OIG Report Released: Full text

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

im sure it was but trump did say it was because of russia not this.
Sooooooo.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Of course not. But please, remind everyone that nobody should discuss this topic until they've read all 568 pages. As I said to another poster, the first portion is an executive summary.

It was also pretty clear what most of the broad strokes were going to be from reporting over recent days, statements made by people who had seen draft copies (like AG Sessions) and having followed months of developments.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Here's what I'm expecting based on reporting, comments by various individuals and what's known:

1. The IG report will rebuke Comey for the announcing the closure and reopening of the FBI investigations. Which will be in line with Rosenstein's memo to Trump. Trump will use this to bolster his decision to fire Comey. Trump supporters will see this as getting him completely off the hook for any potential obstruction allegations re: firing Comey. Clinton supporters will see it as confirmation that Comey announcing the reopening of the email investigation hurt Clinton.

2. Some sort of rebuke of former AG Lynch for the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.

3. 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.

4. McCabe leaking to the WSJ and lying about it.

What won't be there is any substantive evidence of a conspiracy to let Clinton off the hook or that Comey took any actions motivated by a desire to help Clinton or hurt Trump.

There will be stuff for everyone to cherry pick/ignore and plenty of room for both sides to argue. Attention will eventually move to the probe of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation which probably won't be wrapped up before the midterms.

Seems like I was pretty spot on.

a reply to: face23785

no it was in answer to the Hatch act.

originally posted by: proximo
Look, I don't care what this report or any report says. The idea that Hillary did not intend to break the law by using a private server is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

A. SHE KNOWS THE LAW

B. SHE SET UP THE SERVER ANYWAY

These facts are not in dispute.

That is F'ing intention to break the law - and no amount of spin will ever change my mind.

This is the crux of it. It's simply not possible for her to have not known how to properly handle classified information. She was a First Lady for 8 years, a Senator for 8 years, and she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee with Top Secret clearance for pretty much that whole time. She knew what she was doing. She knew this was not legal.

What's not here that is going to be interesting is everything detailing the leaking by FBI/DOJ personnel. I suspect that in addition to new details about higher ups in DC, we're going to get some accounting of the activity of the FBI's New York field office, possibly with mentions of Giuliani, Jim Kallstrom and Fox News.

a reply to: face23785

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

a reply to: xuenchen

What happened Foxy? Moving on to the next one I guess.
And you were so sure.

a reply to: proximo

oh well sounds like a personal problem to me.

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.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785

Yeah, and I said the part you quoted was only talking about Comey.

Which was not accurate.

There was plenty of impropriety found.

Maybe impropriety was too vague of a term to use. After looking through all the case documents, communications, etc and conducting interviews, as it's clearly stated multiple times, that there was no evidence found that connected the bias reflected in the texts with the decisions made in the investigation:

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

(p.III)

did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions

(p. XI)

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

(p.149)

As described in Chapter Five, our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five.

(p.420)

Although we found no documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific Midyear investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five

(p.424)

While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five

(p.497)

Chapter Five btw, is "Investigative Methods Used in the Investigation" which is the 100 or so pages that details the nuts and bolts of the investigation, which *not* at all, as you stated, "all about Comey."

They also found no evidence of political motivation in Comey's decision to announce the closing of the investigation:

We found no evidence that Comey’s public statement announcing the FBI’s decision to close the investigation was the result of bias or an effort to influence the election. Instead, the documentary and testimonial evidence reviewed by the OIG reflected that Comey’s decision was the result of his consideration of the evidence that the FBI had collected during the course of the investigation and his understanding of the proof required to pursue a prosecution under the relevant statutes.

Yeah you're right, I read the wrong heading, Chapter 5 wasn't all about Comey.

That said, there was still political bias found, as I've quoted. You left that part out. Why?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
exhaustive examination of the actual investigation didn't turn up any impropriety.

Hmm ..

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.

www.washingtonpost.com... /c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?utm_term=.1772bb163581

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.

I'm glad we can agree on that. I'm down for prosecuting anyone who mishandles classified with intent or with gross negligence, because it sets a dangerous precedent to not prosecute such cases.

If that includes Kushner, Trump himself, I don't care. I'm about protecting our classified info. This was never about the election to me, that's why I've been so adamant about it even after the election.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Yeah well much of what I say comes from me.
But then when I am quoting a particular source I certainly do supply sources. Lots and lots of sources.
I take it that I trigger so many people because Im right most of the time and that upsets you guys.
In any event what you think isnt going to change what I think or what I type. You do have the option of not reading what I write.

a reply to: Muninn

Where I come from its called burying your head in sand.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Muninn

Where I come from its called burying your head in sand.

Well if that what you do then that's what you do.

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.

a reply to: theantediluvian

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

The search warrant stated that the FBI also had identified, among the 30,490 emails produced to the State Department, an unmarked email determined to contain information classified at the TOP SECRET level at the time it was forwarded by another State Department employee to Sullivan’s Gmail account.

That's black and white illegal.

This report revealed alot of the inner shadiness of our prestigous institutions and have found that they operate no different then your local cornerstore employees.

Glad its released.

a reply to: proximo

DOJ and FBI do not have those texts, they said they did not want them. Wonder why.