It's horribly long. Let's put on our speed-reading glasses and read it. Like boosh.
Hmm. The review is also long. Sorry.
You know what? This did go awfully fast. The way you gobble a book then write a report about what you got from your gobble, then get an A. But maybe that doesn't work outside of Academialand.
Maybe we're better of waiting for people smarter than me and listen to them instead. I'm willing and eager to be contradicted. Whatever. Here is what I get out of the flash session. Written fast as the report was read.
* But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.
[confidence beginning to slip]
* On June 27, 2016, Lynch met with former President Clinton on Lynch’s plane, which was parked on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport. This meeting was unplanned, and Lynch’s staff told the OIG they received no notice that former President Clinton planned to board Lynch’s plane.
[My ass wasn't planned. So now how can anything that follows be trusted when something that was obviously planned is described as unplanned? No, you don't just happen to be golfing in Arizona heat and you don't just happen to notice the head of DOJ's jet near your own at the airport. My confidence in this report just dropped to zero.]
* (Lynch) decided not to voluntarily recuse herself either. In making this decision, Lynch told the OIG that stepping aside would create a misimpression that she and former President Clinton had discussed inappropriate topics, or that her role in the Midyear investigation somehow was greater than it was
[She and Clinton DID discuss inappropriate topics, and her role in the midyear investigation WAS great as we know it to be. She and B. Clinton fucked up and by mere chance we all saw it. Confidence -10.]
* 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
(“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected),
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 searched for evidence that the Weiner laptop was deliberately placed on the back-burner by others in the FBI to protect Clinton, but found no evidence in emails, text messages, instant messages, or documents that suggested an improper purpose.
[Confidence -50]
* Kadzik also created an appearance of a conflict when he sent the Chairman of the Clinton Campaign and a longtime friend, John Podesta, the “Heads up” email that included the schedule for the release of former Secretary Clinton’s emails proposed to the court in a FOIA litigation without knowing whether the information had yet been filed and made public. His willingness to do so raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties.
[It wasn't an "appearance" of confict of interest, it is an actual conflict of interest. Confidence -60]
Recommendations:
* consider developing guidance ...
* consider making explicit ...
* adopting a policy ...
* provide guidance ...
* improve retention ...
* add warning banner ...
* training ...
* consider education ...
* include review ...
[Confidence -5,000,000]
A whole bunch of irrelevant horseshit. Hundreds of pages of make-busy work that avoids an actual audit of malfeasance. These people get paid for bloviating so much gas the reader gets dizzy and forgets the aim of uncovering crimes, not picayune deviations from procedural practices.
Summary of findings page 456
* McCabe's recusal
More about Kadzik and his behavior and recusal.
Records vault and FOIA requests.
Conclusions and recommendations.
Pablum about FBI reputation
[Confidence -5,500,000]
* Found that FBI employees with crucial roles sent political messages.
[Confidence -10,000,000]
That created the "appearance" of bias.
Confidence -20,000,000]
* (Comey) While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias
on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively "impacted the perception" of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice.
[Confidence -50,000,000]
* To protect the institutions from allegations of abuse, political interference, and biased enforcement of the law, the Department and the FBI have developed policies and practices to guide their decisions.
We HAVE policies and guidelines that direct decisions. Comey ignored them due to his clearly stated political bias purposefully ignored by this report. Confidence -100,000,000]
Recommendations too mundane to even mention. No recommendation for prosecution, no recommendation for anyone's head on a pike, no recommendations for hanging, none for electrocution or drowning or burning, no recommendation to bring back the guillotine, all pablum to give the "appearance" of one's act being cleaned when the policies already in place were clearly ignored, and worthy of severe prosecution.
This shows WHY we have Trump. To rip Republican Party a brand new asshole and get conservative voters some representation that will lead to at lest partial draining of Washington swamp. Like this awful asinine report with its absurdly prosaic recommendations. That it disrupts Democrat objectives is mere gravy.
What a tremendous amazingly mundane letdown. You want more Trump? This report is exactly how you are going to get it. This report IS the swamp.
That is my take on this report. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I read it too fast. Could be. I'm open to correction.
4 comments:
People smarter than me say the conclusions are written by different party, not the I.G.
Why?
All those damaging findings, but summarized with exculpatory "we found no evidence of ..." and with risibly prosaic recommendations for faint reform in education and policy.
That makes this report exactly like Comey's report on FBI investigation in Hillary's private server. And is there anything that comes to mind more swampy than that?
Why would the I.G. do this? Why let anyone else write conclusions and recommendations? Oh, we see. You want to see headlines like "James Comey used personal email for FBI business" at Huffington Post.
Keep in mind, the Lefties (and the Feds) are as much concerned about what they can call the appearance of wrongdoing as the wrongdoing itself.
People keep waiting for some magic Paul Drake moment when he bursts into the courtroom with the damaging evidence. Doesn't work that way.
You don't change things by waiting for somebody else to do it for you.
You asked Sgt Friday for the facts and here they are. What do you want done?
Former agent points out Strzok/page texts to I.G. Horowitz as clear evidence of political bias.
They look like this, only smoking.
And he can see it with one eye!
Maybe Horowitz didn't draw the obvious conclusion of bias because he wants to remain a Member In Good Standing?
Of The Club, that is.
Post a Comment