The much-hyped IG report backfires

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I think you are confused.  The laptop is specifically mentioned in the report and McCabe was cleared of any wrongdoing because it's investigation was delayed by a month.

What is the date the report was released?

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

What is the date the report was released?

The date about the investigation of the laptop in the report is October 2016.  Who cares about the report itself's date.

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Who cares about the report itself's date.

You should, if you're being honest about responding to my comment regarding when the use of that laptop's contents as evidence for the IG investigation was made public.

[+and-then]

30 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

At this point you would have to have lack in trust in the IG as well.  This was an investigation on the investigation after all.

 

 

An investigation whose results were reviewed by all mentioned within it (and their attorneys, I'm sure) and which was delayed multiple times.  I stand by my statement.  

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, and then said:

An investigation whose results were reviewed by all mentioned within it (and their attorneys, I'm sure) and which was delayed multiple times.  I stand by my statement.  

So EMM was right?  You think the IG is part of the deep state too?

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

So EMM was right?  You think the IG is part of the deep state too?

I think that the way it was written shows that one agency was capable of covering for another, yes.  I am now convinced that the only way we will ever get trustworthy info will be if the president declassifies everything and puts it out there unredacted.  Since that isn't going to happen and he isn't going to remove Rosenstein or Sessions, we are going to be left with nothing but "facts" that are completely subject to interpretation.  NO firm answers on anything.  For those who are crowing over what they see as a "win" here, the only ones who should be happy about this report are those who enjoy the continuing obfuscation.  Ultimately, if Trump is unwilling to do the right thing, he deserves what he gets from those who want his scalp.

[ExpandMyMind]

11 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

So EMM was right?  You think the IG is part of the deep state too?

It shouldn't surprise you. As soon as Gowdy started supporting Mueller, Fox news hosts literally began telling their viewers that he was now part of the "Deep State". I guess that's how conspiracy theorists rationalise any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. It's actually not very different from 'God put dinosaur bones there to test our faith!'.

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

I think that the way it was written shows that one agency was capable of covering for another, yes.  I am now convinced that the only way we will ever get trustworthy info will be if the president declassifies everything and puts it out there unredacted.  Since that isn't going to happen and he isn't going to remove Rosenstein or Sessions, we are going to be left with nothing but "facts" that are completely subject to interpretation.  NO firm answers on anything.  For those who are crowing over what they see as a "win" here, the only ones who should be happy about this report are those who enjoy the continuing obfuscation.  Ultimately, if Trump is unwilling to do the right thing, he deserves what he gets from those who want his scalp.

A simple yes would have sufficed.

[Farmer77]

54 minutes ago, and then said:

Possibly, but this is where the damage from lack of trust in the FBI is demonstrated.  How can anyone be sure at this point?  It's a judgment call and depends on one's political bias and that should never be the case when dealing with the DoJ or FBI.  EVER.

You act as if that lack of trust was earned rather than carefully farmed by those under investigation.  Its only viewed as a judgement call because the Trump supporting media has been working overtime to make you feel like it is. 

 

[Gromdor]

Oh, don't get me wrong.  The report isn't all good news for the FBI.  In fact it did bring up a whole bunch of ethics failures, poor judgement calls, and political comments that all will stain the FBI's name.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, don't get me wrong.  The report isn't all good news for the FBI.  In fact it did bring up a whole bunch of ethics failures, poor judgement calls, and political comments that all will stain the FBI's name.

They have issues for sure,  I just don't see them as "democracy ending" type issues as we've been sold. 

[Lilly]

This report doesn’t provide any more information than we knew before it was released. Basically it changes nothing. So, Comey was “insubordinate” and Ms Lynch showed poor judgement with her tarmac meeting. Looks like only McCabe has any worries.

Like I said way back when all this began, neither Clinton nor Trump will ever wear an orange jumpsuit.

 

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, Lilly said:

This report doesn’t provide any more information than we knew before it was released. Basically it changes nothing. So, Comey was “insubordinate” and Ms Lynch showed poor judgement with her tarmac meeting. Looks like only McCabe has any worries.

Like I said way back when all this began, neither Clinton nor Trump will ever wear an orange jumpsuit.

 

I agree with you there.  Both will be long dead from old age before the accusations/ investigations end.

[Farmer77]

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Both will be long dead from old age before the accusations/ investigations end.

 

[Dark_Grey]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Never forget #OCCUPYPARKPLACE

Those b**stards on Boardwalk own too many hotels, IMO. The people can't afford to pay those exorbitant prices just for the convenience of walking by.  Who do they think they are? The thimble?

[ian hacktorp]

There is much discussion today about the IG report being a highly redacted, Rosenstein-approved, watered-down version deemed (by Rosenstein) fit for public consumption.

Apparently, President Trump has the original version and also has the authority to release it to the public.

Anyone here have any objection to seeing the real thing?

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

There is much discussion today about the IG report being a highly redacted, Rosenstein-approved, watered-down version deemed (by Rosenstein) fit for public consumption.

No there's not. At least not from sober adults who aren't under investigation 

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

Apparently, President Trump has the original version and also has the authority to release it to the public.

LOL suuure he does. Geeze is this the next ploy? 

[ian hacktorp]

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No there's not. At least not from sober adults who aren't under investigation 

Actually, there is.

In fact, there is currently a petition to release the un-redacted report available on the whitehouse.gov website which is gathering signatures right now.

*Snip*

I'm guessing you're not interested.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Daughter of the Nine Moons
Removed petition request

[Farmer77]

Just now, hacktorp said:

Actually, there is.

In fact, there is currently a petition to release the un-redacted report available on the whitehouse.gov website which is gathering signatures right now.

I'm guessing you're not interested.

I am insanely interested actually.

If im honest Im starting to feel a removed anthropologist type fascination. 

[ian hacktorp]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I am insanely interested actually.

Great...then you'll sign the petition.

And don't worry; insanity and feeling "removed" won't disqualify you from signing!

[Gromdor]

That petition page is pretty much like a company suggestion box.  If you look at the popular petitions you'll see that a ton that have reached the minimum requirement without ever getting a response. 

I am more curious as to what makes you think that Trump has an unredacted version of the IG report (that he hasn't even spammed tweet details about) to release.

[ian hacktorp]

31 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

(that he hasn't even spammed tweet details about)

He did tweet about his concern the report would be watered down.

[ian hacktorp]

Here's a letter directed to Michael Horowitz today by members of Congress (sober adults) expressing concern that the report was changed and requesting the original for review.

[Lilly]

However, there are some new Strzok/Page texts made public that are potential bombshells. I’m not sure this report is a ‘backfire’.

[ExpandMyMind]

17 minutes ago, Lilly said:

However, there are some new Strzok/Page texts made public that are potential bombshells. I’m not sure this report is a ‘backfire’.

Haha, yeah, according to Fox News headlines. The texts are irrelevant. Two people expressing a political opinion. The report concludes that they did not mess with any investigations, so there is no bombshell. Nothing happened.

Even the wording along the lines of 'we will stop him' I believe is being blown out of proportion. First, they obviously didn't stop him, or even try to, outside of their vote. Second, they had no way to actually do so.

So let's think about it rationally. Two Democrats say 'we' won't let him become President. Is there anyone who can say without a shadow of a doubt that the we in question refers to Democrats as a whole? As in 'we, the voters, the Democrats, won't allow it to happen'?

To me it seems the nost logical context, given what we know. But even if I'm wrong, the "bombshell" is still more like a damp squib that would only result in consequences for the 2 agents. It affects not in any way the Mueller investigation, or the claim that Comey was a Deep State operative hell bent on saving Hillary and destroying Trump, or any other fantasy that conservatives dreamed up.

Edited June 14, 2018 by ExpandMyMind