ADDED: I'm just trying to absorb Attachment G:
June 15, 2018
So many people are talking and writing about that 500-page report, but they can't have read it.
They can't even have decently skimmed it, let alone studied it and learned what's in and thought about it carefully. I'm wondering why I should read articles like "Report Gives Trump an Opening, but Undercuts His Narrative" (NYT). Look, they're already jumping ahead to the question of how the report will be used in gaining political advantage. But we haven't absorbed what is in the report, and we are moving on already.
ADDED: I'm just trying to absorb Attachment G:
ADDED: I'm just trying to absorb Attachment G:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
273 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 273 of 273There is the claim that the executive summary was written by someone other than Horowitz- I seen this claim made by multiple sources. I don't think this is actually true, but Horowitz can clear this up next week himself. However, here is my impression-
The executive summary is designed to be a high-level, cursory description of the behavior found- it can't go into details as such, so it isn't surprising that it lacks the granular detail of the report itself. Also, one has to keep in the front of their mind what the purpose of an IG is supposed to be- an investigation that collects evidence, but the IG isn't there to draw conclusions about whether or not a crime was committed- that is for an ADA in the DoJ to do- all the IG can do is outline the evidence he found.
In this particular case, Horowitz writes in excruciating detail the lack of a real investigation being conducted, and that the participants in this "investigation" understood it exactly as that- a farcical coverup, but Horowitz isn't in the position to state an opinion of the evidence unless he literally finds testimony or documentary evidence of the sort, "Hey, we are going to conduct a fake investigation of Clinton so that we can let her skate on her crimes." Horowitz was never likely to find such testimony himself since he has no power to prosecute or threaten to prosecute the people supplying the testimony and records. What is done with the evidence is up to whomever Sessions assigned to the task in the DoJ- a real US Attorney with grand jury at his beck and call. Is that being done? I have no idea, but I would sincerely hope so.
So, my conclusion is that the executive summary was written by Horowitz, maybe with a great deal of imput from Wray and Rosenstein, but still written by Horowitz.
Achilles said...
It has been a tough 500+ days for Inga...
She is coming to grips that the people she supports are rapists and criminals...
Assumes facts not in evidence. ( Not the rapists and criminals part, there is plenty of evidence for that. The coming to grips part. )
So much interesting stuff to comment on but our sowing circle looks inward. "Hey Inga."
"...our sowing circle..."
I hope that isn't a typo, because I like the image.
-LWL
“I will also point out Inga has called every Trump voter a Racist, Misogynist, Bigot, Homophobe, Nazi, Murderer. With no evidence but her own assertions.”
Not in those words, lol. I was much more subtle. If the shoe fits, you must wear it. But no, I didn’t call anyone here a murderer, sheesh. That’s nuts.
——————————————————
So much interesting stuff to comment on but our sowing circle looks inward. "Hey Inga."
When they’re feeling defeated, they fall prey to their inner demons. It never fails.
CNN analysts goes full misogynist. Screams at Sanders.
The left is falling apart. Their murderous fantasies will go unrealized.
“Inga said Scalise deserved to get shot because he supports the NRA.”
Oops, missed this gem. Achilles isn’t a propagandist, unlike Drago, he’s simply cray cray.
Inga said...
Not in those words, lol. I was much more subtle. If the shoe fits, you must wear it. But no, I didn’t call anyone here a murderer, sheesh. That’s nuts.
36 minutes ago on this very thread:
This isn’t a comment a normal well adjusted person would make. This is a trait of an extremist. When you start dehumanizing people you’ve moved closer to what caused genocides throughout history.
You just aren't very smart.
Your projection is obvious.
We see right through you.
“You just aren't very smart.”
Consider the source, lol.
I posted earlier that none of the local news shows here in SoCal mentioned a single thing about the report this morning but it bears repeating. These programs dutifully and breathlessly report any news, no matter how trivial, every day if it reflects badly on President Trump or conservatives in general. The release of the IG report? As if it never even happened. But no media bias, right?
History really does begin anew each day with the left. Disgusting!
Inga said...This is a trait of an extremist.
It's comedy gold when Inga portrays others as extreme as if claiming Republicans want to create the HandMaid's Tale in modern America is normal.
Maybe among the people she hangs out with it is.
Achilles, I know I’m trying to reason with a crazy person, but here goes. When I refer to the dehumanization of people as something that had to occur before a genocide could happen, it doesn’t mean that YOU are a murderer. Now I don’t know if at some future point you’ll go completely nuts and go on some sort of rampage, but currently I have no reason to believe you have murdered anyone.
Can we have one thread not be Inga'ed or Chuck'ed?
Regarding my comment at 10:45, I see that Christopher Wray wasted no time confirming my assertion that that he is absolutely not the right person to fix the FBI.
“Can we have one thread not be Inga'ed or Chuck'ed?”
YES, this isn’t too much to ask as the subject matter of the blog post is one worthy of a good discussion.
>>So much interesting stuff to comment on but our sowing circle looks inward. "Hey Inga."
readering, I don't often agree with your point of view, but on this we agree 100%.
Ann Althouse said...
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
I am, while hoping you do not get distracted by yhr meaning and origination of some obtuse words contained.
Huh. Just saw the message from one of the agents calling the investigation "predestined." That... that's a pretty gaping hole in the "no bias" argument.
Inga said...
Achilles, I know I’m trying to reason with a crazy person, but here goes. When I refer to the dehumanization of people as something that had to occur before a genocide could happen, it doesn’t mean that YOU are a murderer. Now I don’t know if at some future point you’ll go completely nuts and go on some sort of rampage, but currently I have no reason to believe you have murdered anyone.
Prefaced with crazy person.
Then a discussion about dehumanization and how it wasn't directed at me.
Then a stupid inference about possible future rampage.
You just really aren't that smart.
Ann:
I'll read it myself.
Do you ever read Conservative Treehouse?
The person who writes there is spot on for
analysis of this entire mess.
“Prefaced with crazy person.
Then a discussion about dehumanization and how it wasn't directed at me.
Then a stupid inference about possible future rampage.”
I mention them because you come across as so nuts, that it’s not a stretch. You continue to dehumanize people and you will find yourself becoming the beast, not the ones you focus on.
"Ann Althouse said...
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?"
I am, but why not read it in sections with comments and then open to comments - as with the Great Gatsby
Again, Horowitz isn't there to declare the bias as an open statement- someone has to offer testimony that it was bias on instruction, or Horowitz has to find that instruction in documentary evidence. Otherwise, the evidence is left to speak for itself, and all he can say is that he didn't find testimony or documentary evidence that the bias affected the investigation. In other words, he isn't there to guide your opinion of the evidence. If pressed in a corner, I am quite certain he would admit that the investigation was a farce from the start, but in his role, he can't say that. This is Horowitz doing his actual job, which is kind of refreshing given the behavior described in the report itself.
Take the McCabe report as a cleaner example- Horowitz simply writes up the evidence that demonstrates McCabe lied multiple times, but he doesn't directly accuse McCabe of lying. That judgment is left to someone who job description includes that sort of conclusion.
The really smart ones will not bother with any of this and just wait for the relevant Snopes article. - LWL
Heh.
Nice shot.
"This is Horowitz doing his actual job, which is kind of refreshing given the behavior described in the report itself."
-- It is. But it is also frustrating. Because it is right there... so close.
Yancey Ward: Horowitz was never likely to find such testimony himself since he has no power to prosecute or threaten to prosecute the people supplying the testimony and records. What is done with the evidence is up to whomever Sessions assigned to the task in the DoJ- a real US Attorney with grand jury at his beck and call.
That was my understanding; no Fat Ladies are involved in the issuance of IG reports.
Is that being done? I have no idea, but I would sincerely hope so.
Being a cynical soul I'd bet no. Unless directed at some hapless beta-dog, for ritual CYA purification purposes. That's the usual DC way, no?
the worst part is that the Democrats don't seem to be bothered by this at all.
Not bothered? They think it exonerates them.
Inga said...
“Prefaced with crazy person.
Then a discussion about dehumanization and how it wasn't directed at me.
Then a stupid inference about possible future rampage.”
I mention them because you come across as so nuts, that it’s not a stretch. You continue to dehumanize people and you will find yourself becoming the beast, not the ones you focus on.
You can justify your projection all you want.
You are the one justifying spying on political opponents and voting for a rapist.
It is not a stretch to call someone who supports spying on political opponents, you, completely amoral.
But did you know that Trump tried to move up the start time of the summit at the last minute?
>>Not bothered? They think it exonerates them.
… and it proves Trump lied!
Pay attention to meeeee! - Inga
Tedious. Typical. And predictable.
Achilles, Inga is not that smart and all she cares about is getting people wound up. She's a troll, let her continue to show herself for what she is.
Here's an interesting entry re Obama's influence Chapter Four page 66:
"On Sunday, October 11, 2015, an interview of then President Barack Obama was aired on the CBS show 60 Minutes. During this interview, Obama characterized former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server as a “mistake,” but stated that it did not “pose[] a national security problem” and was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”.............
"Former President Obama’s comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation. Former EAD John Giacalone told the OIG, “[W]e open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake.... That’s a problem, right?” Former AD Randy Coleman expressed the same concern, stating, “[The FBI had] a group of guys in here, professionals, that are conducting an investigation. And the...President of the United States just came out and said there’s no there there.” Coleman said that he would have expected someone in FBI or Department leadership to contact one of Obama’s national security officials, and “tell [him or her], hey knock it off.” Michael Steinbach, the former EAD for the National Security Branch, told the OIG that the comments generated “controversy” within the FBI. Steinbach stated, “[Y]ou’re prejudging the results of an investigation before they really even have been started.... That’s...hugely problematic for us.”
No "bias" just an immediate undermining of an incipient investigation - or "matter", if you wish.
No one was fired after 911. In fact, Jamie Gorelick, the dopey DOJ architect of the defacto wall between the CIA & the FBI, was appointed as a commissioner on the 911 fact-finding commission.
A few govt pukes have lost their govt jobs here but no one will really pay for this outrageous abuse of power.
Yes, Begley's pussy/point shaving analogy is apt. I recommend reading the section on the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting. Starts on about page 212. 17 missed free throws. 43 calls for double-dribble. And about an hour's worth of shot clock violations. Unexpectedly, Deep State U. pulls out another win! All on the up and up because, on further review, the officials found no "documentary evidence" that Lynch and Clinton discussed the investigation into Hillary Clinton or any other inappropriate discussions, point-shaving, or even pussy-shaving.
Inga told us yesterday the IG found the Lynch/Clinton meeting innocuous.
"Is that being done? I have no idea, but I would sincerely hope so."
John Huber, US Attorney for Utah, was appointed by Sessions to investigate both the Uranium One deal and the spying on Carter Page. He was tasked with doing so about 6 months before Sessions made an "oh-by-the-way" mention of it. I would be surprised if he or someone else is not currently pursuing these matters, and suspect that in the coming weeks we'll find that there is a criminal investigation well under way. McCabe wanted immunity to testify before Congress but was refused. That tells me he fears prosecution. I saw it reported today that Strzok will be subpoenaed. Watch to see if he: a) asks for immunity; b) sings; or c) pleads the 5th.
Since Huber is investigating the almost-certainly illegal surveillance, and since he is not a Special Counsel, I'm guessing (IANAL) that he can act on ANY illegal activities he uncovers, at his discretion. There is clearly a great deal of overlap here, and once Huber pulls on the Strzok thread, he quickly drags pretty much everything in the IG report into his purview. I think when this happens, it will come as a cold douche for a lot of lefties. It's rare that a person can become a true legend by simply doing their job, but Huber is in just such a position.
exhelodrvr1 said...
Mollie Hemingway's summary (after reading the entire report)
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/15/11-quick-things-know-inspector-generals-report/
Typically excellent observations from MH. This one seems to cover the water carries here:
[Some FBI defenders latched onto the IG’s claim that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.”
All that means is that none of the politically biased texts specifically said political bias was leading them to make certain decisions. Of course, that would be a weird thing to find in any case.]
So Wray is instituting “anti-bias training” even though no bias was found. Or something.
I read a little and learned something new to me. After getting the suspiciously delayed search warrant for Weiner/Huma computer the FBI decided that only 49,000 of the 600,000 emails and Blackberry backups needed to be actually read.
And look who did the reading:
"Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1."
That guy gets around.
"I accept that Comey acted in good faith."
He used a personal email address to conduct government business. There's nothing in good faith about that. It is a crime.
And an interesting footnote:
"The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin’s emails came to reside on Weiner’s laptop. Analyst 2 told us that it appeared that Abedin’s personal devices had been backed up on the laptop at various points in time. Documents we reviewed indicated that Abedin told the FBI that she did not know how or why this occurred."
"Documents we reviewed indicated that Abedin told the FBI that she did not know how or why this occurred.""
-- Why are our country's best and brightest so... stupid?
"Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?"
Nino Scalia on reading the Affordable Care Act.
Inga said... [hush][hide comment]
“The really smart ones will not bother with any of this and just wait for the relevant Snopes article.”
There she goes again, bashing Althouse for using a Snopes link last week. She’s just jealous because her blog isnt a huge success like Althouse’s. In fact no one comments on her blog at all, lol. She’s a Hater. ...etc. ,
LOL. Perfect!
Nobody tell her....
Regarding Attachment G
I tried to absorb it. There are two many double-ended arrows connecting unnamed reporter to unnamed FBI official. And way too many one-way arrows pointing from unnamed FBI official to unnamed reporter. What flows via those one-way arrows? Information? Disinformation? Innuendoes? Requests for blowjobs? And what flows via those two-way double-enders, hmmm? Information? Disinformation? Money? Offers of blowjobs?
The Donald was originally famous just for being rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Then he became super-famous for the dreaded You're fired! Next, he became mega-famous for beating the remarkably contemptable Hillary. Coming up — ultra-famous for You're jailed!
@Meade It is neither difficult to connect the dots nor to be adequately cynical about some of the "conclusions" reached by the IG. I don't blame Horowitz I think he did his job and the facts are there. As the Conservative Treehouse says the report makes clear "A political bias that is transparently obvious to the rest of America." (emphasis in original)
"The opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings."
Per Wikipedia, the first recorded use appeared in the Dallas Morning News on 10 March 1976, quoting Texas Tech sports information director Ralph Carpenter.
The contest for the best analysis of the IG report isn't over at least until national treasure Andrew McCarthy opines. Which he did today in NRO at 2:08 PM EST:
'The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked
But who knows?
You’ve got to hand it to Michael Horowitz: The Justice Department inspector general’s much-anticipated report on the Clinton-emails investigation may be half-baked, but if it is, it is the most comprehensive, meticulously detailed, carefully documented, thoughtfully reasoned epic in the history of half-bakery.
Why say do I say the report “may be half-baked”? Why don’t I just come out and declare, “The report is half-baked”? Well, I figure if I write this column in the IG’s elusive style, we’ll have the Rosetta Stone we need to decipher the report.
See, you probably sense that I believe the report is half-baked. But if I say it “may be” half-baked . . . well, technically that means it may not be, too. I mean, who really knows, right?
If that annoys you, try wading through 568 pages of this stuff, particularly on the central issue of the investigators’ anti-Trump bias. The report acknowledges that contempt for Trump was pervasive among several of the top FBI and DOJ officials making decisions about the investigation. So this deep-seated bias must have affected the decision-making, right? Well, the report concludes, who really knows?
Not in so many words, of course. The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start: It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did. In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong. The cop-out is that we are dealing here with “discretionary” calls; therefore, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude. Consequently, the IG says his job is not to determine whether any particular decision was correct; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness, the decision was defensible. And he makes that determination by looking at every decision in isolation.
But is that the way we evaluate decisions in the real world?
In every criminal trial, the defense lawyer tries to sow reasonable doubt by depicting every allegation, every factual transaction, as if it stood alone. In a drug case, if the defendant was photographed delivering a brown paper bag on Wednesday, the lawyer argues, “Well, we don’t have X-ray vision, how do we really know there was heroin in the bag?” The jurors are urged that when they consider what happened Wednesday, there is only Wednesday; they must put out of their minds that text from Tuesday, when the defendant told his girlfriend, “I always deliver the ‘product’ in paper bags.”
Fortunately, the judge ends up explaining to the jury that, down here on Planet Earth, common sense applies. In our everyday lives, we don’t look at related events in isolation; we view them in conjunction because they read on each other. Let’s say on Monday I confide to my friend that I can’t stand Bob, and on Tuesday I tell Bob I can’t join him for dinner because I have other plans. It may or may not be true that I have other plans, but common sense tells you my disdain for Bob has factored into the decision — even if I don’t announce that fact to Bob.
For all his assiduous attention to detail, IG Horowitz has weaved a no-common-sense report...'
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/
McCarthy's informed analysis (he was a former federal prosecutor) certainly rings true to me.
McCarthy has gradually been dropping his friends and associates at the DOJ and FBI from his formerly all-encompassing list of All-American Boy Scouts. Horowitz just got his name crossed off.
Matthew Sablan said...
"This is Horowitz doing his actual job, which is kind of refreshing given the behavior described in the report itself."
-- It is. But it is also frustrating. Because it is right there... so close."
I know it is frustrating. In my opinion, the report is a devastating outline of a colossal obstruction of justice case. My frustration will come if the present DoJ doesn't at least conduct a real criminal investigation of these facts outline in the IG report. Horowitz is limited in the amount of cooperation he could get from the people involved, but a US Attorney would not be so limited.
McCarthy applies common sense to the bullshit.
I understand the frustration about the unnamed agents and reporters in some of the evidence. Note especially the sections about media contacts. There is great reason to believe these are the subjects of active criminal investigations. That would be a reason for such redactions, and a legitimate one to boot.
”My frustration will come if the present DoJ doesn't at least conduct a real criminal investigation of these facts outline in the IG report.”
Do you really think Sessions will do so? I don’t.
Original Mike,
We will see. I am actually bit hopeful in that a lot of names were redacted in the public report, and I think the quantity of texts involved is but a fraction of that Horowitz had access to. It might be wishful thinking on my part, but one legitimate reason to do that would that these are subjects of investigations. This is especially true of the leaks and media contacts/bribes given what happened just last week with the Senate Intelligence Committee staffer.
StephenFearby,
I think you have the gist of the report. But how easy will it be for a prosecutor such as McCarthy to dispense with the pinched Horowitz report and create a more holistic and defensible indictment of likely criminal behavior? I think Horowitz made any prosecution dramatically easier with his report.
And then we get to the politics:
This information WILL come out, unfiltered. The MSM gatekeepers cannot control the information flow. The arguments of Democrats are laughable. The arguments of Democrat defenders in the press are laughable. This will not end well for Democrats.
Trump will, again, own the news cycle.
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
I was just saying yesterday that I hadn't seen nearly enough rusty gate latches and obscure song references. Instead my day is filled with trivialities like High Crimes and Misdemeanors by the FBI and wouldn't it be great to totally ignore that for pictures of flowering trees and Ru Paul which garner 13 comments.
Comments about the Beavers (or whatever the latest dead band you recall): 23
Average Comments about the Mueller investigation and the IG reports: 340
I wonder where your audience would prefer your efforts go toward? It is a singular compliment that so many people respect your integrity and judgment to want your opinion about it .
But I have a suspicion that you'll dig into it regardless but anonymously because that is what lawyers do to avoid being blindsided.
I’m not sure that the real travesty that was the Clinton email “investigation” is prosecutable. It was a sham investigation with the result known to the principals at the outset, but how do you prosecute that?
Mike you do it the same way Mueller is attempting to do it with Trump, by playing hardball.
Someone/s made the decision to deliberately hamstring the investigation. You might not be able to prove this, but with this report, someone with subpoena and warrant power should be trying to.
”Someone/s made the decision to deliberately hamstring the investigation.”
I think it was a group effort. None of them wanted to charge Hillary.
What’s the crime? Obstruction of justice?
"Someone/s made the decision to deliberately hamstring the investigation. You might not be able to prove this, but with this report, someone with subpoena and warrant power should be trying to."
Andrew McCabe is facing multiple counts of lying to federal agents at 5 years per count. He could bust the whole rotten cabal of seditious scumbags if an aggressive federal prosecutor flipped him.
Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions in in charge of the DOJ.
I think when this happens, it will come as a cold douche for a lot of lefties. It's rare that a person can become a true legend by simply doing their job, but Huber is in just such a position.
The best part of this, and it had to be a Sessions plan, is that any Grand Jury and Petit jury will be from somewhere other than DC.
The Watergate case was with DC juries and the defendants suffered accordingly. No DC jury would do anything to harm Hillary or her cronies.
"The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked"
McCarthy was little slow to come around and see the Swamp for what it is, but he is correct.
Silver lining: all their efforts to save Hill helped to elect Trump.
Thanks, Jim and Andy and Peter and Loretta! Not to mention John and James and VJ and Barry!
Further, Michael K, and as I have written before, Trump's tweets and comments about Jeff Sessions will be a boon to any prosecution. The odds of jury nullification are reduced when appropriate intellectual and political space separates the AG and president. Of all the cabinet-level officials in this administration, AG Sessions can claim the greatest independence from Trump.
And with that clean the Augean Stables that are FBI/DOJ.
So who are the three reporter's I'm guessing Shane of the times Barrett of the journal and entous,of the post
A Washington Times reporter was just on Tucker and he claimed LWL’s OJ trial analogy as his own. Watch him steal my point shaving analogy, At least credit Althouse blog!
And remember two more reports are coming.
Michael K, I believe three more IG reports are promised. One was promised within this recent distribution.
The report on surveillance will probably make this one look boring by comparison. I expect more prosecution to result from what is revealed in that report than the current one. Could even end up effectively being Church Commission v2.0.
As for the current report, as the attempts to use the summary and conclusions as "proof" that it was a nothingburger are overtaken by specific damning citations from the body of the report, it will become more and more difficult for the average person to avoid admitting the obvious tumors in our government.
And if nothing really gets done and the media are successful in hiding the egregious behaviors, then I don't want to hear the first fucking complaint when the current administration avails itself of the new rules. If we have to be a banana republic, then I expect our government to comport itself appropriately.
”And remember two more reports are coming.”
Two? Three? I know Horowitz’s Russian probe investigation. What else?
The whole surveillance program and it's origin in The unvetted dossier.
The whole surveillance program and it's origin in The unvetted dossier.
The FISA thing definitely needs a separate investigation. The fact that, in its 36-year history, 99.7% of all applications for surveillance have been approved should be cause for concern. It speaks of laziness, at best, and corruption at worst.
I think there's FISA malfisance, Russia Gate in general and now a promised report on the FBI-media bribery-go-round.
Post a Comment