V2hLe0ThslzRaV2

My statements purely state that the FBI is very aware of how to take actions and make statements that are true, but misleading. What is the issue is that the OIG took statements that were clearly meaningless -- but assigned meaning to them.

In fact, if you read the report, which includes these statements, "In the (FBI elite hacking unit) Chief’s view, the fact that he was not asked for help sooner was not a mistake in judgment or communication breakdown on CEAU’s part, but rather the result of a long-standing policy that the ROU Chief understood created a “line in the sand ”against using national security tools in criminal cases." -- which if true, given the events were a known terrorist attack, would have made the events a national security matter.

The FBI's chief of its elite hacking unit has a clear conflict of interest in stating what the status of hacking into the phone related to the San Bernadino shooting -- and unless the OIG confirmed the vendor's status at that point forensically, verbal statements to me are meaningless.

Saying that the vendor was "90 percent of the way toward a solution" could mean anything; for example, they had the hack, but were testing it to see if would work for all iPhone models.

Report clearly states he needed money and the captain though it was likely the company was going to screw him over based on verbal second-hand accounts of drinking under his watch.

Near the section you referenced it does state that the investigators checked the captain's most recent medical exam report.