You listening to yourself rn?

All his stories revolve around a single person in the Russia investigation who may have been targeted incorrectly. The rest of the investigation turned up a lot of people going to jail, but there were errors in one case.

Source[2] is about someone adding the annotation "not a source" to an email about the person (not forging an entire email out of thin air) when asked to check if that person was a source. Everyone involved believes that was an innocent error, probably summarizing the contents of the email they got back when they forwarded it to someone else. That is, A asked B to ask C if someone was a source. C emailed back to B who added the line "not a source" and forwarded it on to A. Turns out A was a source.

His sources [0] [1] explicitly says that there was no evidence it was politically motivated. The second paragraph of [1] is:

> The inspector general found no evidence that the Russia probe was launched for political reasons but did conclude that the FBI’s FISA process fell “far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate,’” according to the extensive report.

I see the same argument attacking the credibility of the whistleblower who was a business partner of Hunter Biden when they received money from the Chinese energy company CEFC - "oh your whistleblower was indicted by the DOJ so he has no credibility" - well, the accusation begs the question that the Republicans are complaining about in the first place, namely why wasn't Hunter Biden similarly indicted for the same FARA violations as his business partner who's blowing the whistle on his lack of indictment? It's flawed logic. You can't cover up your crimes by arresting the criminal you did the crimes with and then saying he's got no credibility because he's a criminal.