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:
1 – 200 of 273 Newer› Newest»And they all use the same talking points to slam home the theme. Those talking points were out late afternoon yesterday, and I can pretty much guarantee no one had read the 500+ page report at that time.
I've read about 300 to 400 pages and skimmed the rest. My biggest gripe is you can tell who had read it and who skimmed the summary and FBI Response. I did the skimming first before the reading and. The summary and FBI Response are totally different from the body if the report I can tell what people have read.
In a lot of ways this makes me thing of the original OJ Simpson murder case.
The lawyers and media spun and danced for hours on end on TV, day after day after day.
People followed the case, but by "followed" I mean that many kept up on the latest flotsam from the talking heads; most people did not dig deeper and actually read transcripts, etc -- in the court of public opinion they listened to the defense lawyers and the prosecutors' daily summations without much attention to the minute details of evidence.
But by comparing this to the OJ case I especially mean that people looked at the same case and came to wildly divergent opinions on the matter. Whites saw an arrogant man getting away with two horrible murders; blacks saw a black man framed by racist cops and a racist America.
What we saw of hardened race relations of that period, kindled by that case, are being seen now in the relations of Red and Blue America.
Except now we can't even agree on what crimes were committed. Or even IF crimes were committed.
To paraphrase, we can't even agree on if the glove actually fit.
--LWL
Last night I posted the following, which pretty much makes the point Althouse is making:
A few will actually slog through the hundreds of pages and read the facts contained in the report, and then apply their own analysis.
Many will just accept the summary's opinion on what to believe about those facts, as further condensed and summarized in the NYT and WashingtonPost and in their favored cable and internet chop-shops.
The really smart ones will not bother with any of this and just wait for the relevant Snopes article.
-LWL
The full report does a lot of questioning the investigation and leadership's judgement. Such as wht the same people were assigned two high profile cases at the same time. That seems like an excellent question for Comey and others to answer over things we figured out a year ago.
I didn't comment here yesterday, nor will I read the report. I have better things to do with my time.
It will take a few days for the dust to settle. I may wait for Horowitz to testify before Congress. He will face some tough questions.Then I'll chime in with my usual insightful (cough cough) comments. Hopefully laced with a bit of humor.
As usual, I'll skip the comments from Inga, ARM, and LLR Chuck. Life is too short.
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
I assumed you have already read it, Althouse.
LWL:
One movie. Two screens.
Ann:
Of course. Your take is the best take. Cruel neutrality and all that.
Don't waste your time, Ann.
Also, I don't think much at all will come of this. FBI agents talking about stopping Trump, carrying two guns if he wins, nails and boards...
It is exactly how the left thinks. Trump is an abomination, so anything thatanyone does to stop his election to the Presidency is fine and dandy with them. There is no bias because anyone with a brain agrees with them.
Sad.
Ann:
And think about point shaving in a basketball game as you read the IG’s report. And you, as a retired law professor, know how a REAL investigation of Hillary’s email should have been conducted.
Also after reading as much as I have, the problem is that the appearance of impropriety combined with no other acceptable explanation and multiple repeated bad judgement calls all to benefit the apparent impropriety is... Well. Suggestive.
Looks bad (haven’t read it). But I think conservatives should pick up on where it doesn’t match their preferred narrative. What happened to the many unknown FBI agents who were leaking that they wanted Clinton indicted during the investigation, and that anyone else would have been indicted for the same crimes? Did they actually not exist?
If that is so, I want vengeance taken on the _conservative_ news outlets that misled us, and pushed a whole big conspiracy theory on conservative Americans. Absolutely unacceptable.
Obviously, this same approach should also happen soon on the liberal side when nothing comes of the collusion narrative. It won’t, though.
Ann Althouse said...
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
Yes, me. I don't have the time. I have to wash my hair.
Hypo. Wisconsin is favored by 10 at home against Nebraska. Gamblers bet on Nebraska. Badgers are up by 14 in the final two minutes. Two Badger players are being paid by gamblers. Two silly fouls, a turnover, missed layups and the Badgers win by 8. Badgers won but they didn’t cover the line. Gamblers had rigged the outcome but it looked like a legit game. Obstruction of justice.
Althouse:
YES!!!
But I would never ask you to read something that didn't interest you. As always, it's your call and most of us will read whatever you choose to blog.
Ann Althouse said...
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
Name your price. We can set up a GoFundMe page, or a kickstarter campaign, or something.
(Then we can debate where that puts you on the prostitution scale...)
Why bother reporting on the facts, or the interpretation of those facts -- particularly when the facts might be inconvenient?
That's not the role of the media. Their job is to tell all right-thinking people what they are supposed to think and feel and conclude. The actual facts have no relevance to that.
President Trump is unpatriotic, going to war with our revered intelligence agencies, because he doesn't accept the conclusion of all eleven intelligence agencies that he was only elected by conspiring with Vladimir Putin to cheat in the election.
President Trump is an insane liar to suggest that the Obama administration was spying on his campaign.
President Trump is clearly too inexperienced to conduct diplomacy -- he doesn't realize that it would be impossible to carry out the summit with Kim on the 12th, now that he's cancelled it. Our high level source at the White House says so. Here's the tape of him not saying it.
I am through chapter 3, but I agree with Ann's pov: read the damn thing! So far it is clear that the IG's job is not to second guess decisions and I think that's sound. However there is enough material - again so far- to develop a healthy skepticism about some of the excuses/explanations offered by the key players. Without going any further it is enough for me to see Comey's destruction.
Watching bits of CNN yesterday, I would say it was skimmed for ways to show Trump had misstated some things, and that's what was reported.
Oh, and that chart is the BRIBERY scheme of MSM people.
Bribing federal officials is illegal. Federal officials taking bribes is illegal.
New narrative when the people guilty of BRIBERY are indicted by AAG Huber: Trump's war on the press.
With the chart they used cell phones to imply they were making phone calls instead of rubbing belly buttons.
Dicks and pussies would have just been vulgar.
Limit yourself to the specfic interview testimony included in the report and specfic observations/facts included therein and then undestand that the IG does not go after motive...however he doesnt have to given the direct testimony which amply shows the corruption of the institutions.
1 big question: who, specifically, wrote the Executive Summary?
The answer to that question should reveal why the Summary appears completely at odds with the details in the report. Horowitz's testimony will be very interesting on that point.
Also, how much of the body of the report given by Horowitz to FBI/DOJ leadership was altered by the FBI/DOJ leadership and/or others prior to being published and by whom?
We need to see the initial reprt Horowitz submitted to higher ups side by side with the final published report to determine if the FBI/DOJ are continuing with their obstruction of congressional and the publucs oversight in hopes of running out the clock in the case of a dem takeover of the House in Nov and the dems shut down oversight.
@Ann I would love to have your opinion on how no one in Hillary's camp could have been found to not break any of the multitude of laws listed in ,I believe, chapter 2. Just having an illicit, private server seems to open the door to all kinds of prosecution.
"Two silly fouls, a turnover, missed layups"
Wait. I thought you said it was a hypo.
Fake news does not require knowledge or facts. That's why it is so popular.
Not much is a surprise here except the graft from the media to the FBI. . Certainly those people and the gift-givers should be named, shamed ( ha!) and prosecuted or at least disciplined.
Not much is a surprise here except the graft from the media to the FBI. . Certainly those people and the gift-givers should be named, shamed ( ha!) and prosecuted or at least disciplined.
Picasso, trying to absorb Attachment G: Here.
-LWL
Imagine a press with a theory in mind. The press seeks narratives to support the theory. The press seeks facts to support the narratives.
It can't take that long to find the facts to support the narrative. Even with a bit of work, it is possible to find facts that are defensible with certain assumptions for some time.
Welcome to the world of the modern day press, where facts do not matter, only lip service to the facts matters.
Theory: White men are the bane of society
Narrative: White men are really racist
Fact: Duke Lacrosse players raped a stripper
Fact: George Zimmerman killed an upstanding young black man
Theory: Hillary should be elected
Narrative: College men rape lots of college women
Fact: 1/5 women are raped on campus manufactured study
Fact: Fraternity gang rape of woman
Theory: Republicans are bad anti-MC/PC troglodytes, Progressives are good
Narrative: Trump is the anti-Christ
Fact: The FBI did nothing wrong
The graft from the media to the FBI is pretty hilarious in light of the media going crazy that Trump is trying to delegitimize them (both).
Seems to me Horiwitz failed to satisfy the right lynch mob but handed a bunch of deeply incriminating data to use against the Mueller probe. That’s good enough for Paul and Silas and it’s good enough for me.
We seem to be moving from anger to acceptance. I think that is healthy.
I'm just curious why they are ordering the FBI to undergo BIAS training if they didn't find BIAS.
Is anyone waiting for ME to read it?
Sorry! I was busy buying things through the Althouse portal
Are you done yet? :)
Khesanh002 asks (the Prof, but i'll answer!) opinion on how no one in Hillary's camp could have been found to not break any of the multitude of laws?
Well, all the minions were preemptively given full immunity; so they were out
Hilary would have had Comey suicided if he'd picked on her.
{I just made that new word, suicided, it's like disappeared, do you like it?}
“I assumed you have already read it, Althouse.”
How could you possibly think I had already read something that is 500 pages long and complicated?
I would need to study it page by page to read it. It’s not just long like a James Patterson book, it’s dense like a judicial opinion, which is only readable at a pace something like 10 pages an hour. To read the report, really read it, would take a week of work, work of the sort I would like to be paif $500 an hour to do.
I could take up a collection at PayPal and do it for $25,000. That’s what it would take to motivate me to seriously read it.
Althouse, my three favorite analysts for things like this are, in order:
Me.
Limbaugh.
Althouse.
Limbaugh more for the political facets, Althouse for the legal ones. There is some significant overlap there.
So, yeah, please read it. Then share.
At least add pictures of the flow of goodies- who got what seats? I mean lets see which leakers read The Art of The Deal and which did not.
‘FBI Executive’ is going to be so pissed when he finds out how much better Special Agent In Charge’ made out.
The key thing is that the reporter soliciting leaks should be outed and prosecuted. The gents who leaked should also have at least promotion ending consequences, if not prosecution.
A person who leaks for moral reasons doesn't care if he is prosecuted because he is reversing a SEVERE injustice. History will be his judge and if he was true and good and honorable, the public will defend him from the worst excesses of punishment.
A scabby careerist troll wants to drape himself in that mantle of respectability for self protection.
Hint: that your preferred candidate did not win is not corruption. It is not an injustice. It is not abnormal. It is politics working.
So send these clowns to Leavenworth if the evidence is there to send them.
Sorry for assuming. In my defense, I had a picture of you sitting up between first and second sleep poring over the report!
And then I thought, does Meade snore?
It's a weird day. I was informed last night that I have to train some H1b visa holders to take my job.
"I'm just trying to absorb Attachment G"
Hypothesis: every single g**damn thing in this report shows that the Swamp was worse than we thought.
Suppose a conservative FBI critic had made up such charts, had made up the texts cited in the report, had outlined the use of the private server by the SoS and the President, had predicted the whitewash, had orchestrated a Cllnton/Lynch tarmac meeting before any of this happened: progs would have howled.
MikeR says:
"What happened to the many unknown FBI agents who were leaking that they wanted Clinton indicted during the investigation, and that anyone else would have been indicted for the same crimes? "
An email from Bill Priestap to Strzok specifically mentions:
"A central focus of media attention, as well as what we hear from employees who are not part of the investigation, frequently involved two observations/question a)if I did this, I'b be prosecuted, and b)we prosecuted Petraeus/Berger/Libby, etc. Why is she getting different treatment?"
So, it seems to me that the conservative media you are so concerned about existed and were making the claims so reported.
We seem to be moving from anger to acceptance. I think that is healthy.
Wait -- the Left is accepting that Trump is President now?
Acceptance on all sides is healthy.
Great illustration, I never knew that Sauron had three eyes.
From my post below:
I plan to spend some time with the report's analysis of the prosecutorial conclusions about Clinton. Based on the under-informed stories I have read and the Executive Summary, I don't understand how Team Clinton got away with this (33,000 emails deleted after notice to preserve; failure to seize and analyze staff computers; excused because materials weren't marked confidential--I thought they had "C" marks indicating confidentiality). I am surprised that the DOJ and the FBI swallowed the lame "dog ate my homework" excuses of Team Clinton, and Strzok's lame excuses and non-explanations of his worst tweets seem to have bamboozled the OIG in this investigation. I think the details of the report may be quite damning, whatever the Executive Summary and Conclusions say.
I went through too many exercises in corporate training (diversity, anyone?) to believe that training will do much fundamental good at the FBI. They'll change their attitude about text messaging for a while. They need to hire different people at headquarters.
What IG report?
Nowhere to be found on Yahoo! homepage.
I said...
Name your price...
(Then we can debate where that puts you on the prostitution scale...)
The professor said...
I could take up a collection at PayPal and do it for $25,000. That’s what it would take to motivate me to seriously read it.
So the very high end...
Good one, MadisonMan.
But no, because reasons.
I could take up a collection at PayPal and do it for $25,000. That’s what it would take to motivate me to seriously read it.
Once you've read it, how much to offer an analysis ? That should be where the real money is.
I wish the Attorney General would announce what will be the course of action that follows up on this IG Report. Is anything to happen? He said some people would be fired. But is that all? Training is not even on the scale. There must be prosecutions and serious ones, of a lot of people.
It seems to me the way this IG process is designed to work is that the AG or the even the White House would act on findings, make changes as needed, mete out punishments if necessary and generally reform the wayward Bureau.
But that can't happen this time because the miscreants have managed to tie the hands of their elected superiors with the Mueller investigation.
It's a serious problem. Very destructive. Our system works because the people trust it. That trust has been damaged and the normal process for restoring trust has been short-circuited.
Meade:
Further assume that Bo Ryan is still coaching.
Loren W Laurent said...
A few will actually slog through the hundreds of pages and read the facts contained in the report, and then apply their own analysis.
Many will just accept the summary's opinion on what to believe about those facts, as further condensed and summarized in the NYT and WashingtonPost and in their favored cable and internet chop-shops.
I go straight for the balanced, unbiased coverage:
Trump Pounces on Justice Department report findings.
It should have occurred to me earlier that if the Inspector General process worked there would be no deep state.
Meade:
That's part of the beauty of point shaving. The coaches don't know about it and it only takes one or two players to pull it off. Comey, McCabe and Point Shaver Peter were the only ones needed to pull it off.
How much an hour to read The Selfish Gene?
Who redacted the $70,000 cost of McCabe's conference table from the report. Would that give our enemies an unfair advantage? If the Russians countered with a $90,000 table, would we be at a serious disadvantage? Was $70K a steal? Would the cheap price expose the sources of the bargain to our enemies?
Blogger David Begley said...
Hypo. Wisconsin is favored by 10 at home against Nebraska. Gamblers bet on Nebraska. Badgers are up by 14 in the final two minutes. Two Badger players are being paid by gamblers. Two silly fouls, a turnover, missed layups and the Badgers win by 8. Badgers won but they didn’t cover the line. Gamblers had rigged the outcome but it looked like a legit game. Obstruction of justice.
Or try this. Badgers playing Nebraska and they're up by 5 with a minute to play. Two Badgers make stupid mistakes and costly turnovers and penalties. Badgers lose. A few days later text messages are uncovered in which one of those two Badger players says to the other: "We could make a lot of money by tanking this game."
An investigation occurs. The investigators conclude there is no evidence of the two Badgers tanking the game.
But no one is fooled ...
Ann Althouse said...
I could take up a collection at PayPal and do it for $25,000. That’s what it would take to motivate me to seriously read it.
It is an IG report, someone attempting to show how every i should be dotted and t crossed in an ideal world. In most contexts real men would be dismissive of this kind of thing. In the real world it is not possible to dot every i and cross every t, or nothing would ever get done.
I accept that Comey acted in good faith. Imperfectly, but imperfectly in an imperfect world.
The environment, where there was a mob chanting 'lock her up' at the convention of a major political party, was not conducive to success.
Interestingly, there is a complete embargo of the story on every single local station here in SoCal. They did have time to report on the government policy of separating families at the border and the confrontation between Sarah Sanders and a reporter at yesterday's daily briefing. But NOT ONE WORD or even a passing mention on a chyron of what is surely the biggest story of government corruption and influence since Watergate!
So, how many lawyers garner $500 an hour paychecks?
I would give you $50 via Paypal to read it.
I bet you could get your analysis published too.
Tommy Duncan said...
"It should have occurred to me earlier that if the Inspector General process worked there would be no deep state."
It can only work if the people at the top want it to work. There was no IG appointed during Hillary's term at State. If we have a "deep state", it's because the people at the top wanted one.
And Jim Comey played basketball in high school. He's old enough to know about the point shaving scandals. The FBI also lectures college and pro players about point shaving.
"I'm just curious why they are ordering the FBI to undergo BIAS training if they didn't find BIAS."
-- They found no proof of it. They just also found no explanation other than it.
@My name goes here: "as well as what we hear from employees who are not part of the investigation"
Huh. So that's the answer - all the conservative outlets were quoting employees who weren't actually part of the investigation? And by extension, basically don't know what they are talking about, same as quoting outside experts? Sure didn't sound that way.
The only defence I can see at this point is that the investigation was set up from the top, from the start, only to include Clinton partisans who were sure to acquit her.
So does the IG report say _that_?
Are these other employees coming forward, even now?
I'm sorry; this isn't enough and isn't unacceptable. Surely with Donald Trump as president there is cover for FBI employees who think they have real information to offer. Surely with a pretty impartial IG report, we could get some real info on deep divisions within the FBI on the basic question of acquit or convict.
Time's up. Either this should have come out into the open already, or I want conservative media burned - burned bad by us conservatives - for leading us astray.
[Btw, this ought to be enough for Pres. Trump to fire each of the FBI investigators noted as being partisan by this report. They don't need to have been found guilty of crimes; it's enough that they investigated while being overtly on Clinton's side. Clean house.]
"Surely with Donald Trump as president there is cover for FBI employees who think they have real information to offer."
-- You'd think that, but the FBI blocked a whistleblower from testifying to Congress.
"I accept that Comey acted in good faith."
-- Comey claims to not know Weiner was ever married to Abedin.
There is no rational reason to believe Comey acted in good faith.
I am stunned there's no comment on HrC's home brew server and the legality of all that. Is it buried in the 500 pages or is it out of scope for the IG?
There's scholarship to indicate the amount of point shaving that goes on in a given culture is inversely proportional to the amount of pussy shaving.
I read that pussy shaving has been on the decline in America for a few years now. Make your wagers accordingly.
the worst part is that the Democrats don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Not unexpected, but still disappointing.
Comey also drafted his exoneration of Clinton before the investigation was completed. Again: Believing he acted in good faith is a sucker's bet.
What IG report? Nowhere to be found on Yahoo! homepage.
The number one story is Obama's "certificate of live birth", and a visual close association with Trump. Apparently, Clinton and Democratic factions are exempt from responsibility on all accounts, and journolists persist in their effort to publicly lynch Trump.
Well, maybe not the whole thing, but I read the supra executive, executive summary, "Obama's DOJ/FBI, at the direction of Obama himself, went to great lengths to harm Trump and his campaign all for the purpose of assuring that Hillary would win."
Blogger Wendybar said...
I'm just curious why they are ordering the FBI to undergo BIAS training if they didn't find BIAS.
Comment of the Year!
Golly. The hack D press wants to create and pimp a narrative for the democrats?
During his many years as FBI Director, Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller inculcated the entire institution with several doctrines, which included the following:
* Every FBI employee should do his own part to whitewash the FBI.
* Leaking is a good tool to pressure non-compliant subjects.
Mueller is the master whitewasher of the FBI, but we all saw yesterday that every FBI employee reflexively does his own part to help, to the best of his own ability.
-----
While Mueller was FBI Director, the FBI developed leaking to a high art.
When the FBI leaks dirt against a person, he has no recourse, because no FBI employee admits to being the leaker. The most common victims of this leaking tactic are Mafia members, but nobody cares about them.
Mueller's FBI got caught using its leaking tactic against Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case and ultimately had to compensate him $5 million. That's the rare exception, however, that proves the rule.
Mueller's successor as FBI Director was "Crazy Comey the Leaker". Who taught Comey how to leak?
According to Andrew "The Lying Leaker" McCabe, the FBI leadership authorizes some top officials (e.g. McCabe himself) to leak to journalists. Such authorizations did not begin after Comey became FBI Director. Such authorization were the established practice while Mueller was Director.
Because Mueller was FBI Director for such a long time, many FBI officials feel free to leak to journalists.
Accept that Hillary got away with using her private server for Clinton Cash, and is a felon for doing so, and you will free yourself.
Not much is a surprise here except the graft from the media to the FBI. . Certainly those people and the gift-givers should be named, shamed ( ha!) and prosecuted or at least disciplined.
When I was in the military, simply going to lunch with a vendor was problematic. It could be construed as the vendor trying to curry favor and thus win a contract. As for interacting with reporters, unless you were a designated media contact, you didn't. If a reporter asked you a question, you referred them to someone designated to speak for the command. Here we have FBI agents accepting gifts from reporters. Tell me how much I need to respect the holy, incorruptible, completely unbiased FBI Chuck.
Senate probes FBI's heavy-handed use of redactions to obstruct congressional investigators
Trump did a tour de force press conference this AM in a Fox and Friends segment followed by a rabid fake news segment.
His point was the Strozek guy was the head of the Russian Trump Collusion Investigation for a year, including 3 months under Mueller; and that was the same guy whose Texted Messages promised the FBI would stop Trump, but also had shared that there was no there there on Russian Collusion.
THAT IS EXONERATION.
Short ARM Translation: Comey's consistent and inexplicable MULTIPLE deviations from regular standards and practices in investigations is to be ignored as 'people make mistakes'.
And anyone wishing Hillary to be held accountable for her illegal actions are mere partisan trolls in my opinion, but I will call on comity to attempt to shame the masses into ignoring her mafeasence from a REAL investigation. Cause that is what I, ARM, do for Dems.
The FBI refuses to admit bias, but admits the appearance of bias.
Got that?
ARM—it is as only a matter of time. It’s Trump’s fault.
There are two more reports coming. One about Clinton alone.
The cabinet depts really need to be re-located to cities throughout the country. Being in the Imperial City is like being inside a librul parasite which sucks out your common sense and lowers your IQ.
I.E. James Comey claimed he didn't know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin. That is either evidence he is dense as a brick and generally uninformed or it is one of the biggest lies ever told.
For an investigative report everyone would read they needed Ken Starr
The FBI investigates a person and then leaks to journalists that the person is being investigated. This causes various personal, social and employment problems for the person, who cannot prove how he is being mistreated. The FBI will not admit to either its investigation nor to its leaking.
"Crazy Comey the Leaker" used this tactic against President-Elect Trump. The FBI was investigating Trump, leaking about the investigation, and denying the investigation and leaking. In other words, Comey was treating President-Elect Trump just as Comey as FBI Director would routinely and abusively treat a Mafia boss.
Because of the governmental relationship between Comey and Trump, there was additionally the component of gaslighting -- of assuring Trump that there was no investigation even though Trump occupied a position where he deserved the truth.
I'd be fine with a special counsel set loose on the FBI to find out who sold government information to the media for perks.
The best way to hide a tree is in a forest, right? So the best way to hide important information is in a ponderous 500-page document. There should be some kind of law requiring the distillation of information into meaningful and understandable form.
"There should be some kind of law requiring the distillation of information into meaningful and understandable form."
-- Nah. Then all we would have gotten was the executive summary.
That diagram looks pretty darn science-y! I like the way they made it slightly irregular so you'd think it was made by a human being.
Fox News leads with "President crashes ‘Fox & Friends’ to blast Comey, 'scum on top' of FBI, day after scathing IG report".
While Yahoo News leads with a visual close association between Clinton's Obama "certificate of live birth" controversy and Trump.
When do we start discussion of NY AG lawsuit over Trump Foundation?
The graft, though I suppose it is illegal, seems petty.
The leaking is the important crime.
I like Begley's point shaving analogy. A little here. A little there. Nothing, as we saw, that is outside normal prosecutorial or investigatorial discretion. In the end, the IG had to say that while the Midyear Examination investigation of Crooked Hillary's use of a private email server looks like a whitewash, he couldn't ever catch them really coloring outside the lines. The players probably should have made those shots, but maybe not. No one is perfect from the free throw line. There were no smoking gun revelations of quid pro quod dealings. No Agent X saying that he just did A, B, and C in order to get Clinton elected or Trump defeated. Instead, we have Agent X saying that he feared Clinton or hated Trump, and then did A, B, and C.
"There were no smoking gun revelations of quid pro quod dealings."
-- To be fair, there were! Just not about the actual investigation. But, there was a lot of quidding and quoing.
When do we start discussion of NY AG lawsuit over Trump Foundation?
The Trump Foundation that distributed 100% of what they took in to charity, while the Clinton Foundation distributes, what, 15 cents out of every dollar? The NY AG needs a new slave, maybe. Or a new clown car.
AJ Lynch said...
I.E. James Comey claimed he didn't know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin. That is either evidence he is dense as a brick and generally uninformed or it is one of the biggest lies ever told.
I'm certainly willing to believe it was a lie. But if a lie, to what purpose?
"The leaking is the important crime."
trickling is the problem - flooding would be nice and welcome.
I have actually read a bit of it, but I don't particularly want to slog through 500 pages of bureaucratese. I'll trust other, more eager people to do so, of which there is no shortage of believe me. There's plenty of reporters, bloggers, internet trolls, and flame warriors who love being the first to find some devastating little needle among that haystack of a report. If and when something interesting is uncovered, I might go to the report and look for the passage and read what's around it.
I'm more interested in the reaction to the report. Some people retreat back to their battlements, chossing either not to comment or just blantetly dismissing the who thing as not really that important. Some people try to make excuses on the FBI's behalf. Some people try to convince everyone else that the report is saying something that it clearly isn't. And amazingly some unlikely people try to defend characters like Comey, which I find somewhat sad and hilarious at this point. And the there's people who are just angry since it just comfirms many depressing things they already suspected and expect that nothing will be done about it. I'm in that group.
This is the sort oh thing that CTH does well. I will check with them when I get home.
I read it by osmosis: Mistakes were made but the big fish were appropriately exonerated.
"I accept that Comey acted in good faith."
He acted in good faith to try and protect Hill, after getting blasted by Dems in the summer, by sitting on the Weiner emails for a month, trying to run out the clock until he couldn't.
And the there's people who are just angry since it just comfirms many depressing things they already suspected and expect that nothing will be done about it. I'm in that group.
Me, too, Nonapod.
Face it, no one has a crazier take on IG report than POTUS.
Democrat media industrial complex insisted that firing Comey was a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!
Can any of the current and future FBI prosecution victims take advantage of the language in the text of the IG report as prejudicial and wedge(ee) for discovery purposes? or is that totally non-germane?
What's really amazing is that Comey et. al were willing to completely trash the integrity of the FBI for this charade. I can't imagine how they can ever regain the trust of the American people.
Repubs running for Congress should extract damning verbatim, in-context quotes from the body of the report, include them in campaign ads, and then note that if you vote for a Dem the additional IG reports will be quashed.
"Are you in favor of FBI agents taking bribes? We would never have known about it if the party of my opponent controlled Congress."
And make them EXPENSIVE ads.
"But if a lie, to what purpose?"
It goes to the question of when Comey was alerted to the Weiner Laptop (all caps now that the IG report has enshrined it thusly in U.S. lore). He's trying to throw McCabe a lifeline by implying he was told about it, but didn't know Weiner had any connection to Clinton, when it otherwise appears McCabe is lying when he said he promptly informed Comey about it.
" I can't imagine how they can ever regain the trust of the American people."
It doesn't matter. We are no longer a trust-based society.
.Brett Whysel, Lecturer, Public Economics & Decision Making at City College of New York:
"A society is high-trust if citizens’ and organizations’ behavior towards each other is predictable. In such a society, actors follow broadly understood norms of behavior, supported by the rule of law. This is fundamental to the accumulation of social capital and economic growth.
Citizens in a low-trust society are challenged by divergent or opaque behavioral norms. This makes behavior of others unpredictable, impairing social capital and economic activity. These societies may experience high levels of corruption and inequality."
Trust requires a shared understanding of truth; truth is now pre-post-modern.
-LWL
The post-truth FBI.
Page: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
@Althouse, a lawyer with neutrality (cruel or not) reading the report would be beneficial to us, but that is a lot to ask of you or anyone else.
As to Attachment G, it would have been more useful to include the employer of the three reporters. I’m guessing that the reporter at the center of the left hand circle worked for the New York Times, but that’s just an educated guess.
Mike R: “What happened to the many unknown FBI agents who were leaking that they wanted Clinton indicted during the investigation, and that anyone else would have been indicted for the same crimes?”
Agents wanting the FBI to enforce the law is not the same as agents wanting the FBI to ignore the law. One is the IG’s business the other is not. Similarly, whistleblowing is not the same as leaking information to do political damage or for profit.
>>James Comey claimed he didn't know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin.
The nation's leading investigator. That's some mighty fine police work....
>>James Comey claimed he didn't know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin.
Ah, that explains why he didn't investigate the AG Lynch and Bill Clinton tarmac meeting. He didn't know Bill was married to Hillary.
It's all clear now.
“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.
Her opinion on this IG report is hardly unique or insightful, the same things have been said multiple times by multiple people. She seems to be adding commentary only to make her snark seem legitimate and on topic, lol. I’d say she is transparent and smells like a buzzard
Sebastian said...He acted in good faith... by sitting on the Weiner
Hey now!
It doesn't matter. We are no longer a trust-based society.
The biggest problem we have today is a clash of values. We are all playing by different rules so we are unable to trust in our government, our communities or even our own families. In feudal Japan there were no actual 'laws'. But everyone knew the rules as they were based on a societal construct and the notions of honor and ancestral dignity. Everyone shared the same values and, while we might abhor those values, they made for a cohesive, if often turbulent, culture.
What we have--and cherish most--is freedom and it would be nice if bloodshed could be avoided to maintain it. But at present, lacking even the most fundamental social structures, the future looks unpromising.
Blogger readering said...
“When do we start discussion of NY AG lawsuit over Trump Foundation?”
Seriously? Could you be any more transparently amoral? Let’s discuss Democrat partisan lawfare and ignore the corruption/incompetence of the FBI?
Of course very few are likely to read the entire report. We depend on reliable sources to read the whole damn thing and report on it. It behooves anyone who is truth seeking to read from sources left, right, and center and decide who is credible and who isn’t.
@ ARM I am sure Hitler was thought by the SD to be acting "in good faith" most of the time though we think his acts were outrageous. I have the same view of Comey. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and read the report. It is damning even - especially - in "IG speak".
Mollie Hemingway's summary (after reading the entire report)
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/15/11-quick-things-know-inspector-generals-report/
I love the word behooves.
“Blogger readering said...
“When do we start discussion of NY AG lawsuit over Trump Foundation?”
Seriously? Could you be any more transparently amoral? Let’s discuss Democrat partisan lawfare and ignore the corruption/incompetence of the FBI?”
Why are people putting morality labels on others here? Achilles does this all the time and it makes him sound extreme and off kilter.
Hat tip to LWL for the brilliant posts, esp. the OJ Trial analogy and the Picasso link.
"I'm certainly willing to believe it was a lie. But if a lie, to what purpose?"
Perhaps to try and excuse his inaction re the Weiner laptop emails?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
We seem to be moving from anger to acceptance. I think that is healthy.
************************
IIRC those part of Kubler-Ross's stages of emotions people dealing with terminal diseases go through before they die.
So, yes---if you're talking about the death of the Republic.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said
“What's really amazing is that Comey et. al were willing to completely trash the integrity of the FBI for this charade. I can't imagine how they can ever regain the trust of the American people.”
This. While I’m at it there are people who spend a lot of time telling us that all the problems at the FBI stem from a few guys and gals at the top. And that the FBI is chock full of honest, hard working people. The charts showing the connections between everybody from secretaries to SAC’s tell me that the folks who say that are either lying or hopelessly naive.
I have more faith in The People than some of you. I think the cleansing that is going on now, though ugly, will help return us to a place where we can have some trust in the government. It will be a while. Of course one salutary aspect of losing "faith" in government institutions is that we will be less likely to grant them more authority over us. A partial return to the principles of the Founders.
Annie C remarks: I love the word behooves.
Makes me think of behooved beasts.
Readering:
I think there are way more questions re the legitimacy of the Clinton Foundation's books than there could be of the much smaller Trump Foundation. But the librul NY AG ignores the Clinton crime syndicate and goes after Trump.
Of course one salutary aspect of losing "faith" in government institutions is that we will be less likely to grant them more authority over us.
Or social chaos-->anarchy-->martial law.
LWL posted a trite overly spaced commentary that offered nothing new, but there’s no accounting for taste. I used to wonder why some people don’t have friends and are shunned by their own family. I used to feel sorry for them, but recently I discovered there are probably very good reasons for their family avoiding them.
mockturtle said "What we have--and cherish most--is freedom and it would be nice if bloodshed could be avoided to maintain it. But at present, lacking even the most fundamental social structures, the future looks unpromising."
by we, you mean me and you; we Still want freedom. For most of America:
The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens long enough to notice what’s happening
The comment that facebook showed me on top for that read:
" I disagree. The screens are where the revolution starts. their screens are the hubs of communication that will force them to look up. George Orwell's screens were state owned propaganda. Our screens are not weapons of the state. They are our weapons against the state."
Which makes it pretty clear that a LOT of people don't know much about the state. I
"Of course one salutary aspect of losing "faith" in government institutions is that we will be less likely to grant them more authority over us."
-- No. People will just insist "If my team had been in charge."
No, Inga, it behooves those who want to form intelligent opinions about the report to read the whole report. I am interested in others interpretations, but have more faith in my own.
I was thinking of a behooved buzzard.
"He's trying to throw McCabe a lifeline by implying he was told about it, but didn't know Weiner had any connection to Clinton, when it otherwise appears McCabe is lying when he said he promptly informed Comey about it."
-- I'd love to know how that conversation went.
"We've got Weiner's Laptop."
"Who?"
"You know. Anthony Weiner."
"Who's that? Some guy?"
"You know. Anthony Weiner. He's kind of important."
"Oh, well, good for you."
“... it behooves those who want to form intelligent opinions about the report to read the whole report. I am interested in others interpretations, but have more faith in my own.”
Good! I will look forward to reading your synopsis. Have at it. I doubt Althouse or many others here have any intentions of reading the entire report themselves either.
AJ Lynch said...
Perhaps to try and excuse his inaction re the Weiner laptop emails?
That was my thought, but it doesn't work. If emails from Hillary are found on the computer of her subordinate's husband, there is a plausible explanation. Not a good situation, but we can see how it would happen.
If emails from Hillary are found on the computer of a random sexting pedophile, that would seem to demand an explanation.
Once before an individual was placed in charge of the Bureau with a mandate to mclean up a thoroughly corrupt institution. That individual was J. Edgar Hoover and he succeeded for a long time, before he became corrupt himself. Trump needs to find someone to do the same with today’s FBI — and Christopher Wray does not appear to be that person. Trump needs to move carefully but decisively to line up the country behind him, go to Congress and get them on board, replace Sessions and Rosenstein if either squawks too loudly, and then have his hand-picked choice take over and clean up the mess.
We need an FBI we can trust to investigate fairly and honestly, or we should simply close down the agency, bar current employees from work in federal law enforcement ever again, and start over from zero.
Hat tip to LWL for the brilliant posts, esp. the OJ Trial analogy and the Picasso link. -mockturtle
LWL posted a trite overly spaced commentary that offered nothing new -Inga
Clearly over-gratified during potty training.
....and then she deleted it.
exhe - thanks
"The best way to understand an inspector general (IG) report is less as a fiercely independent investigation that seeks justice and more like what you’d expect from a company’s human resources department. Employees frequently think that a company’s human resources department exists to serve employees. There’s some truth in that, but it’s more true that the human resources department exists to serve the corporation."
"LWL posted a trite overly spaced commentary that offered nothing new..."
Yes, the OJ trial and the Picasso drawings/Attachment G comparisons are everywhere.
In fact, I did some Inga-level research and Googled "FBI OJ trial" and was inundated with zero hits.
I have never joined the chorus of people who have called you dumb. I still won't. I believe you are of medium intellect.
You are just intellectually and morally lazy, with the metal agility of a rather slow cow.
Keep up the good work, Snopes.
-LWL
Passage from IG report
[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
No way? you can be as biased and unprincipled as needed for the Clinton Crime Family.
“What we have--and cherish most--is freedom and it would be nice if bloodshed could be avoided to maintain it. But at present, lacking even the most fundamental social structures, the future looks unpromising."
Yesterday and today we’re hearing more talk of revolt. Some even used the term bloody revolt. Is this how normal people respond to an IG report that didn't provide them with what they were so longing for and depending on for all these months? What are these people going to do when Mueller’s investigation is complete and the results are very bad for Trump and company?
More Molly:
"The report goes on to say that the text messages and Strzok’s decision to prioritize the counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign over the Clinton email criminal investigation “led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”
This text is not just interesting because the FBI’s deputy head of the counterintelligence division who was investigating a major-party candidate told the woman he was cheating on his wife with that “we” would stop the candidate from becoming president. It’s also interesting because this text was hidden from congressional committees performing oversight of the FBI."
LWL,
You are very transparent. Hater. Now kiss my ass you big buzzard.
Comey was recommended for firing by Rod Rosenstein - because he criticized Hillary.
I love that part.
"If emails from Hillary are found on the computer of a random sexting pedophile, that would seem to demand an explanation."
-- Claiming not to know Weiner married Abedin was Comey's excuse not to even look on the computer for the potential of any emails. It wasn't until the New York branch or police or whoever threatened to reveal *that there were Clinton emails on there* that he suddenly remembered who Abedin had married and took the laptop from them.
Ignorance is Bliss:
His attorney buddy perhaps told him to say this so Comey was just beginning the strategy of covering his ass if he one day had to testify same before a jury. When he pleads ignorance of the relationship, a jury might conclude [rightly] he is just a dumbass but not guilty of criminal act?
Maybe some kind people could go to LWL’s blog and leave a pity post on it for her, lol. Such jealousy, wow.
"And the there's people who are just angry since it just comfirms many depressing things they already suspected and expect that nothing will be done about it. I'm in that group."
I hear you.
But something was done about it: Hill stayed in the race, and lost. Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Peter and Lisa and Andy. Thanks, Loretta.
The insurance policy failed. "We'll stop it" didn't pan out. The IG exposed the actual deep-state collusion before Mueller could find any Russia collusion.
I mean, that is some measure of sweet justice.
I mean, would you rather have Hill in prison and Kaine (or Bernie?) in the WH, or Hill stewing in resentment and Trump where he is?
4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird
"The 568-page report includes many examples of Comey being duplicitous and sneaky during his handling of the Clinton email probe. For instance, he asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch how to handle questions regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on a secret server. She told him to call it a “matter.” He didn’t object and even complied.
But a year later, the conversation was leaked to The New York Times in a story that painted Comey as a non-partisan truth-teller beset by both Democrats and Republicans. Daniel Richman, the same man who was used to leak Comey’s anti-Trump memos, was a source for the anti-Lynch story."
Conclusion: Comey is slippery and weird.
**But praised, when needed, by the squirrel fake news hack-D press because narrative. Chuck Todd must wear depends.
How long before the lefty talking points shift to arguing that we should be grateful that the FBI had so many honest Trump haters who bravely violated FBI rules to communicate the rights things to the media?
More Molly
5. FBI Has A Massive Leak Problem And Is Doing Nothing About It
Because Democrats are above the law and must be given crutches at all times by the highest law enforcement agency in the land.
from IG report
"“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 stated. Two attachments were included showing rampant discussions with reporters by people not authorized to be talking to reporters. "
Poor Chuck Todd(D) - his corrupt candidate lost and that, all by itself, is a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
***Plus it is illegal to talk to or do business with the Russians, unless your name is Hillary Clinton.
From IG report
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.
Sounds nice. I bet they vote democrat.
Matthew Sablan said...
Claiming not to know Weiner married Abedin was Comey's excuse not to even look on the computer for the potential of any emails.
Comey didn't need to have someone look for the potential. At the time the New York field agents informed Washington of the laptop, they already knew it contained thousands of Hillary emails. That is why they were informing Washington in the first place.
Sebastian said...
How long before the lefty talking points shift to arguing that we should be grateful that the FBI had so many honest Trump haters who bravely violated FBI rules to communicate the rights things to the media?
Exactly. After all, no one in their right mind would want Trump as President, so everything was done for the people and America!!!
“I could take up a collection at PayPal and do it for $25,000. That’s what it would take to motivate me to seriously read it.”
This is why Althouse is such a great blog. No pretentious bullshit.
More Molly:
7. Breathtaking Bias
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.
What the investigators found, however, was breathtaking anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias from five of the key employees handling the Clinton email probe. No evidence was found of pro-Trump bias. And this evidence of profound bias is only for those who were foolish enough to record their extreme views. The IG also apparently had no texts from Justice Department officials, perhaps because Justice didn’t preserve them.
how convenient/
Right. But Comey pretending not to know the connection means he could justify ignoring McCabe mentioning the laptop. McCabe claims to just have said they had the laptop; not that he told them the obvious connection. The fig leaf defense is that in the game of telephone, plus Comey's ignorance, he didn't understand the significance of the laptop until a month later.
It's completely unfathomable, but that's his defense.
Take it easy on Clinton - she might be our new boss.
Yeah - that's professional FBI behavior.
"The texts range from vile insults of Trump and his supporters to fears about how awful a Trump presidency would be and the need to prevent it. One employee said Trump voters were “all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer discussed feeling “numb” by Trump’s November 2016 election win, later proclaiming “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.
Strzok wrote in July 2016, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.” After the election, Page wrote that she’d bought “All the President’s Men,” adding, “Figure I needed to brush up on watergate.” The two openly fantasize about impeachment.
In the preparation to interview Clinton as part of the criminal probe, Page tells a handful of her colleagues to take it easy on Clinton. “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”
"And this evidence of profound bias is only for those who were foolish enough to record their extreme views."
-- Also, we know Page and Stzork, at least, conspired to hide their messages on devices that couldn't be taken by the government. I have no doubt, like Comey's personal GMail and the lovers' private phones, a lot of communications were done on channels the IG could not access (or even knew about).
9. Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme
"The IG found that Obama was “one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account.” "
Conclusion: Obama lied, nobody cared. Least of all Chuck Todd(D) and Andrea Mitchel(D) and the on-air talent at MSDNC.
When an organization leaks as much as the FBI has, it's a good indication of deep institutional level problems. It seems to me it used to be that FBI leaking was a controlled thing generally only done at the highest level in specific circumstances to certain favored reporters. It was generally a PR move for the Bureau. Now it seems like there's leaking going on at multiple levels to many different reporters for many different reasons. It indicates choas, lack of leadership, naked political and partisan gamesmenship, unhappiness among agents, and general distrust within the FBI. It portrays an organization that's riven into many factions with contradicting agendas.
If the FBI is allowed to continue as it has up until now, this will probably only get worse and probably geatly undermine their mission making everyone less safe. I'm dubious that it'll get fixed though.
More Molly
10. FBI Agent Joked Clinton Associate Who Lied Would Never Be Charged, Questioned Legitimacy Of Investigation
FBI agents discussed how a witness who obviously lied to them about the Clinton probe would never be charged:
FBI Employee: ‘boom…how did the [witness] go’
Agent 1: ‘Awesome. Lied his -ss off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,’
FBI Employee: ‘would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal’
Agent 1: ‘I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax – aint noone gonna do sh-t’
Also, the FBI claimed it didn't look at the devices because State is so bad at managing Secret documents, they'd have to do a lot of work. Which ties in nicely with the instructions given at the start: Don't follow leads to expose crimes.
What's the point of an investigation the investigators think is too much work and, hey, we're not supposed to be looking anyway?
Lying liars who lie for the lying liar Clinton Corruption Machine.
Big money and Dead Seth Rich. Nobody cares.
IGs for each Agency were Obama eliminated just like ICE was ordered to quit doing its job The IGs were fired by Obama and their successors were never appointed but then no Inspector work was permitted in any Agency until a successor was appointed which was never. That's why Horowitz could be talked into doing this work for The Terrible Trump.
ADDED: I'm just trying to absorb Attachment G:
I would just like to point out a note on this. This is what the software looks like when they go through someone's contacts on your phone/SMS.
This one has some heavy filters and looks like a painstaking pretty print. Usually each phone on there is a node and you can click on it to switch to that person's contacts.
They can jump through everyone. There are no warrants. This is probably what the "metadata" dodge is trying to cover.
Between each node the line is called an edge. There is a lot more than the number of calls available there.
When I say they are spying on every call and every text of every person this is what I am talking about.
Every American should be calling for an end to the FBI.
Inga said...
LWL posted a trite overly spaced commentary that offered nothing new, but there’s no accounting for taste. I used to wonder why some people don’t have friends and are shunned by their own family. I used to feel sorry for them, but recently I discovered there are probably very good reasons for their family avoiding them.
It has been a tough 500+ days for Inga.
Of course she is going to lash out.
She is coming to grips that the people she supports are rapists and criminals and that everything she is told to believe by her oligarch owned media minders is a lie.
She has known that in order to hold on to her long held support for the democrat party she has to justify rape and lying and corruption on a systemic scale.
It is easier for Inga to remain an amoral empty shell devoid of a soul than to criticize or hold her masters to account.
"Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme"
How long before lefty talking points shift to arguing that this was an admirable dodge to protect confidential communications from the prying eyes of deplorable Republicans?
It is 500+ pages, but it isn't novel dense pages. I would estimate that in modern published book form, it might be 200 pages total. A competent reader could read it in about 8-12 hours. It is also not deep thinking type of reading either, such as reading Crime and Punishment. I basically started around 6:00 p.m. last night after I had an early dinner and read until 9:00, then skimmed through the remainder (about 150 pages) in the last 30 minutes or so. I skimmmed through the remainder again this morning just to see if I missed anything important, and really hadn't- I could have skimmed through the entire thing in about 90 minutes and have noticed and retained about the same amount.
This will break down into two groups- the people actually reading it will be predisposed to believe the worst about the investigation and the FBI/DoJ, and people like Inga and ARM won't be bothered to even read the conclusions, but only the descriptions of the conclusions as provided by other people who also haven't read the entire report.
I wasn't expecting Ms. Althouse to read the report, but I think she actually should read it. I would like her take on it as a whole. I am hoping later today that a number of essayists that I trust to have done so and begin commenting on it. At that point I might add more detail in those comments sections.
“It is easier for Inga to remain an amoral empty shell devoid of a soul than to criticize or hold her masters to account.”
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.
Of course, an essayist is likely to take extensive notes while reading it. I did not do so- that would made reading the report a 10 hour+ effort for me. I am now making notes of what other people found that I don't recall clearly and going back to confirm, but there isn't a lot of that.
And at my age, a 3 1/2 reading effort is about my limit before I become distracted.
'Also, the FBI claimed it didn't look at the devices because State is so bad at managing Secret documents, they'd have to do a lot of work. '
How does this fly in the face of the theory every bureaucrat wants to increase his budget/domain.
Democarats for smaller budgets?!
Inga said...
“It is easier for Inga to remain an amoral empty shell devoid of a soul than to criticize or hold her masters to account.”
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 voted for a man knowing he was a rapist.
You falsely accuse with absolutely no evidence Trump of rape to cover for it.
You support Obama's spying on political opponents.
Empty.
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.
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.
Inga said Scalise deserved to get shot because he supports the NRA.
It is the left that commits genocide. It has happened dozens of times. People who believe in freedom and small government have never used the government to kill their political opponents on a mass scale like the leftists have done millions of times.
Post a Comment