On June 14th, 2018, the DOJ Inspector General delivered a 568 page report on the DOJ and FBI handling of the Clinton investigation.

Those who reviewed the full report noted the executive summary was entirely disconnected from the body of material. Additionally, beyond the content disconnection, there was transparent coordination from the institutions of the DOJ and FBI which highlighted an unnerving sense of ongoing corrupt intent.

The IG report on FBI Clinton bias was released to the public Thursday June 14th, at approximately 1:00pm EDT. Within 13 minutes Trey Gowdy released a public statement on the content. Within 90 minutes the report was downloaded and shared by most media and investigation followers. Within two hours the FBI announced a national press conference by FBI Director Chris Wray for 5:30pm EDT. Four short hours after release.

When FBI Director Chris Wray approached the podium to announce the Inspector General had found “no evidence of political basis influencing the investigation”, but he was going to have everyone in the FBI undergo “bias training”, no-one at the press conference had read the full report. No-one had time.

The 5:30pm presser looked like a strategic political move to capture the oxygen for the 6:00pm EDT nightly news lead and defend the institutions.

As the hours progressed, and more of the actual content of the report was able to be reviewed, it became obvious the ‘executive summary’ was written specifically to dilute the most damaging information. Additionally, the full IG report was/is a challenging read.

In hindsight, and with full acceptance of a highly political special counsel investigation happening in the background of the FBI and DOJ, it became more obvious corrupt and sketchy officials within both institutions had a vested interest in the report content. The same “small group” is at the epicenter of both reports.

In short, the 2018 IG report of DOJ/FBI conduct during the Clinton investigation was heavy on narrative engineering; contained the fingerprints of institutional participants focused on justification (ie. ‘small group’); and was devoid of accountability for the bigger issues outlined within it.

The question becomes: will the 2019 IG report on DOJ/FBI handling of the FISA application process suffer the same outcome?

For the upcoming report the diminutive influence of Jeff Sessions is gone; the institutional protective influence of Rod Rosenstein is gone; and the corrupt intents of Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller are gone. Unfortunately, on the FBI side, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente remain; along with the 40 “rank and file” FBI investigators who participated in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 operations.

Will Attorney General Bill Barr be more willing to allow the IG report to shine a light on DOJ/FBI issues and politically manufactured FISA submissions?

If the intent is to build public confidence in both institutions a third IG report without accountability is not likely to advance the goal. And, as we see with the Papadopoulos entrapment operation and the recent redactions to the Kavalec report, the corrupt ‘rank and file’ are very clearly still present.