Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
But speaking of the IG report ...

... here's a prognostication (highly edited - see complete writings at link).

Quote:

---

https://saraacarter.com/horowitz-report-will-be-damning-criminal-refer
rals-likely/

Horowitz Report Will Be Damning. Criminal Referrals Likely.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on his investigation into the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign is expected to be made public before Thanksgiving and the outcome is alleged to contain several criminal referrals, according to sources who spoke with SaraACarter.com.

Horowitz’s investigation ... will more than likely result in the declassification of documents — requested by senior Republican lawmakers for more than several years. ...

Those documents will contain several classified pages of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ folder (which contained exculpatory information), as well as the email chain between FBI investigators in the Russia probe and then-FBI Director James Comey. ... As previously reported, the email chains will contain information that prove the FBI knew prior to obtaining a warrant to spy on Page that former British spy Christopher Steele’s information in his infamous dossier on Trump could not be proven.

It is also expected to reveal that the FBI knew that Steele was leaking to the media but then used those media reports as separate evidence in their request for a FISA warrant, known as circular intelligence reporting. ...

Horowitz’s report is also going to contain evidence that the FBI handled Hillary Clinton’s campaign differently than that of President Trump’s campaign. It will reveal that she had received a detailed debriefing from the FBI on foreign attempts to make contact with her campaign. It will reveal the deep bias and animus those FBI officials had toward the Trump campaign.

It is the most highly anticipated Horowitz report during the Trump administration’s tenure. Why? Because for more than three years the American people have not had closure or resolution to what exactly warranted the FBI investigation to spy on a presidential campaign, or for that matter on the President.

“It would also fatally undermine the credibility of Schiff, who argued vehemently that there were no FISA abuses — it will mean that, as Intel Committee Chairman, (Schiff's) ignoring severe abuses for purely political purposes.”

Those political purposes lead to the most important question lingering in Horowitz’s investigation: Did senior officials within the FBI and U.S. intelligence apparatus weaponize the system for political purposes against a candidate for the presidency and did they continue to do so after Trump had been elected?

Here’s what to expect: According to several sources the report will be ‘damning’ and will allegedly contain criminal referrals on former FBI officials. The report will apparently have at least two criminal referrals, said two sources, with knowledge. One of those criminal referrals is expected to be Comey. However, the Inspector General’s office has not been providing comments on the report.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/30/straight_s
hooter_justice_dept_watchdog_has_held_his_fire_on_the_top_brass_120565.html

This news report paints Horowitz as a toady to his old boss Comey.

But nowhere do I find any news that he's about to be fired. THAT must be more THUGGER shit.

A billion flies eat shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
AH! I understand your confusion THUGGER!

Signy and I were talking about Horowitz, Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice. THAT WAS THE ONGOING CONVERSATION. He's the IG whose report is completed, but undergoing redaction. He's the IG who's report is the very topic of this thread.

But poor you - you thought there was only 1 IG in the whole government. You didn't know that different departments have their own IGs. And so YOU were talking about somebody else completely, thinking it was the same (and only) one!

Well, now that you know you were wrong, you can apologize.

---

Oh, you mean this report.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf

Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey's Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
You are such a funny dummy!!

No, dummy, THIS report:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/470333-barr-inspector
-generals-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-imminent



The report on an internal watchdog probe into whether the FBI followed the law and its own policies while applying for a warrant to surveil a former Trump campaign aide during the 2016 election is "imminent," Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday.

Flies shit.

---

Quote:

---

The New York Times has not reviewed the draft,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'll make it really easy on you, Kiki.

If ANON is part of your story, it's not even worth vetting. Not only that, but it would be impossible for you to vet anyhow. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the entire article is an outright lie, and there is no way to prove it other than to see if time steps in and proves it is a lie...

And that's only assuming that you remember reading the article in the first place and it hasn't been taken down or you haven't bothered archiving it and saving the address.




How anybody can constantly read articles like this all day long that offer zero credibility is beyond my comprehension. But they do, and it's only apparently getting worse.

The article above might just be the worst one I've read to date.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Seriously though. Did you see how bad that last one was?

I can usually find 1 to 3 ANON quotes in there, but this one had a dozen.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What I don't understand is, having been lied to about Iraq, having been lied to about RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!, having been lied to about all number of things great and small, how the people here maintain their childish faith that THIS TIME they're being told the truth.

You'd think that a least a teensy eensy leeeetle bit of patience would have seeped its way in, that cautions - wait and see.

Way back when - during the Microsoft trial - I used to post a lot of 'compare and contrast' - narrative v facts - here, under the name Rue - which btw I took a lot of shit for, notably from the free-market right-wingers. As I recall, Signy posted along those lines as well. Later I posted a lot of the Iraq-WMD facts that were at odds with the narrative, that should have made people just a little bit skeptical of the bullshit they were being sold. (I wasn't the only one, but it was a minority of 2 or 3 here, as I recall.) I and the other posters took a lot of shit for that too, also generally from the right-wingers.

But it took the liberaloids to amp the shit-slinging up to coordinated libel over the RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!! hoax.

Personally, I'm still interested in finding out exactly how I'm being lied to. I really do want to understand what the facts are. And as long as we can still get what look to be original documents, we're not in thrall to 'The Narrative'. So as many as I find, I'll post here. But my long experience has been that facts don't move people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It was under Rue?

---

Quote:

---

"sources told The Times"

"a claim the IG's report is also expected to undercut."

"according to the Post"


Only one instance of ANON, speculation, and attempted preemptive passing of the buck if this blows up in their faces in the article Wishy linked.


But wait... There's more.

Here's the articles from the Times and the WaPo that are referenced for the story. (How outright plagiarism passes as "journalism" these days is still a mystery to me, but I guess when you're in the business of making shit up nobody cares about copyright anymore.)

Let's just jump right into it...


Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/us/politics/fbi-trump-campaign-insp
ector-general.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

"a highly anticipated inspector general’s report is expected to find."

"people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said."

"is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report"

"according to people familiar with a draft of the report"

"one of the people said."

"A spokeswoman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment."

"The people familiar with the inquiry cautioned that the draft report was not final."

"The New York Times has not reviewed the draft"

"Mr. Horowitz’s findings are also said to show"

"according to a person familiar with the offer."

"the people familiar with the draft report said"

"former officials said."

"the people said."

"But it is not clear whether Mr. Horowitz uncovered any such instances."

"the people familiar with the draft report said."

"the people familiar with the draft report said."


Yes. This exact same phrasing is used in two paragraphs at this point. Nobody reads this far down, so why bother with mistakes like these?






The WaPo Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/inspector-generals-re
port-on-fbis-russia-probe-to-be-delivered-dec-9/2019/11/21/6d6d789e-0c70-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html

"according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter."

"according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public."

"They declined to identify the lawyer."

"people familiar with the matter said."

"two U.S. officials said."

"they said."

"the officials said."

"people familiar with the matter said."

"A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the FBI. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment."

"according to people familiar with the matter."





Hmmmmmmmmm....

"They" say a lot. Don't "they"?






You know what else the media likes to do? Lie by structure.

Here are two of the last three paragraphs in the WaPo article that Wishy didn't read, and apparently the "journalist" at yahoo news never got around to before writing their stunning bombshell...

Quote:

---

Conservatives have alleged that a medley of wrongdoing occurred during the investigation, which was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, and they are likely to seize on any criticism that Horowitz directs at those involved in the probe. Some Trump supporters have referred to the investigation as an attempted “coup.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are hopeful Horowitz will disprove various conspiracy theories that have been offered about the case and refute Trump’s assertion that Mueller’s probe was a “witch hunt” tainted by political bias against the president.

---

Though it is quite obvious the bias that WaPo injects in these paragraphs and how they want you to believe their narrative, it is quite clear that nobody has read the report at all except for some possibly fictionalized people without names, and the WaPo does finally get around to letting anybody who actually reads that far down know that basically...

NOBODY KNOWS.



Nope. Absolutely nothing has been dispelled.


OPPS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Ok let's see.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
People familiar with the matter you say?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---