You're not missing much. He's trying to spike the ball about being "right" about the IG report. He also says that if Durham goes after the FBI it's because he's trying to help Barr and Trump save face. The usual nonsense that he spouts.
Which of the below comments of mine are wrong in retrospect (check out the last one in bold)? mchammer said: Wait until the IG report comes out. Wait until the report on the CIA spying on Papadopoulos before the Steele dossier was known. When the IG report is published later this month, should all discussion of it plus possible future criminal indictments be contained in one thread? I read the IG report is late because they found a late whistle blower, which required them go back to previous witnesses to cross check their testimony. Rep King of New York says a lot of bad stuff happened behind the scenes including top of the cia. Papadapoulos going to testify in front of senate committee shorty after DOJ report. After this round of reports and testifying, the next step is Brennan and CIA. A lot of taint out there waiting to be discovered A lot of smoke. Just have to be patient about the IG report and Barr’s findings Taint is imminent What happens when the IG report is out, gov workers are being indicted, and the Bidens are subpoena’d by the Senate. You like them apples?
This whole article undercuts everything SH has claimed since the IG report was issued. Remember when SH said this stuff was only coming from fringe sites? I guess J Turley is now InfoWars. Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.
I think I found the root of the problem: Apparently SH gets his info from Schiff and his media fan club:
Husker also believes that the Durham investigation is there to help Trump. Between that and saying Sondland gave factual evidence tells you that SH's credibility is pretty well shot.
Given the FISA abuse, I have to wonder if the DOJ/FBI were honest in prosecuting Flynn and Papadopoulos, two individuals who had their civil rights infringed upon due to FBI spying. Note neither case went to trial. How credible is it for the FBI to say Flynn or Papadopoulos lied? I would say not much. I suspect Carter avoided indictment due to his CIA background (I.e., the CIA folks had his back).
Another article crapping on the FBI by a fringe news outlet: 'Corroboration Zero': An Inspector General's Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke
The above tweet is specific to the FISA issue. The other issues are 1/ why Trump wasn’t told (until he was elected when it couldn’t be avoided and even then Comey obfuscated), and 2/ why did it go on so long? Further, why did the Mueller investigation take so long when it was obvious there was no collusion?
This is close to treason: Contrary to media claims, Trump did not receive defensive briefing on Russia interference. In fact, they used briefing to gather and record information for the counterintelligence probe. Horowitz says this is obviously very disconcerting.
Perhaps the FISA judge should have a show cause hearing on why the attorneys who appeared before him to get the warrant should not be held in contempt of court.
Back to the original question: What if it was not the Russians? Perhaps it was the Kievan Rus, or maybe the Capatho-Rusyns.
