ElNono
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆

I find it hard to believe he would omit such an important piece of information from the report. The report itself actually touts the large amount of interviewed personnel, evidentiary documents and thoroughness. Nevertheless, even if it’s true, it does nothing to dispel the notion that Barr and...

No I haven’t heard that testimony from Horowitz. When was that?

What statements, that they disagree with the IG conclusion? One limitation the IG didn’t have was access to evidence, so not quite sure what these ‘goods’ supposedly are and how they were missed by the IG...

The problem with Barr and Durham is that they’re politically attached to Trump. That’s why the IGC investigation always had more value, whatever the result.

We know Page was on the receiving end of the FISA applications. That doesn’t mean he was wronged.

Right, but the OGC Attorney also left in the email that Page was a (as explained in the report, which I just quoted). The Liason then goes to explain that a is somebody that talks to the agency. That's why complete quotes are important.

You have: How can it be a criminal matter if nobody's been charged with a crime?

I haven't heard anybody being charged for this. link? I'm not even saying you're lying, I'm saying I haven't seen charges pressed against this lawyer yet.

What you posted is an editorialized comment of selective reports snippets building a narrative. Here's an actual quote from the report on the actual change: However, the OIG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and...

But, I'll tell you this much: it's entirely possible that this alteration can become a criminal matter. The DOJ can certainly bring charges if they find the evidence the IG could not find.

If only you had the same curiosity about what the actual report says when it doesn't prove all your predictions as you would if it did...

This is your problem, tbh, you continue to read editorialized tidbits from unknowns on the internet, when you actually have the report at hand. I think it's fairly obvious at this point I've read the report (at the very least the portion that relates to the alteration), it's not really clear...

What I found particularly disturbing on that section, is how 'SSA 2' is apparently clueless about the language. But stuff like that is apparently interspersed throughout the report.

Oh yeah, I’m not saying it was an annotation. Did you actually see what was the addition? The reason I think it’ll be hard for Horowitz to argue it was made with malice intent is that they left in there. If somebody would risk their necks to actually falsify a document, might as well go all the...

Yes, but you can do alteration without falsification (ie: annotating a document).

Not necessarily. There's no such claim on the report, at least. That's why these things are referred to the DOJ for further investigation. The report does indicate that the alteration was an addition (3 words), with no omission of the original text. There's even quotes of the email and what...

I was on the fence on Mario Maker 2, but it wasn't on sale, and: 1) Tough enough to get discounts on Switch games 2) Only play the switch pretty much during the holiday break every year 3) I'm actually more partial to the 3D mario games (loved oddysey, SMW, etc) Maybe next time.

That's an alteration, not a falsification (actual word used on the report is alteration). Page 255 of the report. And this is what you call the 'criminal referral': Consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978, following the OIG's discovery that the OGC Attorney had altered the email...

What document was falsified according to the IG? Quote? Any quotes on the criminal referral too? (not kidding, I don't see anything on the report) As far as alterations, laugh all you want, but this stuff happens all the time in things like transcripts or translations of documents. I'm not...

Horowitz might have to explain it. That was his conclusion, not mine. You're arguing with Horowitz now. I'll have to take your word, for over a year and a half, that this is a competent guy, and he reviewed the evidence, so he must know what he said.

I can totally see how it sucks for you, considering you're basically in denial of what Horowitz actually concluded. You continue to push for conclusions that the IG didn't make. Get over it, it didn't work out. There's another one million conspiracies out there to cling your wagon to.

I can see a few scenarios where that could happen unintentionally, but it would sound like excuses, so I won't go there. However, reading the bulk of the report, it doesn't appear to me that was singled out as something with malice intent. More like another link in the chain of errors and mistakes...

He said more than that. Let me show you how to quote the actual report: Page 376: "Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted 01 in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the...

In order for it to be abuse, it has to be intentional. You know how this work in law, and why there's manslaughter vs murder, or an insanity plea. Could be that they covered their tracks really well? Could be, that's what conspiracy theories are all about. Fact finding so far has shown no...

No, I'm refreshing your memory that's exactly what Horowitz concluded. I didn't write the report, and I didn't reach those conclusions, your super duper investigator did. I can see how it really, really sucks after building an entire narrative for over a year, but hey, them dem breaks.

Yep, no quote. Probably because Horowitz didn't say nor conclude that? You keep saying Horowitz said X or Y, but won't quote where he says that. See a repeating pattern here?

:lol You spent a year and a half or more pimping how great Horowitz is at investigating, PLUS, he got first hand evidence to look at. It would look really silly now to turn around and say he doesn't know what he was doing. I mean, he concluded all those things were grave errors, but not...

Just quote the report saying Page was wronged... it's out now! there's no reason to skimp on details.

That report says a lot of things... among them that there was no FISA abuse. And even some of the things you posted were indeed true at some point in time. I'm not defending Schiff, I'm merely pointing out that, at least partially (better now?), he was vindicated by the report's conclusions.

Yup, and perhaps the most damning part of the report is the general lack of clue about reporting to lawyers, etc. Those are grave errors, and I'm glad they're reviewing further FISA cases. Now, there's no place where there's any indication of malice intent, which really sucks for Barr too,...