DEEP STATE PANIC! It's Official----IG Horowitz To Reveal His FISA Abuse Findings To Senate Dec 11

[bullwinkle]

If it’s anything like his last report, it will simultaneously absolve the FBI of wrong-doing and dispel many conservative myths.
And conservatives will deny it to the end of days.

It won't be anything like the last one because this time there's criminal referrals meaning people are going to be indicted and prosecuted.

You're a vindictive as Trump. No wonder you are such a suck up! Can't wait for Karma to finger you...and him!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It will be a glorious day for the president and his supporters but a catastrophic day for liberals and Never-Trumpers. Now what's going to happen between now and then as Wednesday, December 11 nears, is the left and the media are going to turn up their mass hysteria rhetoric towards Trump. Watch the left-wing pundits hit the msm to smear Horowitz, who was appointed by Obama, with impunity. Nevertheless, the date is set. Keep all eyes on Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Sally Yates.

JUST IN: DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses

 

[the other mike]

Justice Department watchdog scheduled to testify on alleged FBI, DOJ surveillance abuses

 

[bullwinkle]

Justice Department watchdog scheduled to testify on alleged FBI, DOJ surveillance abuses

At last! Something you will watch!

 

[Zorro!]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake
https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/1199777989992558592


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor
https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/998717849828036608


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

 

[Dragonlady]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

This is exactly what the IG Report is NOT GOING TO SAY. It's going to say "no spying", no attempt to derail the campaign or any of the other lies Trump has been telling since his initial claim that his phones were tapped.

This is the problem with Republican investigations. Republicans make shit up and then try to find evidence to prove their lies and rumours are true. Then they investigate and find out that NOTHING they said was true, and then they claim the report is wrong.

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghai, Hillary's emails, the IRS scandal. Not one indictment, no one charge, no guilty pleas. All bullshit.

 

[the other mike]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

They're trying to get ahead of the story and soften the blow.

 

[Dragonlady]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

They're trying to get ahead of the story and soften the blow.

It looks like Trumbots are ginning themselves up for a HUGE disappointment as another Trump conspiracy theory is debunked by the very people he charged with proving he was a victim.

 

[colfax_m]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

They're trying to get ahead of the story and soften the blow.

It doesn’t matter what’s in the report. Conservatives aren’t going to read it. Trump will lie about what it says. His media acolytes will repeat it as nauseum. Real media will point out that he’s lying. Conservatives will believe Trump.

Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Zorro!]

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report

No spying by spies; just informing by informants. They are desperate.

Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report. They don’t see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them. The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.

This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review. But that doesn’t stop the Times from headlining this ridiculous claim:

Eli Lake

✔@EliLake


The FBI never tried to place informants inside the Trump campaign. They only ran informants to solicit information from people who worked for the campaign. Is it just me, or does this seem like a distinction without a difference.



Larry O'Connor

✔@LarryOConnor


He wasn't a spy.... he was hired by the FBI to secretly engage in conversations under false pretenses and then report back whatever he learned in those conversations.

But he wasn't a spy.

Sundance goes deeper, highlighting the key word choices in the Times article that are used to mislead:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying? OK gotcha.

[…] Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly. No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense. No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016. The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016. The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016? And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying? OK gotcha…. Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes. But not political? Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

This is a sign of desperation.

They're trying to get ahead of the story and soften the blow.

Well, this references the FBI and so this is Comey and Co's spin job. And look at all the ground they are conceding. They "didn't wiretap Trump" but, "the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London".

Wiretap applications? undercover agents? But to claim "spying"? OUTRAGEOUS! PREPOSTEROUS! AN OUTRAGE! Comey is shocked at the accusation that he spied!

 

[lennypartiv]

Justice Department watchdog scheduled to testify on alleged FBI, DOJ surveillance abuses

Looks like we might finally get some justice.

 

[Syriusly]

It will be a glorious day for the president and his supporters but a catastrophic day for liberals and Never-Trumpers. Now what's going to happen between now and then as Wednesday, December 11 nears, is the left and the media are going to turn up their mass hysteria rhetoric towards Trump. Watch the left-wing pundits hit the msm to smear Horowitz, who was appointed by Obama, with impunity. Nevertheless, the date is set. Keep all eyes on Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Sally Yates.

JUST IN: DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses

Since we have the report now- doesn't look much like a catastrophe for anyone except the poor Trumpkins like yourself who have been gleefully confident that everyone from Hillary to Schiff were going to go to prison because of this report.

 

[candycorn]

It will be a glorious day for the president and his supporters but a catastrophic day for liberals and Never-Trumpers. Now what's going to happen between now and then as Wednesday, December 11 nears, is the left and the media are going to turn up their mass hysteria rhetoric towards Trump. Watch the left-wing pundits hit the msm to smear Horowitz, who was appointed by Obama, with impunity. Nevertheless, the date is set. Keep all eyes on Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Sally Yates.

JUST IN: DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses

You should hold your breath

 

[the other mike]

"They ran numerous stop signs ...."

 

[Zander]

I predict that nothing will come of it.

 

[Zorro!]

It will be a glorious day for the president and his supporters but a catastrophic day for liberals and Never-Trumpers. Now what's going to happen between now and then as Wednesday, December 11 nears, is the left and the media are going to turn up their mass hysteria rhetoric towards Trump. Watch the left-wing pundits hit the msm to smear Horowitz, who was appointed by Obama, with impunity. Nevertheless, the date is set. Keep all eyes on Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Sally Yates.

JUST IN: DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses

Since we have the report now- doesn't look much like a catastrophe for anyone except the poor Trumpkins like yourself who have been gleefully confident that everyone from Hillary to Schiff were going to go to prison because of this report.

I'm not surprised by the report. He can only question current employees and he can't compel testimony. All he told us is that no CURRENT employees admitted bias.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It will be a glorious day for the president and his supporters but a catastrophic day for liberals and Never-Trumpers. Now what's going to happen between now and then as Wednesday, December 11 nears, is the left and the media are going to turn up their mass hysteria rhetoric towards Trump. Watch the left-wing pundits hit the msm to smear Horowitz, who was appointed by Obama, with impunity. Nevertheless, the date is set. Keep all eyes on Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Sally Yates.

JUST IN: DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses

called this one right again!