Thread by @DawsonSField

NY Times reveals devastating news!
AG Barr has assigned the US Attorny for Connecticut to investigate the origin of the Russia Investigation. Which means there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity to predicate the investigation!#ButNothingsHappening
nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/…

This US Attorney has been assigned previous cases involving government misconduct by FBI & CIA personnel. This investigation is not likely initiated by Barr but by a referral from Inspector General Horowitz.

Most OIG misconduct reports end with the OIG referring the individuals involved to the agency for disciplinary & criminal prosecution decisions. So it is likely that Horowitz referred misconduct to DOJ, DOJ determined that crimes were probably committed & assigned a prosecutor.

No need for a Special Prosecutor if the DOJ & FBI have been cleaned out of people who had a conflict of interest. All the people that Sessions & Rosenstein fired! With RR departing on Friday, he can now be a witness against the coup plotters with a new DAG who need not recuse.

Incorrect assertion by NYT's & their leakes. Mueller did not reaffirm that the investigation was legitimate. The Mueller report did not test the validity of the evidence & determined that even if the evidence was all true, there still was no collusion.

Mueller did not attempt to verify if the investigation was legitimate, because that would intrude into the Inspector General's investigation into the misconduct by FBI & DOJ personnel. We have already learned the FBI dropped the Pdop angle due to exculpatory evidence.

Where this gets interesting will be the Woods Procedures to verify the information in the FISA app. We already saw a previous leak whining the OIG didn't understand that FISA's were allowed to have unverified information in them. Which isn't true, but it sets up their alibi.

The Woods Procedures were established by Mueller after the Clinton Admin FBI was caught submitting FISA's without informing the court that the subjects had cooperated with the FBI in the past & that a subject had met voluntarily with US Attorneys. @carterwpage did both in 2016!

Another factual 'error' by the NY Times. The FBI informant, Stephan Halper, met with Page BEFORE he left the campaign & before the investigation was opened! Steele was also reporting to the FBI BEFORE the investigation was opened on 7/31/16.

That's called a huge lie!

Correct but irrelevant, Rod Rosenstein was not the affiant nor was he the person that conducted the Woods Procedures. He only signed off that everyone in FBI & DOJ signed their life away claiming it was all true. Their lies will convict them!

Again, missing that Steele & Halper were both working as informants on the case, before there was a case. That is a gigantic no-no!

USA Durham is already investigating misconduct by other Spygate figures including a criminal investigation of former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker. That investigation is related to leaks & follows a previous leak case against Baker that the NSA pushed but DOJ dropped.

Nothing earth shattering in this article, other than identifying the US Attorney who has been handed the case. Routine spin, but it means nothing to anyone not gullible enough to believe the NY Times' spin. It is a clear sign that the OIG report included criminal referrals!