Anonymous wrote:

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Comey wrote his letter to Congress because of the fear of leaks. The news leaked from Congress. This is the entire point of this thread and what I've been saying from the first post. If the NYC FBI agents hadn't been leaking, Comey wouldn't have written his letter and there would not have been an October surprise. The leaks by the FBI agents was far more influential on the election than the texts between two lovers.

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Anonymous wrote:from the report: page 330

"In sum, we concluded that the explanations given for the failure of the FBI to take action on the Weiner laptop between September 29 and the end of October were unpersuasive.

The FBI had all the information it needed on September 29 to obtain the search warrant that it did not seek until more than a month later. The FBI’s neglect had potentially far-reaching consequences. Comey told the OIG that, had he known about the laptop in the beginning of October and thought the email review could have been completed before the election, it may have affected his decision to notify Congress. Comey told the OIG, “I don’t know [if] it would have put us in a different place, but I would have wanted to have the opportunity.”"

Seems to me the IG thinks this was a problem.

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

and page 331:

"We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department [Main Justice]. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop."

You don't think it is normal to expect that the investigators would investigate the laptop?

from the report: page 330

"In sum, we concluded that the explanations given for the failure of the FBI to take action on the Weiner laptop between September 29 and the end of October were unpersuasive.

The FBI had all the information it needed on September 29 to obtain the search warrant that it did not seek until more than a month later. The FBI’s neglect had potentially far-reaching consequences. Comey told the OIG that, had he known about the laptop in the beginning of October and thought the email review could have been completed before the election, it may have affected his decision to notify Congress. Comey told the OIG, “I don’t know [if] it would have put us in a different place, but I would have wanted to have the opportunity.”"

Seems to me the IG thinks this was a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Was there any discussion in the IG report of the Anti-Clinton agents in the NY office? I thought the leaks from that office would be addressed. Is IT going to be addressed?

The report says that the agents were upset that nothing was being done about investigating the Weiner issue. And, it was not "leaks"--it was a whistleblower. And, you think the agents were anti-Clinton because they were concerned about classified emails being on a pedophile's computer? Sounds to me like they were doing their job in reporting it and expecting action. Remember, FBI sat on it for one MONTH before any action was taken.

But, yes, the report addressed the fact that FBI HQ ignored the discovery of Weiner's computer for a month. Apparently, McCabe and Strozk were trying to wait it out. There are also reports that NYPD knew about it, too. IG questioned whether Strozk's bias affected his decision to ignore it.

This is not true. You are spreading complete misinformation. Weiner's laptop was seized in late September. Nunes says in the interview to which I linked earlier that he was told by FBI leakers about the laptop in late September -- so almost immediately. The leakers did not wait to see what would happen. These are not "whistleblowers" because they didn't wait long enough for anything to happen in order to blow a whistle. Moreover, there is no excuse for leading to Giuliani.

The IG report does not properly investigate the FBI New York office's leaking. Perhaps that will come in a separate report. But the spin above is complete horse hockey.

NP. Was there any discussion in the IG report of the Anti-Clinton agents in the NY office? I thought the leaks from that office would be addressed. Is IT going to be addressed?

The report says that the agents were upset that nothing was being done about investigating the Weiner issue. And, it was not "leaks"--it was a whistleblower. And, you think the agents were anti-Clinton because they were concerned about classified emails being on a pedophile's computer? Sounds to me like they were doing their job in reporting it and expecting action. Remember, FBI sat on it for one MONTH before any action was taken.

But, yes, the report addressed the fact that FBI HQ ignored the discovery of Weiner's computer for a month. Apparently, McCabe and Strozk were trying to wait it out. There are also reports that NYPD knew about it, too. IG questioned whether Strozk's bias affected his decision to ignore it.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Was there any discussion in the IG report of the Anti-Clinton agents in the NY office? I thought the leaks from that office would be addressed. Is IT going to be addressed?

There were some references to them including the quotes from Lynch that I posted earlier. But, generally this was overlooked which is amazing given that it was those leaks that provoked Comey to send his letter to Congress. I've seen some reports that a second report may be underway that will cover those leaks, but I don't know if that's true. The best reporting on this has been done by Josh Marshall. You can read his latest here:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/more-evidence-of-the-critical-failure-of-the-ig-report

Follow the links in that article to his earlier reports.

Thanks! I didn't know where to find info on it because I'm not seeing much in the news

“These emails are astonishing, no wonder the FBI hid them from Judicial Watch and the court,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show anti-Trump, pro-Clinton FBI Agent Peter Strzok admitting the decision not to prosecute the Clinton email issue was made back in April 2016 – long before even Hillary Clinton was interviewed. And the new emails show that the FBI security had the political objective of protecting then-Director Comey from ‘embarrassment’—which is, frankly, disturbing.”

On June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch?met?with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interviewed the Justice Department and FBI. (Judicial Watch filed?a request?on June 30 that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate that meeting.)

The tarmac meeting also came just days before former FBI Director James Comey held the July 5, 2016, press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. In his subsequent, May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting was the “capper” among “a number of things” that had caused him to determine that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-hidden-strzok-emails-latest-production-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meeting-docs-strzok-email-suggests-clinton-investigation-decision-made-april-2016/

A July 1, 2016, email from an unidentified official in the FBI Security Division sent to officials in several FBI offices with the subject line “Media Reports***Not for Dissemination***”, sent in the wake of the tarmac meeting, an FBI official warns his colleagues (with emphasis) “Our job is to protect the boss from harm and embarrassment.” [Emphasis in original] He emphasizes that FBI officials should ask themselves “What issues are currently being reported in the media? And what actions/interactions/situations that the Director may be in could impact them.” The official then cites an example of a public relations disaster near-miss when Comey’s plane “literally just missed Clinton’s plane” when they flew into the White Plains, NY airport (HPN) a few months earlier, and saying, “Imagine the optics and the awkward situation we would have put the Director in we would have been at the FBO at the same time as Secretary Clinton.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Pages-from-JW-v-DOJ-Clinton-Lynch-Tarmac-June-2018-Docs-02046-15-19-4.pdf

Not addressing

Jeff you are now t addressing the fact there would have been nothing whistleblowers if legal protocol was followed

Anonymous wrote:NP. Was there any discussion in the IG report of the Anti-Clinton agents in the NY office? I thought the leaks from that office would be addressed. Is IT going to be addressed?

There were some references to them including the quotes from Lynch that I posted earlier. But, generally this was overlooked which is amazing given that it was those leaks that provoked Comey to send his letter to Congress. I've seen some reports that a second report may be underway that will cover those leaks, but I don't know if that's true. The best reporting on this has been done by Josh Marshall. You can read his latest here:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/more-evidence-of-the-critical-failure-of-the-ig-report

Follow the links in that article to his earlier reports.

NP. Was there any discussion in the IG report of the Anti-Clinton agents in the NY office? I thought the leaks from that office would be addressed. Is IT going to be addressed?

Well, one thing for sure. There is one person to blame for all of this. If Clinton had not tried to evade the rules, this would not have been a problem. Weiner would likely not have had her classified emails.