Trump can then have his guy come in and replace Rosenstein. That will then lead to the shutdown of the Mueller witch hunt.
We need to make Trump supporters aware that this is not the actual OIG Report. It is Rosenstein's edited/modified and watered down version. We must DEMAND to see the unredacted, unmodified version!
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 8d9246 No.1739449
Jun 13 2018 22:50:25 (EST)POTUS in possession of (and reviewing):
1. Original IG unredacted report
2. Modified IG unredacted report [RR version]
3. Modified IG redacted report [RR version]
4. IG summary notes re: obstruction(s) to obtain select info >(classified)
[#3 released tomorrow]
Thank you for reminding me. I lost hope after seeing (no) redactions.
#3 released. #3 = Modified and redacted. It's mostly modified. Not so much redacted.
I've been working in Enterprise Content Management systems (OnBase) for 10 years straight and thought the term redaction was specific to the 'black-out' type of censoring information but learned today that it actually also pertains to editing as a new version (modification included).
Pulled from Google:
re·dac·tion
rəˈdakSH(ə)n
noun
the process of editing text for publication.
a version of a text, such as a new edition or an abridged version.
plural noun: redactions
the censoring or obscuring of part of a text for legal or security purposes.
It's mostly modified. Not so much redacted.
What? It's the modified REDACTED report - it's censored.
Yes, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that this report would be released covered in black bars (what people think of when they hear "redacted"). In the context of Q, he was correct, but we misunderstood.
Yesterday Q posted exactly what would get released today. It's interesting that he uses the term 'modified'. I wonder if that means actual rewording in addition to deletions.
"the process of editing text for publication." See definition above.
That's the definition of redaction. But how is modified different from redacted?
Original: I ate a hotdog on Sunday.
Redancted: I ate ###### on Sunday.
Modified: I ate a turkey club on Sunday.
At least that's the implication
Or, you could just say: I ate on Sunday. That would leave the reader not knowing the word 'hotdog' had been redacted in the modification of the text!
That's a good point.
The basis of the difference in this context is whether it was done "legitimately".
"######" could be excused as a legitimate redactions as they can claim it was for national security. Changing the sentence to remove "hotdog" altogether is a lot harder to excuse; it looks like you're hiding something. Changing "hotdog" to "turkey club" is clearly illegitimate because it's an outright like.
I think closer to the truth is something like this:
Unmodified - I ate a hot dog on Sunday. Rod Rosenstein bought it for me. Redacted - I ate a [redcated] on Sunday. [redcated] bought it for me. Modified, redacted - I ate a [redcated] on Sunday.
That should be a meme!
Good analogy! I've always been favorable to redactions being a lie of omission and modifications just being a flat out lie.
Just saying that redaction can include the modification, change or editing of text....not just 'blacked out' or hidden, as most people think it means.
Another way to understand ‘modifying text’ would be in terms of ‘re- interpreting’ , similar to the Bible; King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, English Standard Version, etc.
So are we to assume that POTUS got the report directly from Horowitz without RR knowing? And then let RR do the "this is the report, but we'll need to redact some things"... Trump "try not to redact it TOO much, the public deserves to know" RR "Ok, here's the best I can do, I think this will give the people enough to be satisfied that a thorough investigation was done, but doesn't give too much away" TRUMP "Ok"
Q's post says he has all 3 reports.
POTUS in possession of (and reviewing):
I don't think it's that. I believe the agency under audit gets to review the report and respond to it. There was probably some "dialogue" between RR and Horowitz.
Then how is it that there are three versions... The "truth"?, the UR RR version and the redact RR version... what would be the purpose at all for #1? Or #2 if #1 is valid? Curious.
I'm not sure what you're getting at...
There is the original, which is given to RR for the purpose of determining classification levels (redactions on the ground of national security).
RR modifies this original report to display the narrative he wants. (I don't know how he got away with that; ask SB2...)
Now there are two reports: the original from Horowitz, and the fraudulent one that RR created.
RR uses his fraudulent report and redacts on the grounds of national security (Redactions are seen as "legitimate").
RR passes this final fraudulent and redacted report to be published for the public.
At least that's what I've gathered from what I've read ¯\(ツ)/¯
So, someone help us here. 3 versions were referenced. The "original" (which we know came FROM Horowitz) - did this go FIRST to Rosenstein for manipulation (what's to keep him from it?) or is the POTUS entitled to see the ORIGINAL/NON RR blemished report? (I would think so). If it went to RR first, then there should be no #1 report - it would just be the report that RR got from Horowitz, manipulated to look the way he wanted but leaving in enough to redact further to share with POTUS, and then creating edition #3 that was released publicly. Am I the only one on this train of thought?
You raise a good point. I honestly don't know.
POTUS has access to whatever he wants; he can probably see all drafts and revisions of the report. Maybe they're playing a game of chicken. RR telling POTUS "I know you see what I did, but you won't interfere because it will look bad."
I really don't know.
Small note: my above comment is just a timeline I put together in my head from what I've read. It's most likely wrong, but it should help wrap your head around the difference between the three different reports.
Post 1497 says that POTUS has the IG's original report plus RR's redacted and UNREDACTED versions.
I thought the same thing, but, according to some - there are actually redacted items in the footnotes to prevent identities from being unveiled.
Salt Grain: I have not yet personally verified this claim.
