OIG Report Released: Full text

Some FBI witnesses told us, consistent with text message exchanges between Strzok and Page, that the FBI was concerned that the line NSD prosecutors were intimidated by the high-powered attorneys representing Clinton and her senior aides and, as a result, did not negotiate aggressively with them.

Page 116

So.... the FBI was intimidated by Clinton attorneys?
ok
I guess that would not affect the investigation at all, right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

True Pundit?

An article from 2016 from same is their source?

LOL

Once again you demonstrate you are incapable of reading the article. Had you done so you would see where they reference the page in the OIG report containing the information.

* - The article is from June 2018.

Thank you though for proving my point that you just ignore info you dont like.

Now, today, sex crimes with minors is mentioned several times in the 500-page IG report.

Here is the first, where a FBI investigator testifies he debriefed Comey on the materials after being notified of the sex-crimes-linked intelligence from the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. Page 294:

Under the heading — “Hillary Clinton & Foundation Crime Against Children:”

Comey, it appears, claims he was never told about this.

Convenient.

It’s comforting to know a report of sex crimes linked to the former secretary of state, former U.S. senator and former First lady would not be remembered by the FBI director.

More from the IG report detailed here: Page 276:

Feel free to apologize to everyone for intentionally lying about the article in question.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

Some FBI witnesses told us, consistent with text message exchanges between Strzok and Page, that the FBI was concerned that the line NSD prosecutors were intimidated by the high-powered attorneys representing Clinton and her senior aides and, as a result, did not negotiate aggressively with them.

Page 116

So.... the FBI was intimidated by Clinton attorneys?
ok
I guess that would not affect the investigation at all, right?

I think it has more to do with the Clinton body count.

Strzok was the Lead Analyst throughout this investigation.
Strzok - with proven bias, stated clearly in this report. And yet they conclude there was no bias in the results? Whoever forced that conclusion must think that the public is stupid.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, I didn’t lie.

The linked article is from TP.

The twitter declaration is from “the chief muckraker” at TP.

The article body cites an article from TP in 2016.

Apparently you’re the one who didn’t read the article.

From our 2016 news breaking article: New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence “to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources told True Pundit.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This was your response -

True Pundit?

An article from 2016 from same is their source?

LOL

You claimed the article was from 2016 - It is from June 2018 - you lied.
You ignored the fact it references pages from the recent OIG report - you lied.

Learn to read and get back to us.

a reply to: Xcathdra

LOL

That’s pathetic.

Now, quote the IG report that Proves Pizzagate.

We’ll wait.

a reply to: Xcathdra

hmm page 294 is indeed interesting.

Although, I do think it might be a summary of information found on Weiner's computer that they thought should be investigated.

Coleman told us that he kept regularly took notes in a journal. Coleman’s
notes from October 4 contained the following entry:
(1) Anthony Wiener [sic]
(2) [Unrelated]
(3) Wiener [sic] – texting 15 yo – Sexually Explicit
9/26 – Federal SW – IPhone/IPAD/Laptop
Initial analysis of laptop – thousands emails
Hillary Clinton & Foundation
Crime Against Children
We asked Coleman about these notes and he told us that, given their placement in
his notebook, the notes would most likely represent information he was briefed on
first thing in the morning by his subordinates in the Criminal Investigative Division.
Coleman stated that he may have passed this information to other FBI executives
after the morning briefing with the Director, but he could not remember if that
occurred here.

Hillary Clinton & Foundation seems to be on a different line than Crime Against Children
But, they were definitely in his notes together as topics discussed in the same meeting.

a reply to: BlueAjah

They never seem to "remember" 😃🤷

a reply to: Xcathdra

Further, the sole citation from the TP article regarding "children" from the aforementioned page 276:

We need to come up with a clear protocol.” The AUSAs provided written guidance to the case agent about how to handle review of the laptop. In a September 28 email to the case agent and the SSA, AUSA 1 advised that the case agent should review “only evidence of crimes related to the sexual exploitation of children, enticement, and obscenity” and instructed the case agent “that all emails and other communications between Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin (even if there are other parties to the communication) should be sequestered and not reviewed at this time.” The case agent agreed and responded that the “only emails I will review are those to/from Weiner accounts to which [Huma Abedin] is not party.”

As you are such a skilled reader and legal pundit, I'm sure you can recognize that this is a discussion about what material on the Weiner laptop could be reviewed by NYPD/.

There is nothing here (surprise!) implicating Clinton in anything.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Now, back to the actual topic here:

1. The IG report claims directly that there was no evidence that the investigation had been compromised in any way. Do you deny that?

2. Do you have a source for claims that any FBI agent has been referred for indictment, particularly Peter Strzok?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

LOL

That’s pathetic.

Now, quote the IG report that Proves Pizzagate.

We’ll wait.

You mentioned pizzagate not me.

So you prove it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now, back to the actual topic here:

1. The IG report claims directly that there was no evidence that the investigation had been compromised in any way. Do you deny that?

A lie. They say there is no direct evidence. As I stated there is difference. I dont expect you to understand it though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
2. Do you have a source for claims that any FBI agent has been referred for indictment, particularly Peter Strzok?

I never said anything about indictment. I said policy review.


Direct evidence - refers to any piece of evidence that stands alone to prove an assertion. In other words, it provides direct proof of a fact and doesn't require any type of inference. .

Circumstantial evidence - a set of facts that, when taken together, lead to a desired conclusion. Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence doesn't stand alone; it requires the use of logical reasoning to prove a fact.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You chimed in on my response to this:

originally posted by: carewemust
Just heard that the Inspector General declared that Hillary Clinton "ABUSED CHILDREN". Is that true? If so, pizzagate is real after all.

With a post about the True Pundit article ...

Strike One.

nvm

nvm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

You chimed in on my response to this:

originally posted by: carewemust
Just heard that the Inspector General declared that Hillary Clinton "ABUSED CHILDREN". Is that true? If so, pizzagate is real after all.

With a post about the True Pundit article ...

Strike One.

You are the one who asked for the link toi the quote.

I provided one and the article in question that you ridiculed and ignored without bothering to read.

Strike 1.

You brought up pizzagate and not me -
strike 2.

You dont know the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence -
strike 3.

Now you done with playing games?

I understand the OIG reports paints your hero's in a negative light and there is nothing you can do about it. There is absolutely no reason to lash out at everyone else on this site though.

The more I read of the report the more I don't believe it's just a whitewash. While it's true that Hororwitz kicked the can down the road it's also true that there is a treasure trove of statements and evidentiary items that are ripe for further investigation and with a lot of the work already done. (Sidenote: I bet someone here is already making a list for a thread of what turns out to be disturbing item after suspect item after disturbing item. It'll be pretty damning on one page.

I'm not encouraged by Wray's weak sauce response though. That was classic b.s. However, it's entirely possible that Huber will tee off on some of it.

If not: This is their defining moment---the silent majority is watching, pissed off, and taking names. By their fruits you shall know them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

A lie. They say there is no direct evidence. As I stated there is difference. I dont expect you to understand it though.

from page iii (third post)

However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Strike Two.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I never said anything about indictment. I said policy review.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
*snip*
...or it was referred to Huber. Intentionally sabotaging a criminal investigation to benefit the suspect falls under obstruction of justice.
*snip*

Strike Three.

A little tidbit in the report... I am quoting it here just for Silly:

In 2016, the FBI had an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Page 377

And to make the rest of us angry:

In addition, numerous witnesses told us that agents involved in the Clinton Foundation investigation were instructed to take no overt investigative steps prior to the election. We asked Yates about this instruction. Yates stated, “[Y]eah, I think there was discussion about look, if [agents on the Clinton Foundation investigation] want to go do record stuff and stuff that you can do covertly, fine. But not overtly.... And the sort of thought being we’ll address that again at the end after the election was over.”

We can see why:

After McCabe became FBI Deputy Director in February 2016, McCabe had an active role in the supervision of the Midyear investigation, and oversight of the Clinton Foundation investigation

Page 14