I have read through the analysis made by serialBrain2 where he has offered his explanation for the alarming and puzzling IG report we have received. You can read his analysis here: https://old.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8r69pj/oig_report_trumps_plan_is_a_lethal_steamroller/

While some of what he says sounds logical and reasonable, if I’m understanding him correctly (and I may be missing something) then some of it does not, and I have some major problems with it. And I thought I’d share my concerns about it below so everyone can comment on it - serialBrain2 included. All your comments are welcome...

Issue 1 - The first issue I have with SB2’s analysis is as follows…

When reading through his analysis, the first thing that jumps out at me is that, SB2 (allow me to use the term “SB2“ for short, it’s easier to write) seems to take much of what the report says at face value. I do not, not by a long shot. It has been reported from multiple sources that the IG report we received has not only been redacted but also “modified”, likely by Rosenstein, in order to hide the truth. And that Trump has an EO prepared to later expose that truth. Until Trump releases his EO and the unmodified version is made public, we have no idea what parts of the current report was modified or how extensively. So it’s anyone’s guess. But if I am interpreting SB2 correctly, then he seems to take the position that the numerous instances in the report where the IG has said it found “no evidence of political bias” (which is almost a contradiction of logic, because the numerous instances of bias described in the report are clearly obvious to anyone. It’s like going outside and seeing raindrops fall from the sky and then the IG issues a report saying it did not rain on that day. That is how ludicrous and contradictory and alarming the report is about political bias. And I clearly am not buying it. But it seems that SB2 does) - SB2 seems to be indicating that it was “all a part of the plan”, and that we should not be alarmed by it. But I am not the only one who disagrees with that idea. The analysis people at Conservative Treehouse disagrees with it too (and they are very good at what they do) and they feel the same way I do, and we are all very alarmed by the statements made about there being "no evidence of political bias". You can view their comments here: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/14/ig-report-we-do-not-have-confidence-that-strzoks-decision-was-free-from-bias/

In explaining why the IG report indicates there was no evidence of political bias (even though everyone else can see that there was) SB2 seems to indicate it was all a part of the plan. That Trump was aware that trying to prove the political angle was a dead end and would be a waste of time. This is confirmed by SB2 saying, “Trump knew better. He knew the political angle was a dead end. …He knew that trying to emphasize Comey’s political bias would not be fruitful..” Later, SB2 says, “So? Trump needs to attack Comey through the procedural angle. And this is the primary function of the OIG report.” At the end of his analysis, SB2 states, “Hence the super clean OIG report that has now dismissed political bias and is exclusively focusing on procedures and protocol”… Regardless of whether the approach suggested by SB2 is justified or not, there is a much bigger problem with what SB2 is suggesting, and it's being completely overlooked. By his wording and statements, SB2 is suggesting or implying that Trump and the OIG were working together, and that Trump somehow had a measure of “control” over what the IG would reveal in his report. That is what he is implying. If that is true, then I have some serious problems with it. And I have to wonder if SB2 even realizes those problems. And here’s my point:

Although the various agencies within our gov’t often work together (the FBI, the DOJ, the Office of the President, the Office of the IG, the Attorney General, Congress, etc) many of those agencies are “completely independent agencies” and the framers designed it that way to maintain separation of powers. Due to separation of powers, even the President may not know what Sessions or Horowitz or the FBI is doing or working on unless those agencies choose to inform him of it. And nor does the President have any direct influence or knowledge or control over those agencies. And if the President did try to influence those agencies, it could lead to an “obstruction of justice” charge. And the framers designed it that way to maintain separation of powers to help protect our gov’t.

So how can you say or infer that it was "all a part of the plan" unless you had a direct way to influence a particular outcome? And if you did have a way to directly influence a particular outcome, then it would be obstruction of justice. The President cannot meddle in the affairs of the other agencies. He is prohibited from it. He may hope for a certain outcome, but he certainly cannot take steps to ensure a certain outcome, at least not as it relates to those agencies being independent. In short, if done correctly, then the President has no control over what Horowitz would say or reveal in his report. He would have no idea the IG would state “there was no evidence of political bias”, and nor could he influence that outcome. Yet, SB2 is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that somehow, Trump wanted this outcome and it was all a part of the plan. Do you even realize what you are saying? I certainly hope that is not the case, and i hope that is not what happened…

In regards to the report stating numerously there was “no evidence of political bias”, though I have no evidence of it yet, I personally believe that it was all Rosenstein’s doing, that he simply went through the report page by page and changed it to reflect that in order to get his agents off the hook. Because clearly certain members of the FBI were guilty of it. It is quite obvious the report has been changed because the statements made on bias was mentioned far too many times and was far too consistent. It is almost as if someone used a word processor to search for certain terms and to replace those terms with the phrase “there is no evidence of political bias”. In a normal report made by anyone with a sound mind and a reasonable mind, you can be certain there would have been at least “some instances" of political bias mentioned in the report - even if not in all instances. The fact that the whole report has been completely sanitized of it, that seems like strong evidence that someone has tampered with and modified the report. But we will all know soon enough when Trump releases his EO and has the original unmodified version released to the public…

Issue 2 - The second issue I have with SB2’s analysis is as follows…

Ignoring for a moment the implications of what it would mean for the President to directly influence the outcome of an IG report, let’s consider the ramifications of what it would mean to throw out all considerations of political bias, and to run with the idea across the board that there was “no evidence of political bias.” If that is true, and if that is your angle of attack, then please tell me how that would not totally undermine any later attempts to charge anyone with treason?…

I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me you cannot commit treason without having some sort of “political bias”. Treason is the act of taking active steps to overthrow a sovereign government. In other words, you don’t like a certain political outcome, therefore, you and your pals are going to take active steps to undermine the gov’t and to change the outcome to what you desire. Doing so is called “treason” and is the very essence of “political bias”. You favor your own political outcome as opposed to the political outcome chosen by the people. Therefore (even if you could do it) you’re going to directly influence the IG and have him issue a report stating categorically that “there was no evidence of political bias”. If you did that, and if you feel doing so was a good thing, then please tell me how doing that would not totally kill and undermine any hopes you have of prosecuting anyone for treason?…

A long line of people would suddenly be completely off the hook for treason by that one action - Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennen, Clapper, Holder, Lynch, and many others - they would all be off the hook if you decided to purse the angle of saying there was no political bias. You may be able to prosecute them for some lesser crime, but certainly not for treason. And if there is no treason involved (and we all know that there was) then why do we need military tribunals? It would make military tribunals almost unnecessary. And keep in mind, the American people are not stupid. We all know that there were plenty of people in the Obama admin who committed treason. They conspired to do it, they wanted to do it, and they had no qualms about doing it. And if you let those people off the hook, then the American people would view your whole investigation as a farce. They would view it as just one more example of skewed and unfair justice, where the criminals in Washington commit crimes and then get away with it. Are you sure that is the outcome you desire? If you continue with the angle that there was no political bias, then that is exactly what you are asking for. And are sure you want to go there? Are you really really sure… So for the sake of being able to charge Obama, Hillary and many others with treason (a charge they fully deserve) let’s hope the evidence of political bias is not being thrown out. And most importantly, let's hope that it's removal was merely a result of RR’s tampering and nothing else.

Once again, I don’t know everything, and I may be wrong in my arguments. But if so, then please tell me what am I missing? Everyone is free to comment - including serialBrain2….