, 32 tweets, 10 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Ok let's see what all the fuss is about over this New York Times propaganda article trying to get out ahead of the upcoming IG FISA Abuse report.

THREAD

nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/…
According to the New York Times, the report is expected to sharply criticize FBI employees, including bureau leaders, over their handling of the Trump/Russia investigation. They then claim it will absolve them of acting out of bias.
The bias and hatred towards President Trump is already well documented, so I wouldn't put much stock in the claim that it will "absolve them" of bias, the NYT seems to be playing word games there much like the last Horowitz report was clear on their bias just not on the impact.
Horowitz found errors and omissions in documents related to the Carter Page FISA warrant, and many of those are already well documented including the fact that they never informed the court that Clinton paid for the dossier or that Steele was the source for the Yahoo News article
Clinesmith is what yesterdays leak was about:

"Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said."

See this thread for more information about him.

The NYT says that Horowitz will find that the overall effort to seek the FISA on Carter Page was "sloppy and unprofessional" and sharply criticize one of the agents involved as "careless" and denounce the poor coordination between the FBI and DOJ during the investigation.
I'm guessing that paragraph is where a lot of the spin is coming from, Bruce Ohr worked for the DOJ and coordinated with the FBI as a backchannel to Steele even after they fired him, all well documented, and sounds like they are trying to downplay that as "poor coordination" lol
According to the anonymous sources implicated in the report, it "debunks a series of conspiracy theories" although the New York Times admits they are taking their word for it and have not reviewed the draft of the report themselves.

So far, this article is completely worthless.
This is the part the NYT is screaming about the loudest and are playing the most word games with. They say that Horowitz made "no finding" of politically biased actions by McCabe, Comey, and Strzok. That does not say he didn't FIND BIAS on their parts, which we know they have.
It also says that they will be criticized for their actions and seems intently focused on that one line about no findings of biased actions. Their actions could have been criminal or negligent but he may not have ruled conclusively about the bias being the main factor either way.
The New York Times goes on to say that the report will further stoke the debate over the FBI's handling of the Trump/Russia probe, and it wouldn't do that if it cleared these people of all wrongdoing. They're not telling us what they know that is damaging to their narratives.
Want to see some fancy spin? The report is apparently going to fault the FBI for not only what was included in the FISA app but also exculpatory information that was left out of it. The NYT refers to that in the most bland mundane way possible when that is extremely important.
Clinesmith is in big trouble. This isn't a minor thing. He took an email that had factual assertions from another federal agency and added his own information at the end to alter the content, while making it look like it came from the original author.
That email was used in preparation of the FISA application and it apparently is a big enough deal that it is still classified and may not even be released with the report. Attempts to downplay this as nothing are extremely premature.
Clinesmith also worked for the Mueller team and was removed when Horowitz found biased text messages against President Trump. Also worked on the Clinton email probe. How many documents did he falsify in the three biggest cases in modern political history? Durham will find out.
The NYT sources (who are implicated in the report) have no idea whether or not Horowitz will say that the FISA would have been approved without all the issues, Horowitz may not even have made a conclusion either way, but it's apparent they don't know what's in the full report.
Here's some more fancy propaganda. The NYT talks about the Trump interview on Fox & Friends today where he says what we all know happened and then claims "the accounts of Horowitz findings don't support that assertion." Not the report itself, just the info from their sources.
They say Horowitz will find that they had enough to meet the low "legal standard" for opening the investigation. Meeting a low standard for opening an investigation is a lot different than saying it should have been opened or that the info that started it was legitimate.
Also, saying that Mifsud wasn't an FBI informant shouldn't be news to anyone, but this does not say anything about what other intelligence agencies, domestic or foreign, he may have been associated with. So it undercuts nothing.
According to the NYT none of the evidence used to open the investigation came from the dossier or the CIA, they are going full in on saying that the reason given for opening the investigation was Papadopoulos.
We all know that the FBI used the dossier and Christopher Steele heavily in their investigation and FISA application and this is just an attempt by the New York Times to downplay all of that by using a very specific talking point about the "official start" of the probe.
The NYT is REALLY spinning here. They say that Horowitz won't criticize the FBI for using opposition research but he will be blasting them for lying about Steele's credentials and track record. And most certainly also for hiding the fact it was funded by Clinton.
Also very interesting to note that in this section of the article, the New York Times is relying on "questions asked" during the investigation about Steele and his role and not on that part of the reports draft. Because Steele wouldn't be one of the people allowed to review it.
One of the major parts of the entire report, having to do with the dossier and the FISA, remains unclear to the New York Times because of the fact that Steele wasn't able to review it and their sources weren't either lol. Kind of a big thing for them to be in the dark about huh?
The New York Times knows it's a huge deal that the FBI did not inform the FISA court about the Clintons paying for the dossier in the FISA renewal applications and gone from this article are any mentions of the conspiracy theory that Republicans funded it.
The New York Times allows their sources to defend the decision to not inform the FISA court about the Clinton funding of the dossier and offer nothing to refute those ridiculous statements. You can bet Horowitz report won't be so mild about that decision.
The New York Times sources also don't have any leaks regarding what Horowitz concluded about the Steele and Bruce Ohr back channel. So nothing about his conclusions on the dossiers impact and nothing about Ohr, pretty convenient lol. They are in the dark or not telling us.
The article ends with some wishful thinking by the New York Times that President Trump is looking past the report and waiting on Durham. Durham's probe became criminal based on this report, they're tied together and it means the report isn't a nothingburger or the end of this.
As far as first leaks trying to get out ahead of the report, this is pretty standard. The New York Times overhypes and carefully picks sentences about bias and the "official" start to the investigation while admitting they don't know some of the most substantial sections of it.
This is a blatant attempt to try to dull the impact and get people to not actually read the report, just like when the last report came out and they focused on one sentence about bias and tried to ignore the rest of the damning findings.
I am not dissuaded in the least bit by this and frankly, am laughing right now at how hard this article was hyped up lol. Even the article itself repeatedly says Horowitz will be highly critical about key parts of the investigation and FISA application.
So to anyone freaking out about this, maybe hold off until you actually see the report. The NYT sure hasn't read it and are using secondhand information from highly implicated sources to try to spin it as nothing. I'll be waiting to read it myself rather than trust them lol /end
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Shem Horne

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!