It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OIG Report Released: Full text

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785

I actually agree that Clinton clearly mishandled classified information, that she knew that at least some of the communications constituted mishandling of classified information and of course, that she lied about it.

We also know now that Powell did similar. I wonder what's going on with the new administration? Donald Trump is using an insecure personal phone. Kushner and others are known to use encrypted apps which could violate record keeping regs. It's strongly suspected that John Kelly's phone was hacked and there was a DHS report last year that found evidence of IMSI catchers in multiple DC locations, including near the White House.


Exactly - people should be punished for this. It is dangerous to let classified info out in unsecured places. That could potentially lead to many people being killed.

There needs to be punishment for this, not just well - lots of people would get in trouble if we prosecute this - so lets just sweep it under the rug. NO - nothing ever changes if that is done - and inevitably - if it has not already happened people will be killed as a consequence.




posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
The most interesting thing about this report so far to me is that a bunch of these FBI agents investigating Clinton were also using private email accounts for work activities such as Strzok, Page and Comey.

This tells me the real reason they did not go after Hillary is they were covering their own asses for breaking the law - not that they did not know she broke it.

That is corruption plain and simple - and this clearly shows why we cant have the DOJ investigating itself.


I pointed this out on the last page. That's clearly a conflict of interest. If they recommended charges for her, they'd be implicating themselves.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

They are not reopening the Clinton case.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Zelun

This pretty much I just predicted so far from what's now being reported and what I'm reading. Certain texts gave an appearance of bias but exhaustive examination of the actual investigation didn't turn up any impropriety.


There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. 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.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. 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. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve of our report.


The part about not having any evidence of political bias is specifically talking about Comey, hence the reference to Chapter 5, which is all about Comey. It later goes on to state there was political bias at least from Strzok, who was one of the lead investigators. That's huge.



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. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. 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.




Thanks for posting. Liars, including on CNN have already started their efforts to conflate a line of text relating to a specific part of the report to the entire thing. They know what they are doing.
Ther report shows there was clear bias against Trump in the FBI to the extent that they were caught saying they would stop him becoming President. It is utterly shocking that the FBI would even be entertaining such notions.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow you're good. You should have an 800 number. LOL.
Do readings.

He's really not.


Strzok & Page will get dinged again for their texts with something about an appearance of bias. There's supposedly a couple previously unseen texts that will be suggestive but there will be no direct proof of impropriety. The pro-Trump crowd will seize on these texts and renew demands for a second SC.

There are messages where they do not suggest, they say they won't let Trump win.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.


“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.


We also have Senior officials taking direct action to hurt Trump.

The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI Director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.


We also have texts saying Obama was being told everything.

Page writes that she was preparing the talking points because "potus wants to know everything we’re doing."

www.nbcnews.com...

We aren't talking low level people, Senior FBI officials.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Are you for the people being charged with lying to the FBI? Or do you think those charges should be dropped because it's not a big deal?



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Hmmmm ... haven't read every post to this point, but let me guess:

IG Horowitz is now officially "Deep State."

Sessions is suspect probably also "Deep State."

We should condemn the entire FBI because of two texts by two people even though this extensive investigation shows those two people did nothing incorrect in their work ... Comey and Lynch might have made better decisions about their comportment ... but there is no evidence of wrong-doing?

How am I doin'? LOL.

edit on 14-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yeah, I wondered about this too. My understand from the service and holding a clearance was that the nature of the information is what determines how it is classified, not the markings. So disseminating classified materials over non-secure channels is bad, and so is doing it without the proper markings. So wouldn't that make both at the same time a double-whammy?




Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings,

page vi

Am I reading this wrong?



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785

I actually agree that Clinton clearly mishandled classified information, that she knew that at least some of the communications constituted mishandling of classified information and of course, that she lied about it.

We also know now that Powell did similar. I wonder what's going on with the new administration? Donald Trump is using an insecure personal phone. Kushner and others are known to use encrypted apps which could violate record keeping regs. It's strongly suspected that John Kelly's phone was hacked and there was a DHS report last year that found evidence of IMSI catchers in multiple DC locations, including near the White House.



Got any proof that Powell did similar?

Other than the emails that were retro actively classified after being in the government archives, available to the public for years? Those emails?



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hmmmm ... haven't read every post to this point, but let me guess:

IG Horowitz is now officially "Deep State."

Sessions is suspect probably also "Deep State."

We should condemn the entire FBI because of two texts by two people even though this extensive investigation shows those two people did nothing incorrect in their work ... Comey and Lynch might have made better decisions about their comportment ... but there is no evidence of wrong-doing?

How am I doin'? LOL.

Where are you getting that from? That is not what the report says at all.

The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI Director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are you quoting from the IG report?



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

The collusion part is not dead.
Sorry you've been misinformed.


They've clearly moved on to pursuing an obstruction of justice case. One way or the other, they've pretty much wrapped up the collusion part. One way is they didn't find any evidence of that, the other is that they did find evidence. Let's say it's the latter, what you hope, that Trump is a Russian puppet, and they found evidence of that...

Why no charges yet? Think about what you're saying. That they investigated Trump for colluding with the Russians for over a year, found evidence, evidence that the PRESIDENT is basically a Russian agent, and you don't think they'd have referred that for immediate action to Congress? They can continue to investigate the obstruction angle and bring evidence of that to Congress at a later date for additional charges, but the priority would be to get this alleged Russian agent out of the White House as fast as possible.

That hasn't happened. That tells me they didn't find any substantial evidence of Russian collusion. It would be an urgent matter of national security to impeach the President as soon as possible if that were the case. They could tack on other, relatively minor charges like obstruction and financial crimes later. That wouldn't be a very good reason to not take action let and continue to let this alleged Russian agent control the White House.

This theory simply doesn't stand up to logical thought. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hmmmm ... haven't read every post to this point, but let me guess:

IG Horowitz is now officially "Deep State."

Sessions is suspect probably also "Deep State."

We should condemn the entire FBI because of two texts by two people even though this extensive investigation shows those two people did nothing incorrect in their work ... Comey and Lynch might have made better decisions about their comportment ... but there is no evidence of wrong-doing?

How am I doin'? LOL.


Not very well. Is this the official DNC spin bullet points?



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: face23785

Yeah, I wondered about this too. My understand from the service and holding a clearance was that the nature of the information is what determines how it is classified, not the markings. So disseminating classified materials over non-secure channels is bad, and so is doing it without the proper markings. So wouldn't that make both at the same time a double-whammy?




Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings,

page vi

Am I reading this wrong?


Yeah, you're reading it right, and the fact that they used that as justification not to charge her is more evidence to me that they were determined not to charge her. That's not justification at all. Everyone knows that the content is what determines the classification, not the markings. You are taught how to recognize classified information, even when unmarked, and protect it until it can be categorized. The SecState especially is privy to all kinds of information that is classified the moment it is generated, before it goes through the classification process.

And it's not as if she was a rookie. Let's not forget, one of the things they touted during the campaign was her extensive experience. There's simply no way the Secretary of State, with 8 years of prior service in the Senate Armed Services Committee with a Top Secret clearance, would be this incompetent and not know something that a 1st year Army Private with a Secret clearance would know was illegal. It's simply not possible. And I am certain this could be demonstrated to a jury. You could bring in a ton of witnesses to testify about standard practices and testify that they knew, even at lower levels, they couldn't do that.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Nah. I'm not DNC ... I'm Deep State, LOL. Or is it the Gnomes of Zurich? Muahahah.

I've made my way through the thread now, and as I anticipated, since there's no findings of wrongdoing much less criminal action on the part of anyone at the FBI, some of you have already started throwing Horowitz and Sessions under the Trump Short Bus.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

Nah. I'm not DNC ... I'm Deep State, LOL. Or is it the Gnomes of Zurich? Muahahah.

I've made my way through the thread now, and as I anticipated, since there's no findings of wrongdoing much less criminal action on the part of anyone at the FBI, some of you have already started throwing Horowitz and Sessions under the Trump Short Bus.



I just did a word search in the entire thread so far. In 5 pages, Sessions has been mentioned only once in the context you're talking about. Same with Horowitz. By the same person. So one person said that they're swamp/deep state in almost 100 posts?

Gee, you're just too good.
edit on 14 6 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Thanks for the confirmation that I was correct!

Seriously though, aren't you happy that the IG found no wrongdoing or criminal activity on the part of the FBI?

Sadly, this undermines all the hard work that so many in the MSM and their allies have done to try to discredit the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in our elections.

"Just the facts, ma'am."

LOL



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

Thanks for the confirmation that I was correct!

Seriously though, aren't you happy that the IG found no wrongdoing or criminal activity on the part of the FBI?

Sadly, this undermines all the hard work that so many in the MSM and their allies have done to try to discredit the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in our elections.

"Just the facts, ma'am."

LOL


Not really, since nobody called him deep state. If it helps you sleep tonight, go ahead and tell yourself you're cool because you could predict 1 out of 100 messages on this board would contain the words "deep state" and you didn't even get that right, but I'll give you credit since they were called swamp lol whatever back-patting you need.

The conclusion that "the IG found no wrongdoing" is simply wrong. Procedures weren't followed, bias was uncovered. Whether criminal charges will come is uncertain, that's not up to the IG and that wasn't the purpose of the report.

Try sticking to the facts, actually.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why are do we need bad paraphrasing from a WaPo article when we have the actual text of the IG report? It says:


particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not.We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.


Except as I posted earlier, the IG report also states repeatedly:

"we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions"

It also states on p.III:


We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation


If you go down to page 404, there's a summary of Strzok's response when asked about the texts and as you can probably imagine, he states that he didn't intend to imply that he or the FBI would take any action to prevent Trump from being elected. He could have just as easily been referring to the American voters. He also states a point that has made repeatedly in discussions about whether or not the FBI or people within the FBI were acting to keep Trump from being elected — if he was looking to impact the election, he could have leaked information about he counterintelligence investigation.

That's a hard point to reconcile for those who believe that a cadre of FBI/DOJ people were trying to somehow stop Trump from being elected. If he/they were willing to violate ethics to the point of whatever massive international, inter-agency conspiracy you may be inclined to believe to stop Trump from being elected, why didn't they actually do *anything* to stop Trump from being elected, beginning with leaking information about the counterintelligence investigation which would have *obviously* been damaging to Trump's campaign?

It doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. They're willing to go to the extreme of engaging in this massive conspiracy but then they fail to pull the trigger when the risk/reward from leaking details for somebody looking to stop Trump from being elected would be heavily in favor of leaking? Had they behaved like agents of the FBI's NY field office did before the election, there's a good chance that Trump might not be in office.

The upshot here is that OIG took the possible implications seriously. They investigated thoroughly and at least when it comes to the Clinton investigation, they "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions."

As I have repeatedly (most recently this morning) predicted they wouldn't.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.


This was in Comey's draft letter in June of 2016. This is grounds for prosecution under 18 USC 1924, probably under 18 USC 793(d) and definitely under 18 USC 793(f). She should've been prosecuted.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join