Thread by @tracybeanz: "THREAD: Here is the Eric Garner/FBI/NYPD/Epstein story in a quick summary 1. Before the election, the NYPD was investigating Anthony Weiner […]"


THREAD: Here is the Eric Garner/FBI/NYPD/Epstein story in a quick summary

1. Before the election, the NYPD was investigating Anthony Weiner for his sexting with an underage girl. They got a search warrant for his computer.

2. While they were exploring his computer, they found the folder labeled "Insurance Policy" When they looked at what was in that folder they were horrified. The NYPD reports it to the FBI. The FBI sends it up the chain to McCabe. He SITS ON IT. This happens in or around 10/2016

3. Erik Prince goes on Breitbart radio in November of 2016. In his interview he states that what they found on the laptop is horrific, and that there are other indictments that are ready in the case- he states democrat politicians are implicated, there is (cont)

4. (cont) money laundering, and information about BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton travelling to Epstein Island. He states that the officers at the NYPD and in the FBI were getting angry nothing was being done and were ready to go public because they felt there wouldn't be justice.

5. There were reports that what was found on the laptops made officers cry. During the interview, Prince says that the DOJ threatened that if they leak what was found, the DOJ would indict the officers in the Garner case for murder.

6. McCabe recuses himself from the MYE. Comey reopens the investigation because of the Weiner laptop. Fast forward now to April of 2018. While IG Horowitz is investigating the Mid Year Exam, he also begins a spin off investigation into Andrew McCabe, because McCabe leaked (cont)

7. to the WSJ. McCabe was referred for criminal charges from this OIG investigation. When the report comes out, in it is a section where McCabe states that he was on a conference call with AG Lynch and the NY Field office of the FBI-- about LEAKING.

8. They state that they were admonishing them for leaking in the Eric Garner case and also accuse them of leaking the info McCabe was guilty of leaking to the WSJ, but none of that makes sense. A, they didn't know the info that was leaked to the WSJ and B.

9. I don't think they were leaking ABOUT the Eric Garner case, it is clear at this point they were being THREATENED about the Garner case BECAUSE of the laptop and what they were planning to do in letting the public know about the contents of it.

10. To add more credibility to the threats, Loretta Lynch swapped out the team investing this case from the DOJ right as this call was happening. There are news reports that this is likely done to put pressure on the DOJ to FIND a crime. The SI GJ failed to indict in the case.

11. Now we have corroboration of the Prince interview from the IG of the DOJ. Striking information. It gets better. On 7/6/19, in what appears to be a rehash of the old Palm Beach case. (STAY WITH ME) The DOJ STILL HAS the case of Pantaleo-the same case that Lynch swapped (cont)

12. out the investigative team for two years earlier. William Barr announces on 7/15/19, TEN DAYS after Epstein is arrested, and ONE DAY before the statute of limitations expires, that he will NOT be placing charges on Pantaleo in the case of Eric Garner. No criminal charges.

13. Today, the NYPD fires Officer. They tell him, and 13 minutes later announce it in a press conference. This happens a month after the DOJ declines prosecution. What point am I making?

14. I am speculating that all of this is not an accident. I am thinking as I put these pieces together that there is a chance that the DOJ acted on Epstein in part relying on the Weiner laptop. There are many reasons for this, but people get angry when I get too in the weeds.

15. Let's just say, given this story, I do not think it is a coincidence that the DOJ waited until 10 days after Epsteins arrest and the day before Statute of Limitations to expire to announce the officer would not be criminally charged, nor do I think it is a coincidence (cont)

16. what Horowitz told us about "Crimes against children", nor do I think it is coincidence that Bill and Hillary are mentioned by Prince in going to Epstein island, nor do I think it is a coincidence that Horowitz corroborated Prince account about Lynch and the Garner case.

17. Shall I continue? You let me know. I hope this is more understandable for all of you and I apologize for getting too far into the weeds. I just would rather SHOW YOU the evidence straight and narrow than have you just trust me.

For context: in the MYE report there is a section about how the potential for leaking influences the FBI and Comey’s decision to send the letter to Congress stating they are reopening the Clinton email investigation. The section explains how high level staff at the FBI (cont)

felt that if they didn’t open it back up, NYO would leak the fact that they had found the information.

More: Agents working the case don’t understand why the Weiner laptop emails would be so significant, why they were handled in this manner, and why Comey would choose to alert Congress. They are puzzled. In the context of the story we are talking about in this thread (cont)

it may make sense if upper level FBI are briefed on actual content and are worried about leaks. Other agents may not have been aware of those details:

Here Lynch talks about the possibility of leaks should Comey not notify Congress - she’s speaking about what was conveyed to her. I’m waiting for the part where they talk about the phone call with NY office before McCabe recuses:

Lynch and Comey have a meeting about leaks from the NY office and about the agents there and their feelings about Clinton

At this point it would be irresponsible of me not to point out that clearly there was a leak issue in the NY field office. The call with McCabe and Lynch before his recusal and admonishment for leaks doesn’t seem to appear - yet - is there the possibility that they (cont)

The call from Lynch to the Field office is very important and seems to be blatantly avoided in this report (so far) even though it was mentioned in McCabes leak report and occurs on 10/26. There is obvious misdirection occurring.

From the OIG report into McCabe leaking to Barrett of the WSJ- the report that resulted in his termination. Pay careful attention here.