OIG Report Released: Full text

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, I asked the member that posted the statement.

I quoted from the TP article several times, yet according to you I didn't read it? LOL.

I didn't bring up Pizzagate; carewemust did; you chimed in.

I haven't made any comments on direct and circumstantial evidence; I have stated what is and isn't in the IG report.

I haven't played any games.

I haven't lashed out at anyone.

Senator John Cornyn
‏Verified account @JohnCornyn
22m22 minutes ago

Inspector general blasts Comey and says others at FBI showed ‘willingness’ to hurt Trump - The Washington Post

a reply to: Xcathdra

So ... Senator Cornyn has an opinion?

Amazing. There are lots of opinions flying around here.

John Cornyn mocked on Senate floor by Corker for not standing up to Trump

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

So ... Senator Cornyn has an opinion?

Amazing. There are lots of opinions flying around here.

you cant read can you...

Inspector general blasts Comey and says others at FBI showed ‘willingness’ to hurt Trump - The Washington Post

That is not cornyns opinions. Its the OIG's opinion and it was in the Washington Post.

What does Corker have to do with this? He is leaving the senate anyways.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I can't read? Yeah, you should talk.

Cornyn Tweeted his opinion ... he didn't quote from the IG report.

Cornyn is a Trump sycophant, and Corker should know.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can't read? Yeah, you should talk.

Cornyn Tweeted his opinion ... he didn't quote from the IG report.

Cornyn is a Trump sycophant, and Corker should know.

This is what the IG Report says:

Nonetheless, when one senior FBI
official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Page 13.

So, he may have shortened it a bit, but he was repeating what is in the IG report. Not his own opinion.

ETA: Oh, and the Comey blasting was all over the report.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct.. you cant read.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Does the report state that Strzok took action to harm Trump?

Yes or no?

a reply to: The GUT

Could be the "report" was designed to be a backstop.

Remember it was started in the year 1 BT (before Trump) (while he was still PE).

The IG is stable, but the planned omissions of facts by the players is where the problem is.

And the planned "immunities" is a factor.

😎

a reply to: Xcathdra

So Cornyn tweeted the title of a Washington Post article about an opinion about the IGs report.

Therefore I can’t read?

Cornyn didn’t quote the IGs report.

It’s funny to watch you guys use the Post when you think it fits your agenda, ... LOL

a reply to: Gryphon66

No he tweeted an article discussing exactly what the IG said in his report.

The fact you cant understand that tells me you cant read.

Considering the AAG withheld the text message between Strzok and Page where she asks if TRump will be President and Strzok says no, we wont allow that to happen coupled with the fact Strzok was a part of TRumps investigation before it went to the SC and then he was a part of the SC team until he was removed because of his text messages tells alll of us that yes, he took action to harm trump.

If it was benign Mueller never would have fired him and he never would have been sent to HR at the FBI.

Considering the Washington Compost is extremely anti Trump the very fact they reported on what the OIG said and didnt try to spin it speaks volumes about how wrong they have been in the past.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Sally Yates another real winner.

😐

a reply to: BlueAjah


Quoting the I.G. report to a Trump hater is like quoting the Bible to an atheist.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The fact that the only response you have is the same repeated nonsense proves that you don’t have an argument.

a reply to: carewemust

Well this atheist quotes both the Bible and the IG report ... what have you done, tried to dredge up a completely debunked theory?

More good stuff:

On Sunday, October 11, 2015, an interview of then President Barack Obama was aired on the CBS show 60 Minutes. During this interview, Obama characterized former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server as a “mistake,” but stated that it did not “pose[] a national security problem” and was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Page 95

Former President Obama’s comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation. Former EAD John Giacalone told the OIG, “[W]e open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake.... That’s a problem, right?” Former AD Randy Coleman expressed the same concern, stating, “[The FBI had] a group of guys in here, professionals, that are conducting an investigation. And the...President of the United States just came out and said there’s no there there.”
...
Department prosecutors also were concerned. Responding to an email from
Laufman about Obama’s 60 Minutes interview, Toscas stated, “Saw this. And as
[one of the prosecutors] and I discussed last week, of course it had no—and will
never have any—effect whatsoever on our work and our independent judgment.”
Prosecutor 4 told the OIG that Obama’s statement was the genesis of the FBI’s
suspicions that the Department’s leadership was politically biased. This prosecutor
stated, “I know that the FBI considered those [statements] inappropriate. And that
it...[generated] a suspicion that there was a political bias...going on from the
Executive Branch.”

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

The fact that the only response you have is the same repeated nonsense proves that you don’t have an argument.

intentionally ignoring facts doesnt help you or the perception people have of you.

Just so you cant bury the truth here it is again -
No he tweeted an article discussing exactly what the IG said in his report.

The fact you cant understand that tells me you cant read.

Considering the AAG withheld the text message between Strzok and Page where she asks if TRump will be President and Strzok says no, we wont allow that to happen coupled with the fact Strzok was a part of TRumps investigation before it went to the SC and then he was a part of the SC team until he was removed because of his text messages tells alll of us that yes, he took action to harm trump.

If it was benign Mueller never would have fired him and he never would have been sent to HR at the FBI.

Considering the Washington Compost is extremely anti Trump the very fact they reported on what the OIG said and didnt try to spin it speaks volumes about how wrong they have been in the past.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is there any evidence that Strzok took any direct action against Trump? Yes or no?

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.

There is a reference in the IG Report that came out of the
NYO - an Agent Coleman had made notes after review of
Anthony Weiners Laptop. It also mentioned The Clinton
Foundation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I haven’t ignored anything as is obvious ... and you seem obsessed with me instead of the discussion.

Stop with the ad hom. It’s droning and makes your arguments look more paltry than they are.