Old Mr Dangerous said

Lol, no. You're insane. Anyone that acts like her in public should be either euthanized or studied.

I was trying to be humorous. You said earlier "Even worse than Trump supporters are the ones who say shit like “well let’s just see how he does!"" .. So my reply of "let’s just see how she does" was supposed to invoke laughter. 

Oh well, Maybe I am "out of touch" :P

Speaking of Q conspiracy theories... 

Weren't you posting about the "alphabet wars" and how the FBI was Anti-Trump and some news was supposed to come out around this time proving it?

The texts were revealed in the inspector general Michael Horowitz's highly anticipated report on the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation. The report, published Monday, debunked many of Trump's conspiracy theories about anti-Trump bias among top brass at the FBI and the Justice Department.

Pigg said
Speaking of Q conspiracy theories... 

Weren't you posting about the "alphabet wars" and how the FBI was Anti-Trump and some news was supposed to come out around this time proving it?

The texts were revealed in the inspector general Michael Horowitz's highly anticipated report on the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation. The report, published Monday, debunked many of Trump's conspiracy theories about anti-Trump bias among top brass at the FBI and the Justice Department.

  

Wrong report. OIG report is not the one "we" have been waiting for. We are waiting on 2 reports. Durham's and the original one we have been waiting on ... Huber's (not so much a report as a list of indictments - though Durham's report has now changed to a criminal investigation) . The OIG's was exactly what it was supposed to be. It was a report on the FISAs mainly and the recommendations to the FBI to correct procedures where they broke policy.

I am not sure it "debunks" anything. ... The full report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

This report was only supposed to be about the four FISA Applications (starting with Carter Page ) and the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. That is exactly what it was. It determined 17 instances of problems and suggested 10 changes to policy to prevent this from happening again. It was not supposed to do more than that. 

Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation, or specific judgment calls made during the course of an investigation, where those decisions complied with or were authorized by Department rules, policies, or procedures. ... The question we considered was not whether a particular investigative decision was ideal or could have been handled more effectively, but rather whether the Department and the FBI complied with applicable legal requirements, policies, and procedures in taking the actions we reviewed or, alternatively, whether the circumstances surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on inaccurate or incomplete information, or considerations other than the merits of the investigation. 

This is exactly what the report was and what it did.

Chapter 2 (to long to post) is about the laws and regulation regarding investigations and FISA. After reading that, the rest should becomes clear. It dictates what is allowed and not allowed.

We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order. 

Yet this is what they had determined about the Steel Dosier and his sources...

The primary sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/ her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest." The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she "takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/ her] with 'a grain of salt."'

So the central and essential part in the decision for seek the FISA came from that.

So how did the FISA make it though the FISA courts?

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;
2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and
"may engage in some embellishment" and [redacted].....[/redacted]
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File - Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications.
Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications.

The bulk of the rest of the report describes the procedures that were followed correctly and exactly which policies and procedures were not followed or broken in the 7 omissions and inaccuracies in the first FISA and the addition 10 in the other 3 FISAs. It also goes into Comey's, Page's, Strozk's and the Orhs' involvement.

As they state in their long introduction, they could only go with information in agency possession and with witnesses, could not subpoena or compel testimony. Nor could they criticize the decision of persons involved or recommend any indictments. That is not the stated purpose of the report.  From the information they could gather which was incomplete (several key documents required for the FISA application have gone missing and have not been recovered - as stated in the report 10 times) and in some cases found to be modified ("We determined that the OGC Attorney did not accurately convey, and in fact altered, the information he received from the other agency.") - they determined the 17 issues which lead to the reports recommendation for an audit of the FISA process along with 9 other recommendations.

Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted NSD's Office of Intelligence in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information. We found that the offered explanations for these serious errors did not excuse them, or the repeated failures to ensure the accuracy of information presented to the FISC. We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny. We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.

It's a very good report. If the FBI follows the OIG recommendations, it will prevent FISAs from being used in the manner that they were. 

As the report suggests, none of the FISAs would have been granted if not for the omissions and alterations to the information used to obtain the FISAs that this report uncovered.

That said, with the information that was presented at the time to to the FISC, the FISC did nothing wrong in granting the FISA based on the information (with omissions and alterations) provided. They could only go with what they were given.