Calling bullshit on this Are_we_sure troll yet again

The initial allegations turned out to be office gossip leaked by diplomatic security officer who did not work the case and was not familiar with the details. She was claiming a cover up, but the IG found that the allegations were garbage and they quickly dismissed them.

This guy just regurgitates the official IG coverup statement ("*nothing to see here folks . . . move along . . . *")

So, here's what actually happened:

"after only two days of preliminary inquiry, the agent was directed to stop any further investigation into the matter, because of a decision by senior Department officials to treat the matter as a “management issue.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-20/watergate-style-break-covered-shocking-wave-clinton-state-department-scandals

So the security team did not determine the falsity of the charges in 2 days.

Here's what the IOG's report actually said:

"before the preliminary inquiry was halted, only one of multiple potential witnesses on the embassy’s security staff had been interviewed. Additionally, DS never interviewed the Ambassador and did not follow its usual investigative protocol of assigning an investigative case number to the matter or opening and keeping investigative case files".

In other words, the agent had only managed to interview one person before he got yanked out, and someone prevailed upon the security team to not record a case number, and to get rid of the files.

The security didn't prove squat, either about Howard Gutman's innocence or his guilt. Their investigation got pulled out from under them before the investigator could get much of anything done.

Senior State Department staff intervened , they pulled the investigating agent out of Belgium, and they changed the issue from an investigation to a 'management issue,' where everything could be handled internally at senior levels.

See how the sleight-of-hand works, readers?

The Howard Gutman matter did get out of the security team and into the highest levels of the Secretary's office. Big time.

Senior department officials got involved in pulling the investigator out Belgium and doing the paperwork to convert the investigation into a 'management issue' to be handled by senior managers.

In fact, it went so high that it was Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy, who initiated the intervention.

The Under Secretary of State for Management sits on the President's Management Council, and reports to Counselor to the Secretary of State Cheryl Mills at that time) who reports directly to the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at that time.)

When Howard Gutman was flown over to Washington to discuss the charges,** it was Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills who interviewed him personally.**

This shit was being handled at the highest levels of the State Department.

And if anyone actually believe that Cheryl Mills didn't report the Gutman affair in detail to Hillary Clinton, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you . . .

If interested readers would like to read the report issued by the Inspector General's office, you can get it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141017160310/http:/oig.state.gov/documents/organization/233250.pdf

In that report you will find no statement that "the charges of interference were mainly due to office gossip, where the people NOT involved in the particular investigation made the charges"

---

So, what's the deal with this Are_we_sure person?

It doesn't seem like a bot could do such focused trolling? But how does a real flesh & blood person get so desperately pathetic as to post such transparently ridiculous BS?

And who obviously doesn't read original sources?

Whats up with that?

I'm not arguing anon. Not at all. Just trying to figure out why this hasn't been investigated at all.

See the links below by swmbo - all are from 7 months ago or later. It was never here on voat when there was still proper digging being done.

Well now I feel vindicated having left in April - all the real researchers were gone anyway because it didn't instigate any digging whatsoever.

This very relevant video shows up in April, but none of the comments even really notices. All I could find was this one:

Holy crap, and it's MSM, why hasn't more of this been made before? Doesn't prove anything, but it could potentially be a significant piece of evidence to counter all the deniers saying PG couldn't possibly be true.

Yes there it is. But 7 months ago, and I took a sabbatical from PG in April so that explains.

Still no digging at all then. The whistleblower was supposed to go to Congresman Ed Royce to demand an investigation.

Also different case, just cp, no pedophilia or trafficking. Could very well be connected somehow, but this whistleblower's case went far higher up.

And isn't it odd that this video/case of the pedo ambassador surfaces only now?

I’ve seen this quite a few times. Didn’t ever get much traction though.

But this is a different case even than Silsby. I can't remember ever seeing this, or us digging into it. Am I wrong?