,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1) This IG result today 👇goes to the bigger question, and seems to be evidence of a prior prediction, as outlined back in late 2018. Explanation below.
2) If the DOJ Office of Inspector General found no intentional DOJ and FBI malfeasance in the June ’18 report covering the totality of the 2016 election; cont..
3) and no direct evidence of political bias within the decision-making of the officials being reviewed; cont...
4) what’s the likelihood of the same OIG finding malfeasance as it relates to DOJ/FBI *FISA activity* and the exact same people? 
5) The extensive OIG election-period report found no DOJ/FBI misconduct (only some bad judgement). There were no criminal referrals. There were recommendations for internal improvement, which FBI Director Wray said the FBI would implement.
6) It’s important to note the Office of Inspector General FISA review/investigation of potential FISA abuses (opened March 28th, 2018) was launched three months prior to the “Election Activity” final report in June 14th 2018. There was obvious investigative overlap.
7) However, the June 2018 report said “no evidence of intentional misconduct.”
8) The time frame covered by the “Election Activity” review (OIG report 2) and the “FISA Activity” review (OIG report 3) are the same. The topics are different (FISA being more specific), but the people under review and time-frame therein are identical.
9) If the OIG found no intentional corrupt activity in the June ’18 report (only bad judgement); no referrals were made; & time period/people are exactly the same; how can the OIG produce a post-facto FISA review report with substantively different conclusions? It seems unlikely.
10) I would caution everyone to consider that recent decisions by DOJ and FBI seem to indicate the answer.
11) /END
