Let's go ahead and address the Democrat talking point that "the falsified evidence didn't effect the validity of the application."
My response:
(1) Then why did he feel like needed to falsify the evidence? As a lawyer, and a member of the FBI, he had to have known how dangerous and wrong this was... why did he do it if it wasn't necessary to get the application across the finish line? What was the motive, if the application would have been approved either way? Was he just bored?
(2) If you take a bite of an apple and find its rotten, you don't just assume the rest of the apple is probably okay. Instead you assume the parts that you can't see may be rotten as well. Similarly, when you can prove that the FBI is falsifying evidence in one aspect of an investigation, you have to assume that they've done it in other aspects but you just haven't caught them yet.
(3) That is their interpretation, trying to limit the damage. Other people my find that the application likely wouldn't have been approved but for the falsified evidence.
Why give an expected release date of the report and give the left the chance to leak details about the report (already happening)? Now we're going to get a thousand articles claiming that the changes made to the FISA did not affect the validity of the overall application, which is complete horseshit. But none of that matters when you give the opposition a month to get their narrative out there to soften any damning blow the OIG report might offer. Idiots.
Let's go ahead and address the Democrat talking point that "the falsified evidence didn't effect the validity of the application."
My response: (1) Then why did he feel like needed to falsify the evidence? As a lawyer, and a member of the FBI, he had to have known how dangerous and wrong this was... why did he do it if it wasn't necessary to get the application across the finish line? What was the motive, if the application would have been approved either way? Was he just bored? (2) If you take a bite of an apple and find its rotten, you don't just assume the rest of the apple is probably okay. Instead you assume the parts that you can't see may be rotten as well. Similarly, when you can prove that the FBI is falsifying evidence in one aspect of an investigation, you have to assume that they've done it in other aspects but you just haven't caught them yet. (3) That is their interpretation, trying to limit the damage. Other people my find that the application likely wouldn't have been approved but for the falsified evidence.
Why give an expected release date of the report and give the left the chance to leak details about the report (already happening)? Now we're going to get a thousand articles claiming that the changes made to the FISA did not affect the validity of the overall application, which is complete horseshit. But none of that matters when you give the opposition a month to get their narrative out there to soften any damning blow the OIG report might offer. Idiots.