provided the name of a Russian national, who he said may have connections with a Russian energy company, and who Steele claimed may be acting as Carter Page's possible "handler" for Russian intelligence.
it doesn't get any clearer than that
It clears those at the top - plain and simple.
Yes nobody admitted any wrongdoing nor wrote down anything (documentation) of wrongdoing.
That is really all an IG can do....go by testimony and documentation.
The truth is clear. They relied on the Steele Dossier 100% for the FISA warrant and nobody, at any level right up to the judge, gave a damn about the renewals....everything was rubber stamped.
It was flimsy, but not too flimsy to get the investigation started, according to Horowitz.
However, it was still too flimsy to get them wiretaps on the Trump campaign, until magically Hillary Clinton’s hired boy Steele gave them his report which:
* due to Steele’s status as a confidential FBI source, qualified for the one loophole that allowed them to put unverified information in the FISA application
and
* they began working on that FISA application the very same day they first received Steele’s reports, so they obviously didn’t even make any attempt to verify them.
There’s a lot of Horowitz failing to find anything criminal, as expected, but if you put some of these facts he sprinkles through the report together, it paints a pretty damning picture.
I’m going to read the report. Long, but necessary.
Post 245
Amen.....spot-on
Take those quoted phrases and run the word search.
It is shocking.
That is all.
So in essence , no paper trail, or anyone who would admit guilt.
Wonder how pressing the interviews , should have been interrogations, of the people involved were.
Swamp covering swamp.
Also gives air cover for Lindsay Graham to do nothing re followup as he will weasel word his way around “ no political bias”
So you are saying that using the wrong procedures with errors and falsifications means it still ok, even if there’s no outright evidence of political intent...
Stating the obvious, but the DOJ IG is absolutely useless, and might as well be disbanded as well.
Has anyone noticed that Drudge (I know, I know) has zero information from the IG report on his page? Has Drudge sold his site to some progressive elitist?
Understatement of the day!
FNC has the President’s remarks on the report. Must be a pool camera because it’s very bad video.
“Crossfire Hurrican was all about the wikileaks Podesta emails.”
Actually, it started after the July 2016 DNC email leaks. Podesta’s email account was hacked in a separate incident. Both of those did wind up released on wikileaks though.
No, I don’t agree 100% with the IG conclusions you sited. In fact I disagree with most of them. Your point? I assume you take issue with my statement that there are a lot of knee jerk reactions out there. Sorry if you disagree, but I stand by it. There are disappointing conclusions made by Horowitz to be sure, and some of them were cited within the first 10 minutes to argue that this was a white wash while ignoring the damning parts of the report, which you, by the way, left out.
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.