The best is him pretending this is exactly what he was hoping for despite his posts from months ago claiming this report would basically be Armageddon for non trumpers
Poor TSA. So much time spent. So much hope.
Imagine devoting so much of your life to this dud.
The best is him pretending this is exactly what he was hoping for despite his posts from months ago claiming this report would basically be Armageddon for non trumpers
Not you in particular, but the rest of the never trumpers are trying their damndest to spin this IG report as something positive. Horowitz ripped the FBI.
“We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny,”
“We believe this cir stance reflects a failure not just but those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed,”
I’m 100% satisfied with that from Horowitz and am looking forward to who/what Durham is after.
Sorry no report but easiest way I can find from my phone
not intentional
You want us to repost your prediction?
Horowitz directly in your mouth, dude.
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 that you have.
BTW, the not intentional is not my claim, it's Horowitz. I already posted the quote from the report on the conclusion twice, so I don't think I need to do it a third time.
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...
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.
How much time did the media spend on Russiagate?
Imagine devoting so much time to that dud.
a sitting president was being investigated. that's inherently newsworthy and its their job to report on the ongoing investigation
go ahead and link me to non op-ed pieces from the major outlets, as in WaPo, NYT, AP, WSJ, NPR, etc that were parading around predicting that trump was going to be removed from office during the investigation
Those are actual snippets from the report. What difference does it make? It’s clear as day he intentionally altered the emails and submitted falsified emails to the FISC.
“the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words “not a source” into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source” for the other agency.
I’m asking you if it was intentional. Yes or no?
TSA is dying on one dude he never heard of before hill.
That’s far from an honest take on the media’s role in this whole thing. They didn’t just report on the investigation, the spread bull leaks from those running the investigation in order to damage Trump.
It’s already a criminal matter, and the IG can’t prosecute anyways. The is wrong with you tonight?
They were so bad at it though. Both the IC and the MSM suffered from hardcore confirmation bias.
You need to remember all the you've been lost my about the deep state and Q and Pizza and unlawful exonerations.
The head of Obama's CIA, Brennan, thought the Steele dossier was legit. Let that sink in.
hard to verify which leaks are or aren't accurate. they typically wont report based on a single source. at least not the major publications. we saw retractions when they got things wrong. but on a story that big, they absolutely should be turning every stone to find something to report on. would be journalistic malpractice if they just sat around and waiting for the final report
yeah we get it, something something black president
last i checked. at least half.
You want the list of conspiracy theories Trump believes?
Nevermind. You believe them too.
Let that sink in.
They didn’t care about accuracy
And the retractions didn’t matter, they got the initial false story out to the public to damage Trump. It happened over and over again for years and they’re still not being held accountable by the public at large.
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 not a 'source"' had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]."
Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [do ents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added).
Was the alteration intentional, I think so. Was it done with intentional malice to falsify the do ent? The IG found no evidence of that, and referred the matter to the DOJ (which is what he's supposed to do).
As I was mentioning to SR21, after reading that pertinent part of the report, it does strikes me as odd that if they will go to the trouble of editing the email, they wouldn't just get rid of [digraph].
But, as I added afterwards, it's also apparent that whoever SSA 2 is, he/she is apparently clueless about intelligence terms.
SSA 2 told us that the statement inserted into the Liaison's email-that Page was "not a source"- was the most important part of the email for him. SSA 2 said "if they say [he's] not a source, then you know we're good." SSA 2 also said that if the email from the Liaison had not contained the words "not a source" then, for him, the issue would have remained unresolved, and he would have had to seek further clarification. SSA 2 stated: "If you take out 'and not a source,' it's not wrong, but it doesn't really answer the question."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)