DOJ OIG report to find Comey deviated from FBI procedure, no political bias

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

5 FBI employees were referred back to the FBI in today’s report. Just like McCabe was referred back to the FBI in Horowitz initial report.

No, today's referrals are not "just like" McCabe's at all.

It's not what you wanted. It's OK to admit that.

[Pavlov]

It was a damning report. It’s too early for me to answer your question. I’ll wait for any referrals made by Horowitz to Huber before being able to answer your question. I know Strzok was referred to Huber by Horowitz, just not sure yet for what.

[spurraider21]

It was a damning report. It’s too early for me to answer your question. I’ll wait for any referrals made by Horowitz to Huber before being able to answer your question.

did the report itself go how you expected it to go? exoneration letter, changing recklessness to gross negligence, biased decisions, etc

I know Strzok was referred to Huber by Horowitz, just not sure yet for what.

link? please dont be sperry tweet

[Chris]

Inspector General Put Together An Insane FBI Leak Chart Upon Finding Rules ‘Widely Ignored’

The Department of Justice inspector general report released today includes two elaborate charts mapping the volume of communications identified between FBI employees and members of the media in April, May, and October 2016.

“We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review,” the report states.

Here’s “Attachment H” in the IG report.





Here’s “Attachment G” in the IG report.





The issue of FBI employees improperly disclosing non-public information, a.k.a. leaking tips to reporters, “raised considerable concerns,” according to investigators. They discovered a number of social interactions with reporters deemed inconsistent with FBI policy and department ethics rules.

“FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events,” the report states.

Despite being able to track the number of times agents communicated with reporters, the IG cites two reasons for being unable to identify individual leakers.

First, we frequently find that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some instances, more than 100 people. We recognize that this is a challenging issue, because keeping information too closely held can harm an investigation and the supervision of it. Nevertheless, we think the Department and the FBI need to consider whether there is a better way to appropriately control the dissemination of sensitive information.

Then there’s this:

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.

The IG’s stated takeaway from the discovered leaks is a needed change in the FBI’s apparent cultural at ude. They recommended that the FBI “evaluate whether (a) it is sufficiently educating its employees about both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules, and (b) its disciplinary penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct.”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/14/...idely-ignored/

[Chucho]

^^^ Boiled down, "They broke some house rules" which equates to NOTHINGBURGER. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING happened to anyone of any sort of relevance nor will anything happen to anyone of relevance on either side of the fence.

[Chris]

[TSA]

did the report itself go how you expected it to go? exoneration letter, changing recklessness to gross negligence, biased decisions, etc

Yes.

link? please dont be sperry tweet

page 427 footnote 217
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

[TSA]

No, today's referrals are not "just like" McCabe's at all.

It's not what you wanted. It's OK to admit that.

What did I want? Be specific.

[Pavlov]

Yes.

[Pavlov]

What did I want? Be specific.

According to the actual report released today, you wanted:

1) a nothingburger

2) everyone to laugh at you

3) to say you really want things in the next report but not to actually say what they are

You got it.

[TSA]

According to the actual report released today, you wanted:

1) a nothingburger

2) everyone to laugh at you

3) to say you really want things in the next report but not to actually say what they are

You got it.

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

[Chucho]

According to the actual report released today, you wanted:

1) a nothingburger

2) everyone to laugh at you

3) to say you really want things in the next report but not to actually say what they are

You got it.

[Trill Clinton]

[Pavlov]

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

I thought the IG report wouldn't be what you wanted it to be and not much would result from it just like Fast and Furious.

I said this several times.

I didn't change what I said.

I didn't hide what I said.

I didn't deny what I said.

If you didn't want something big out of this report, you wouldn't have made such a big deal of it.

But you did.

You don't want to own it but you do.

[Reck]

You said no one would be charged, you set the terms.

BTW, Christopher Wray doesn’t charge people.

I get today's event shook you to your core but keep up, please. I never said people "would get charged."

I said no one got charged over this report. Not even a referral.

You posted:

Of course I’m reading it. You continue to rely on a pair of Kyles to read it for you.

I replied to said post:

Let me condense it for you: No one gets charged.

At least you can add this to the list of failures you got going.

[TSA]

I thought the IG report wouldn't be what you wanted it to be and not much would result from it just like Fast and Furious.

I said this several times.

I didn't change what I said.

I didn't hide what I said.

If you didn't want something big out of this report, you wouldn't have made such a big deal of it.

But you did.

You don't want to own it but you do.

I didn’t ask you about any of that and you just dodged a simple yes or no question. Try again.

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

[TSA]

I get today's event shook you to your core but keep up, please. I never said people "would get charged."

I said no one got charged over this report. Not even a referral.

You posted:


I replied to said post:

You make no sense.

[Reck]

You make no sense.

I made no sense by pointing out that today's nothingburger resulted in no one getting charged with a crime?

[Pavlov]

I didn’t ask you about any of that and you just dodged a simple yes or no question. Try again.

Sorry, you have several questions pending. You can't demand answers at all.

I thought charges were possible for McCabe before any report was made, but kind of improbable that DOJ would actually choose to bring them. Prosecution would be problematic.

[spurraider21]

Yes.

what did the IG report say about the exoneration letter, changing recklesness to gross negligence to gross negligence?

page 427 footnote 217
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

does Huber work for Southern District of New York or Eastern District of Virginia?

and what conduct of Strzok was criminally referred to Huber according to your theory?

[TSA]

Sorry, you have several questions pending. You can't demand answers at all.

I thought charges were possible for McCabe before any report was made, but kind of improbable that DOJ would actually choose to bring them. Prosecution would be problematic.

This is your white flag. You’ve answered plenty of my questions today and then when you get one you don’t like you try and pull this card like a little Try again.

I didn’t ask you about McCabe I asked you about today’s report.

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

[Pavlov]

This is your white flag. You’ve answered plenty of my questions today

You haven't.

I didn’t ask you about McCabe I asked you about today’s report.

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

I didn't think he would be making any at all, so no.

What criminal referrals are you saying he will make against whom, TSA?

Been asking you that for hours and you've been waving your white flag the entire time.

[TSA]

No, today's referrals are not "just like" McCabe's at all.

It's not what you wanted. It's OK to admit that.

Christopher Wray disagrees. Referred to the OPR, just like McCabe.

9:40

[TSA]

You haven't.

I didn't think he would be making any at all, so no.

after he made a criminal referral from a spin-off of the initial investigation you don’t think he’d recommend another? lol

What criminal referrals are you saying he will make against whom, TSA?

Been asking you that for hours and you've been waving your white flag the entire time.

I don’t know what they’ll be or who they’ll be for I just think in a few days they’ll be made.