Thread by @TheLastRefuge2: "1. Hey @Jim_Jordan , we need your help on something. Might be important. 2. I've read through all 400+ pages, all public versions, [?]" #IGReport
20 tweets a day ago
Profile picture
TheLastRefuge
@TheLastRefuge2
Follow Read on Twitter
1. Hey @Jim_Jordan , we need your help on something. Might be important.
#IGReport
2. I've read through all 400+ pages, all public versions, of the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages.
3. I've looked at every letter from Goodlatte, Grassley, Gowdy, Nunes, and Johnson; and every FBI and DOJ response therein.
4. I've read and highlighted 400 pages of the IG Horowitz report so far...
5. ...and I cannot find a single factual citation that anyone on the Mid-Year-Team actually went through the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner laptop and read or reviewed the Clinton emails.
6. The IG report states there were 675,000 emails and Blackberry communications per the New York field office. Page #324
IG Report on FBI and DOJ Handling of Clinton Investigation | United States Government | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
The 18-month Inspector General review of the DOJ/FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email has now been made public. This IG inquiry is specifically looking into whether the FBI investigation?
https://www.scribd.com/document/381...BI-and-DOJ-Handling-of-Clinton-Investigation#
7. However, @Jim_Jordan as odd as it might seem, the IG investigative team never actually asked the verification question if anyone actually went through the emails.
8. It's the basic question. But it appears everyone looking at the issue is just taking it for granted that some unknown and unspecified entity actually reviewed the emails.
It is an assumption that someone did. Yet there is no actual evidence that it took place.
9. The IG never asked the Mid-Year-Event team if that process actually took place.
IG Report on FBI and DOJ Handling of Clinton Investigation | United States Government | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
The 18-month Inspector General review of the DOJ/FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email has now been made public. This IG inquiry is specifically looking into whether the FBI investigation?
https://www.scribd.com/document/381...BI-and-DOJ-Handling-of-Clinton-Investigation#
10. And there is no evidence in the Strzok/Page text messaging after the October 30th, 2016, search warrant approval, to indicate a discussion of anyone actually ever doing the review part.
11. Yes, @Jim_Jordan , we are aware that Director Comey informed congress that through some -unknown details to him- technology, he called "wizardry", that a review was conducted.
12. But, other than James Comey's word, there is no other evidence an email review actually took place.
13. And there is no citation, no evidence, no mention of names or even the descriptions of the staff, that would have been tasked with the undertaking.
14. @Jim_Jordan as crazy as it sounds, it looks like the email review is a big assumption that everyone just accepts... for some reason.... yet no-one knows *exactly* how or who.
15. An assumption the IG apparently also made.
IG Report on FBI and DOJ Handling of Clinton Investigation | United States Government | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
The 18-month Inspector General review of the DOJ/FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email has now been made public. This IG inquiry is specifically looking into whether the FBI investigation?
https://www.scribd.com/document/381...BI-and-DOJ-Handling-of-Clinton-Investigation#
16. So @Jim_Jordan with no actual evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that any review of the 675,000 Clinton emails from the Abedin/Weiner laptop actually took place between October 30th and November 5th, 2016....
17. ...could you do us a favor and, well, just as a basic assurance, please ask the Inspector General on Tuesday if he did actually ever ask anyone in the Mid Year Team if they reviewed the laptop content? The very basic question: Are you sure it happened?
18. Then, perhaps, @Jim_Jordan if you could ask IG Horowitz how he *is sure* that such a review took place. Perhaps: who, when, where etc.?
19. Because there's ample evidence of a great deal of other activity, but not a single mention or reference of anyone, ever, anywhere, at any time, engaged in such a review process.
20. Thanks in advance.
