,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Remember back in June 2018 when everyone who actually read the IG report noted: "The executive summary conclusion don't match the 568 page report content"...
Remember that?
scribd.com/document/38180…
Remember that?
scribd.com/document/38180…
There was obviously a sub-set, a likely "higher tier", of FBI officials who wrote the executive summary, and it was detached from the content of evidence from the lower-tier investigation itself.
What I would argue is: we are now seeing visible signs (consequences) from within the 568 pages of evidence. However, the DOJ/FBI upper-tier officials need to dilute that evidence to retain the validity of the executive summary conclusions.
That's why "DOJ declined to prosecute"
That's why "DOJ declined to prosecute"
My point is they can't prosecute on evidence of behavior from within a report where the conclusion was no evidence of "intentional wrongdoing".
Does that make sense?
Does that make sense?
Think about how easy it would be for a defense attorney. Take the report, which outlines the events for which the client is being prosecuted, and simply say: "the conclusion of the FBI investigation said "no evidence of intentional wrongdoing" so why is my client being charged?"
