ADDED: The NYT reports:
[T]he report paints an unflattering picture of one of the most tumultuous periods in the 110-year history of the F.B.I.... The report criticizes the conduct of F.B.I. officials who exchanged texts disparaging Mr. Trump during the campaign. The officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were involved in both the Clinton and Russia investigations, leading Mr. Trump’s supporters to suspect a conspiracy against him. Many of those text messages have been released, but the inspector general cites a previously undisclosed message in which Mr. Strzok says the F.B.I. “will stop” Mr. Trump, according to two of the officials.ALSO: CNN:
The inspector general said that, because of his views, Mr. Strzok may have improperly prioritized the Russia investigation over the Clinton investigation during the final weeks of the campaign. The F.B.I. officials “brought discredit” to themselves and sowed public doubt about the investigation. But the report did not cite evidence that Mr. Strzok had acted improperly or influenced the outcome of the investigation, the officials said....
The findings sharply criticize the judgment of Mr. Comey....
The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" and not affected by bias or other improper actions. But it said that senior leaders' handling of the Clinton case cast a cloud over the bureau and did lasting damage to the FBI's reputation.
"The damage caused by these employees' actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear (Clinton) investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence," the report states.
A key finding: Comey erred in his decision not to coordinate with his superiors at the Justice Department at key moments in the Clinton email investigation. Horowitz said that Comey was "extraordinary and insubordinate," and did not agree with any of his reasons for deviating from "well-established Department policies.",,,
The report found that the Strzok and Page texts "cast a cloud" over the credibility of the investigation, although they found no evidence "that these political views directly affected the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed."...
The report faults Lynch for her meeting with Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac. But it says there was no evidence that Lynch and Clinton discussed the investigation into Hillary Clinton or any other inappropriate discussions.
Posts
585 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 585 Newer› Newest»We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.
IOW, Comey didn't tell the appropriate lies. He was far too transparent in his assessment of Clinton's criminality. He made us look bad.
the wild left shit of the Democrats.
In looking back at my comment, I made a Freudian slip, I mean "left shift" but I dunno which is more accurate.
Autocorrect maybe ?
Ok, so if Comey’s actions were inappropriate and helped Trump get elected, does that mean he is Russian?
"Allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the Clinton interview as Clinton’s counsel, even though they also were fact witnesses, because the Midyear team determined that the only way to exclude them was to subpoena Clinton to testify before the grand jury, an option that we found was not seriously considered."
The report notes they do not second-guess discretionary decisions. Given the immediately following passage quoted below, if the IG won't second-guess, maybe everybody else should. WHY was it not seriously considered? Because of the optics, perhaps?
"We found no persuasive evidence that Mills’s or Samuelson’s presence influenced Clinton’s interview. Nevertheless, we found the decision to allow them to attend the interview was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy"
And so putting the pieces together that the IG refuses to, it can be inferred that HRC SHOULD have testified before the grand jury.
Interestingly as well, Rosenstein is blocking any potential testimony of the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok.
Once again, they are just trying to hold this whole thing together long enough to get past an election where in their dreams the dems take control and shut down any and all looks into any of these activities.
I agree. I'm having dinner with my daughter next week. I may ask her about the OIG report.
I've avoided rubbing this in but maybe it's time.
Wonder what else I'll find in the remaining 565 pages...
Comey is usurping authority!
The departed J. Edgar Hoover used to say, "Don't embarrass the Bureau."
Comey/McCabe have definitely embarrassed the Bureau.
When did the FBI and DOJ have any credibility? They’ve always acted like they were their own branch of government. Waco was 25 years ago. Anyone who thought the FBI and DOJ had reformed after Hoover and Watergate were out on notice. How about 9/11? Total failure of the FBI. The fucking 20th would be hijacker fell into their lap.
Robert Hansen? The anthrax investigation?
Fortunately, most law enforcement is at the local level. The FBI and DOJ should stick to investigating and prosecuting sports crimes like steroids in baseball and bribery in college basketball.
Thankfully most law enforcement is at the local level.
People like Strzok, Page, and McCabe are the career people who rise to the top in the FBI. Yates and Rosenstein in the DOJ.
That’s all we need to know. The good people get stuck or flushed out or quit. That’s the nature of bureaucracy.
"Sometimes shit just happens."
"In Hillary's bed it happens more than just sometimes."
Hillary: Uh oh...
Comey: Ew!
Lynch: I'm outta here.
Hillary: Jim, you have to clean this up.
Comey: But...
Hillary: Your country needs you Jim, now more than ever.
Comey: There's a higher purpose?
Hillary: The highest.
Page: [Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok: No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.
Consider the extent to which the response from Strzok would have affected everything - everything - that has happened since the first release of the Page/Strzok messages.
Of course the DOJ withheld it.
"Let’s stop pretending here was a deep state secret cabal to hurt Trump."
You mean like "we'll stop him"?
But we're told Strozk is not political.
Remember when the hack D press breathlessly proclaimed firing Comey was A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!"?
Good times.
Compare all of the OIG's statements when they don't think the FBI did anything wrong. Then look at this one: "The OIG’s conclusion that there is a need to change the “cultural attitude” regarding media contacts and leaks at the FBI is troubling."
So... yeah. Whitewashing is a good term for this report.
Hillary is a felon, many times over, and she will never pay for it.
Equal justice under the law? Not in The American Banana Republic.
And now it has been demonstrated that at least one foreign power gained access to at least 1 classified email on Clintons illegal server....even though the lefties swear no classified information was sent over the TlBathroom Server.
18 month investigation. The draft report was finished last October--meaning the investigation, on whole, was complete. Followed by 8 months of revisions and delays.
What do we find out?
An FBI official, who has long been fired, didn't quite follow policy, but not for nefarious reasons.
So, basically, the thrust of the report is: Things look really, really bad, but nothing bad happened, and we'll train harder to not make things look bad.
Textbook.
"The OIG’s conclusion that there is a need to change the “cultural attitude” regarding media contacts and leaks at the FBI is troubling."
The lesson here is: Lying and cheating are OK as long as you don't get caught doing it. Be sure that everyone's on the same page so there's no leaking. Remember that the Bureau is more important than the law or the American citizens.
@McCullough,
The FBI and DOJ should stick to investigating and prosecuting sports crimes like steroids in baseball and bribery in college basketball.
Don't forget about their excellent dogged assistance to Mr. Mueller in indicting the 13 Russian trolls who live in, Russia, where there is no extradition treaty, so there is no legal mechanism to bring them to the USA for trial.
Unless, of course, we kidnap the trolls.
Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
So, basically, the thrust of the report is: Things look really, really bad, but nothing bad happened, and we'll train harder to not make things look bad.
Textbook.
Exactly what Rod Rosenstien said the report would say in March.
Now, all of that is the FBI's response to the OIG report.
So, basically, the thrust of the report is: Things look really, really bad, but nothing bad happened, and we'll train harder to not make things look bad.
Nailed it,
"we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias" is a lawyerly way of seeming to say "we found that these decisions were not the result of political bias on Comey’s part," without actually saying that.
Nope. No more than I have determined no prosecutor would pursue this is the same as saying she did not break the law.
Political bias is in some respects a thought crime. Hard to prove unless someone puts down in writing something like we will make sure Trump never becomes President.
"even though he wasn’t motivated by politics …."
Total and complete BS!
And we waited months for this?
What about the point shaving by Strzok? That's obstruction of justice!!
Sessions better appoint a Special Counsel on Friday.
"Mistakes were made". And oh, by the way, here's a bucket of whitewash.
"... didn't quite follow policy"
Oh Brown Dog, you didn't.
Maybe you should change your name to Yellow Dog.
OIG regarding Comey's October 28, 2016 note to Congress:
"Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice. We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation as to why transparency was more important than Department policy and practice with regard to the reactivated Midyear investigation while, by contrast, Department policy and practice were more important to follow with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations.
Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment."
From a quick skim of the executive summary it is clear that the OIG did not draw inferences that you, I, and many others will think are obvious. If there was no "bias" (I don't believe that claim will stand up to scrutiny) then there was a high level of incompetence throughout the FBI/DOJ.
Here's a another little gem from the executive summary; "We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters".
....and who could this final recommendation in the executive summary refer to?
"We recommend that Department ethics officials include the review of campaign donations for possible conflict issues when Department employees or their spouses run for public office."
"even though he wasn’t motivated by politics …."
VIVA LA RESISTANCE!!!
Fox News reports, "Foreign actors” obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails -- including at least one email classified as “secret” -- according to a new memo from two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email."
And that's because she used a private server to run her bribery scheme. Someone has all the dirt on Hillary; all of the deleted emails.
And if anyone is listening, David Kendall kept a copy of the emails before he deleted them. He had to have an insurance policy so he didn't get stiffed by Hillary the criminal.
I am with Crimso. It appears that there a number of deductive leaps (more like baby steps) that the IG refused to make. Plenty of others are going to make them for him. I will give the OIG credit they have pointed out where the dead fish are, though they haven't volunteered to dig them up.
"Don't forget about their excellent dogged assistance to Mr. Mueller in indicting the 13 Russian trolls who live in, Russia, where there is no extradition treaty, so there is no legal mechanism to bring them to the USA for trial."
Some of them showed up in court and said "Bring it!" The company that was indicted which didn't exist did not show up.
Ha, I recall certain people here asking me if I would accept the IG reports conclusions when they came out, I said yes because I have no reason to think he’s not trustworthy. Now I should ask those people why aren’t you holding yourselves to the standard you wanted to hold me to, when you thought this report would go your way. I predicted this report would be a fizzle for you folks and all your high hopes, my goodness the pushback I got. I predict he next one will be one too and we will see some righty heads exploding even moreso than today.
The fix was in.
The fool thinks it's over.
Not by a long shot.
Member of the MEDIA bribed FBI officials, according to the IG report.
#integrity
“Mistakes were made".
Yes indeed. And they benefitted Trump, not Clinton.
Eh, I've said from the start nothing would happen to Clinton or her cronies. I'm just impressed how we reached that decision.
MEMBERS!
Multiple MSM people BRIBED FBI officials.
“Mistakes were made".
Yes indeed. And they benefitted Trump, not Clinton.
The mistakes originated and continued with Hillary.
Reading the actual texts of the testimony from FBI investigators into the email abuses is astonishingly hilariously frightening.
"...we asked why the investigators did not seek search warrants for the private accounts of Mills or Abedin. We learned that the SSA initially drafted a search warrant affadavit for Mills personal Gmail account, but it was never filed."
"..it was never filed."
Oh, well, then forget it. No biggee.
It's a natural thing to want to hash all of this out. But none of this reflects anything USA Huber may be doing. HRC was not acquitted. I doubt she'll pay the price that us deplorables would for breaking such laws, but she can't hide behind double jeopardy.
It wasn't the IG's place to build a criminal case. We'll have to wait and see whether Huber is a "reasonable" prosecutor or instead is one who believes lawbreakers should be punished.
... Have I missed any discussion of immunity granting or destruction of evidence? It feels like this is mainly about Stzork/Page's texts and Comey's statement, and not about the body of the actual investigation.
Read Trey Gowdy's opinion.
Here's a taste:
"The investigation was mishandled. The investigatory conclusions were reached before the end of the witness interviews. The July 5th press conference marked a serious violation of policy and process. And the letters to Congress in the fall of 2016 were both delayed in substance and unnecessary in form.
Moreover, the treatment afforded to former Secretary Clinton and other potential subjects and targets was starkly different from the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Voluntariness and consent in the former were replaced with search warrants, subpoenas, and other compulsory processes in the latter. Many of the investigators and supervisors were the same in both investigations but the investigatory tactics were not."
Perception issues uber alles. They want to be percieved as the Untouchables and the only honest men and women in DC. And now their last hope is redactions and removal of their own words with a mass Cover Up from the Democrat owned Media.
It figures that all remaining uncensored internet news has become the con men's #1 target.
“MEMBERS!
Multiple MSM people BRIBED FBI officials.”
LOL. Of course no link is provided.
"In an email to FBI Attorney 1 and the Lead Analyst dated March 25, 2016, Strzok listed “email accounts (thinking Mills Gmail account)” as an item that the FBI unsuccessfully sought from the prosecutors.Strzok, the SSA, and Agent 3 told us that Strzok advocated in favor of applying for the search warrant, but that the prosecutors rejected the affidavit in favor of a 2703(d) order, based on insufficient probable cause and privilege concerns."
-- "Privilege" concerns from the FBI? Laughable.
"I predicted this report would be a fizzle for you folks and all your high hopes, my goodness the pushback I got. I predict he next one will be one too and we will see some righty heads exploding even moreso than today."
John Huber. And I'm not moving the goalposts, I simply didn't mistake the first down markers for the goalposts in the first place.
When Huber says it's a nothingburger, then you can breathe easy.
Inga said...
Ha, I recall certain people here asking me if I would accept the IG reports conclusions when they came out, I said yes because I have no reason to think he’s not trustworthy. Now I should ask those people why aren’t you holding yourselves to the standard you wanted to hold me to...
Which conclusions are people here not accepting?
Mrs. Malaprop wrote: Trump should thank Comey for helping him win the election.
An honorable person gives credit where credit is due.
Trump should thank Hillary for helping him win the election.
Basically, after telling them they were investigating them, they asked them, "Do your personal accounts have any classified information," and when told no ... just believed them, and said: "Well, no probably cause then!"
@Inga You had better read the report, certainly the executive summary, before you claim this was a fizzle. There is some pretty damning stuff that is bound to lead to more problems for some of the individuals involved.
I don't think the OIG report is a fizzle at all. I think it is a treasure trove of material that will close the door on Mueller and much, much more.
”Yes indeed. And [the mistakes] benefitted Trump, not Clinton.”
”We learned that the SSA initially drafted a search warrant affadavit for Mills personal Gmail account, but it was never filed."
If nothing else, a lot of hopes for future employment were crushed today.
"They stated that unlike Sullivan, Mills and Abedin had not, based on the evidence they had reviewed, sent or received TS-SAP emails on their personal accounts, and these were the most sensitive emails discovered during the investigation."
-- Woops. Too bad it turns out Abedin *HAD* received emails on her personal account, possibly at that high a classification. Which they'd have known. If they'd put in a warrant. And gotten all of her devices. As we now know, thanks to Weiner sexting underaged girls.
Let's ask Althouse!!
Ann. Does this pass your smell test?
"Prosecutor 2 told us that Sullivan was treated differently from Mills and Abedin, because the information contained in the Top Secret email sent to Sullivan more clearly constituted classified information and NDI (“national defense information”) than the information contained in the emails sent or received by Mills and Abedin."
-- So, pretty much from the beginning they knew a crime had been committed (secret information being passed on non-secure devices)... but the FBI did nothing.
If you think Page/Strzok are isolated outliers, you've learned nothing.
Every time I hear "Page/Strzok" I get angry. Nothing but fall guys. Look at these two lovers! They hate Trump!
Don't bother to even think about the fact that the entire intelligence/law enforcement capabilities of the U.S. government was mobilized to stop Trump, and crush him if by some miracle they couldn't.
"Both Strzok and Anderson told us that, at the outset of the investigation, former Deputy Director Giuliano generally advised the team that the purpose of the investigation was not to follow every potential lead of classified information."
-- What the actual bleep is this?
That's like saying, "In this murder investigation, the purpose is not to follow every potential lead of dead bodies."
The investigation, at the outset, was hobbled.
A paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to “another senior government official,” and ultimately was omitted.
It's good that an official record indicates that Obama definitely used Clinton's illegal email server. It indicates that he was aware of it, had to have known that it was an illegal security risk, and still used it anyway. Good stuff.
"Strzok stated that Giuliano told the team, “[T]his is not going to become some octopus.... The focus of the investigation [is] the appearance of classified information on [Clinton’s] personal emails and that server during the time she was Secretary of State."
”Strzok further stated that the FBI’s “purpose and mission” was not to pursue “spilled [classified] information to the ends of the earth” and that the task of cleaning up classified spills by State Department employees was referred back to the State Department. He told us that the FBI’s focus was whether there was a “violation of federal law.”
-- Reading this... Wow. This part is kind of damning. They didn't even want to TRY and protect classified information. They wanted to find if there was a violation of federal law, without "following every lead."
"Prosecutor 1 stated, “At a certain point, you have to decide what’s your criminal investigation, and what is like a spill investigation.... [W]e could spend like a decade tracking emails...wherever they went.”
-- No one is asking that. They were just expecting you to LOOK AT WHO RECEIVED THE EMAILS.
Another thing to consider: The NYT has abundant motivations to downplay and soft-peddle the IG report.
We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. Attached to this report as Attachments E and F are two link charts that reflect the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016. We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.
In addition, we identified instances where FBI employees improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events. We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the Inspector General Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy.
There's your pull quote and link about the BRIBES of the FBI by MEMBERS of the FBI.
"Generally the witnesses told us that they could not remember anyone within the team arguing that more should have been done to obtain the senior aides’ devices"
-- But, earlier:
"The SSA stated that he disagreed with the prosecutors’ position that there was insufficient probable cause for a search warrant,because there was evidence that Mills’s Gmail account was used for official business and contained classified information."
-- Weird how the witnesses' forgot that.
MSM.
BRIBES.
of
the
FBI.
Between the bribes and finding out from the very start the FBI was instructed not to follow leads that might reveal violations of the federal law, I'm surprised that the recommendations are so... blase.
"The SSA told us that in the beginning of the investigation, the Midyear team wanted to obtain every device that touched the server, but that over time the team realized that this would not be “fruitful.”
-- If they had, they'd have found Weiner's sexting earlier. That'd been fruitful.
Others may already have posted, but the report is now available for download, so no need to rely on media characterisations of its contents.
@ Inga From page Xii of the executive summary:
"In addition, we identified instances where FBI employees improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events. We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the Inspector General Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy."
Is that a good enough reference for you? I told you you should read the executive summary before you try to take a victory lap.
You expect me to read this:
10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.”
10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.”
10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”
10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”
And think: "The FBI was not politically biased?"
You've practically got Schindler saying I COULD HAVE DONE MORE!
Page 418
11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: “I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.”
Page 417
11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.
FBI - "Too sensitive to put before a grand jury for witness testimony" also means too sensitive to put before a jury in criminal trial >>>> we do not recommend any action.
= Hillary has no peers in this land for trial by jury of her peers
Yeah... My reading on "no chance of bias" is "Total BS."
15:07:41, Agent 1: “...I’m done interviewing the President –then type the 302. 18 hour day....”
15:13:32, FBI Employee: “you interviewed the president?”
15:17:09, Agent 1: “you know – HRC” [Hillary Rodham Clinton]
15:17:18, Agent 1: “future pres”
These text messages are damning. If you found stuff like this between police dealing with any other criminal, you'd be convinced there was corruption.
11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: “I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.”
Do we know who that is?
Page to Stzork: “So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.”
But I'm sure they were all on the up and up.
"Do we know who that is?"
-- Don't believe so. Page and Stzork are clearly named.
Here's another little known beauty: " In Chapter Fourteen, we found that Kadzik (then assistant attorney general) demonstrated poor judgment by failing to recuse himself from Clinton-related matters under federal ethics regulations prior to November 2, 2016. Kadzik did not recognize the appearance of a conflict that he created when he initiated an effort to obtain employment for his son with the Clinton campaign while participating in Department discussions and communications about Clinton-related matters."
What were these people thinking?!?
”-- Don't believe so. Page and Stzork are clearly named.”
This is someone other than Stzork or Page?
I like that the OIG just plainly accepts Stzork and Page's ridiculous assertions to explain their stupid texts.
I think so. There are multiple FBI Employees (1-5, at least) who we have their messages.
Wow - a totally political document prepared by Inspector General Horowitz, most likely at the insistance of Donald Trump. This cure-all opinion would fix the obviously inappropriate action of firing FBI Director Comey who wouldn't pledge not to protect the President against possible indictment under the Mueller probe. It would, however, protect the Justice Department IG from failing to insist that the Hillary email investigation against the Democrat candidate be continued as was the strange ommission of a full-fledged investigation of the Clinton Crime Family Charity.
As far as I can see there never was any reason to raise a stink about FBI agents Strozok and Page who were not fans of Trump but emails and whatever other evidence evaluated were found to be incidental - simply political in nature - that could not possibly been construed as illegal - so why mention the email exchanges at all? This was aimed at Donald's oft-mentioned conspiracy theory.
As for Comey raising concerns publicly that Sec-State Clinton, just ahead of the election,was somehow an attack on Trump, it really appears to have helped Trump win.
Tomorrow, Trump could order the Justice Department to begin investigating the Clinton Trust, but he fears that alternative for whatever unknown personal reason - likely he cannot control the findings. Did we forget that Donald Trump personally donated $100,000 to the Clinton charity? For what purpose ?
Oh, wait. Even worse. We've got Agents (1-5), a couple of FBI Attorneys and FBI Employees too. There are a *lot* of texts from lots of different people here.
It's not that the IG accepts the assertions of the principals. It's that his job is to gather facts. If things are not known, he should allow that multiple conclusions could be drawn and not, himself, draw one conclusion from many.
"Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias."
-- Why is this not the lead quote about Strzok?
gadfly, you ignorant shit, the report discloses BRIBES were given to FBI agents by MSM people.
BRIBERY is a crime to be discussed in a further report.
That marks AT LEAST 3 more IG reports to come.
The presence of Mills in Clinton's interview (despite Mills being, at the same time, a percipient witness to the conduct at issue) seemed problematic to me, but the IG goes into the decisionmaking process pretty clearly at pp. 138-141. An awful lot of people seem to have thought it was variously stupid and improper to allow Mills in, but if they weren't willing to subpoena Clinton to testify before the grand jury, they were stuck. And they weren't willing to subpoena Clinton to testify before the grand jury.
Treatment of Clinton's server tech (Combetta) who repeatedly lied to the FBI about deleting emails off the server is discussed at pp. 102-107. Basically, what it seems to have come down to is this:
I was concerned that we would end up with obstruction cases against some poor schmuck on the down, that, that had a crappy attorney who didn’t really, you know, if I was his attorney, he wouldn’t have gone in and been, you know, hiding the ball in the first place. And so at the end of the day, I was like, look, let’s immunize him. We’ve got to get from Point A to Point B. Point B is to make a prosecution decision about Hillary Clinton and her senior staff well before the election if possible. And this guy with his dumb attorney doing some half-assed obstruction did not interest me. So I was totally in favor of giving him immunity.
Eh. I guess I can understand that. But the guy came in a lied to their faces repeatedly in interviews.
"FIVE ANTI-TRUMP FBI OFFICIALS REFERRED FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION OVER PRIVATE MESSAGES" : Daily Caller
Link.
Strzok, Page and three others: two FBI agents and an attorney who worked on Mueller's investigation. Dead fish being dug up.
gadfly is really losing it.
Even the fool makes more sense.
So many people were immunized, BECAUSE they were told not to follow any leads. I get it now. From the word go, this was an "investigation" that just existed to wait out the clock.
Re: Birkel (re: Matthew Sablan):
It's not that the IG accepts the assertions of the principals. It's that his job is to gather facts. If things are not known, he should allow that multiple conclusions could be drawn and not, himself, draw one conclusion from many.
Agreed -- and the report is a solid report, frankly. He has put in a lot of colour, a lot of detail. There's a lot to digest in here. Looking forward to the next few reports from this chap.
Balfegor,
Notice the casual way they let the IT off in the Clinton "investigation" but we read all the time about 'flipping witnesses' against Trump.
Does that not seem like an outright lie? A self-serving post hoc?!?
Compare the same investigators' "Let's not waste time with small fry indictments" to Mueller's "let's get people on matters not related to the investigation."
I beat you to that one, Matthew Sablan.
:-)
"Wow - a totally political document prepared by Inspector General Horowitz, most likely at the insistance of Donald Trump."
Refreshing, isn't it? To have a President who actually wants IG's to do their jobs, rather than firing them when they get too close to inconvenient truths.
Ha, I recall certain people here asking me if I would accept the IG reports conclusions when they came out, I said yes because I have no reason to think he’s not trustworthy. Now I should ask those people why aren’t you holding yourselves to the standard you wanted to hold me to.
I accept everything except the assertion that partisan politics played no part in Comey’s actions. That is pretty hard to swallow except for the most gullible among us.
Remember all this time no State IG had been appointed.
Obama had a war with IGs his whole two terms.
Obama himself recently concluded of his eight-year tenure, “I didn’t have scandals.”
Those were puzzling assertions, given nearly nonstop scandals during Obama’s eight years in office involving the IRS; General Services Administration; Peace Corps; Secret Service; Veterans Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not to mention the Clinton email-server scandal, the Benghazi scandal, and the 2016 Democratic National Committee email scandal.
For nearly eight years, the Obama administration sought to cover up serial wrongdoing by waging a veritable war against the watchdog inspectors general of various federal agencies.
In 2014, 47 of the nation’s 73 inspectors general signed a letter alleging that Obama had stonewalled their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”
“Which conclusions are people here not accepting?”
Are you serious?!
This conclusion:Horowitz: We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
“The fix was in.”
Michael K
“So James Comey broke acted in a way that resulted in partisan outcomes but was totally non-partisan.
Washington DC cannot reform itself.”
Achilles
“BS. If not politically motivated, then why?”
Austin Roth
“Fact: The FBI deviated clearly and dramatically from department norms.
Fact: The FBI was acting in an obviously unfair and partisan manner to any unbiased observer.
Stupid mealy mouthed opinion: It wan't the result of political bias.”
Achilles
“The IG report is a whitewash.”
Baelzar
“The deep state whitewashed Hillary.
This is now indisputable.”
Achilles
“So far this IG report reads like Comey's, "I know this looks bad but there was no ill-intent" mindreading of Hillary Clinton's server antics.
Kevin
“There was no political bias, but rather a peculiar alignment of the stars that induced his divergence from established norms.”
n.n.
“Wow. Even after we learned she destroyed evidence and had her team lie to the FBI, we STILL think that she shouldn't be prosecuted?
What's the point of a law if Democrat elites are above it?
Matthew Sablan
“Then the report should not have stated the deviations had nothing to do with political bias. It should have stated them as deviations and left it at that.”
Kevin
“Bingo. In this respect the report is just as dishonest and violating of procedures as was Comey's press conference”
Greg P
“Comey took it upon himself to absolve Hillary on the grounds she didn't have any bad intent.
Now Comey gets the same treatment.”
Bob Boyd
“They are going to take whatever they can. They obviously don't care about the actual law or statutes.”
Achilles
Another whitewash pure and simple. No political motives involved, come on, what a joke.
I expected this kind of a whitewash. When will the rule of law be enforced and the criminal elements in our government be held accountable? Our judicial system has always favored the rich and powerful but this is so blatant it is so wrong.
Ken Schoentag
“I guess it's down to this - we must hope that the corrupt fucking morons who run our country are no worse than the corrupt fucking morons that run every other country.
Oso Negro
You cannot piss on the people, and thwart justice continuously without consequence. We are nearing the breaking point, and you better believe there will be a reckoning..
Joshua Barker
I didn’t bother going past the 1:20 mark.
Re: Birkel:
Notice the casual way they let the IT off in the Clinton "investigation" but we read all the time about 'flipping witnesses' against Trump.
I don't find it entirely plausible, largely because whether you gave him cooperation credit or not, he seems like he'd be a pretty crap witness -- he lied to the FBI at least twice apart from anything else, and that's captured in their notes. Not especially hard to impeach even without the argument that the cooperation credit undermines his credibility.
Remember, Obama fired most of the IG's. Horowitz remained. One more "last honest man in Washington. Impeccable. Non-partisan".
Inga: My comment in there is accepting the result. They think it was the right call; I just think that it is a stupid decision. I expected that result. I never thought Clinton or her team would suffer for what they did. I'm just shocked that we'd put it in official writing.
Big Mike said...
I accept everything except the assertion that partisan politics played no part in Comey’s actions.
Was that a conclusion of the report? ( I thought that the report found no evidence of political motivation. It did not conclude that there was none. )
"stating that Mills had requested that he “securely delete the .pst files” in November or December 2014 but had not specifically requested that he use “deletion software.”"
-- How was he supposed to do that without software?
On a post by sundance that has "Don’t Comment Unless You’ve Read The Full Report" in big red letters that are impossible to miss, there are already 677 comments.
Huh. Mills and Samuelson get credence given to their privilege claims for other clients. Funny fact: I thought that wasn't a valid objection.
Inga said:
"Let’s stop pretending here was a deep state secret cabal to hurt Trump."
Agreed, it's no longer a secret.
To quoteth Strozk "'No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it"
Browndog: "Remember, Obama fired most of the IG's. Horowitz remained. One more "last honest man in Washington. Impeccable. Non-partisan".
In 2014, 47 of 73 Inspectors General pitched a fit over everything the obama admin was hiding.
See RealClearPolitics: The Silencing Of The Inspectors General.
Inga said...
This conclusion:Horowitz: We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
Ah, yes, I was afraid we would come up against that reading comprehension issue yet again.
I think people here accept the conclusion that they did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of X. We just note the this is not the same as saying X did not happen.
( Also, it is unclear just how much work the word directly is doing in the quote you provided. )
“Remember, Obama fired most of the IG's. Horowitz remained. One more "last honest man in Washington. Impeccable. Non-partisan".”
Now now, don't be such a defeatist. Michael Fitzgerald will be coming for all you folks who are engaging in defeatist negative talk. He says he has a “big hammer that will slice up cucks”, 👀
Late to the party here, and maybe I missed a comment that explained this:
Why should we give a f[ig] what Comey's motivation was?
What is known, that he "clearly and dramatically" failed to follow "FBI and department norms," thus FUBARing an investigation where it is KNOWN (and not merely alleged) that laws were broken, is damning enough.
Huh. Page stands up to try and keep them from effectively prosecuting Clinton's team; the prosecutors tell her to stop getting in the way, and her boyfriend sticks up for her.
That's... interesting.
Haha, nice little tap dance you just did there Iggy.
Also remember that it was Sally Yates who specifically went against the law and dept policy by forbidding the OIG to pursue inquiries within the DOJ National Security Division...the very division where the FISA 702 abuses in the DOJ side were ocurring...
Very interesting:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/14/mueller-lawyer-resisted-trump/
While IG found no "evidence that the Weiner laptop was deliberately placed on the back-burner by others in the FBI to protect Clinton" ..... "we also did not identify a consistent or persuasive explanation for the FBI’s failure to act for almost a month."
Well, thanks for stopping by.
"As far as Strzok’s assertion that the prosecutors had agreed to notify Wilkinson that the FBI intended to interview her clients regarding the culling process, Prosecutors 1 and 2 indicated in an email exchange on March 30, 2016, that this was not correct."
-- Wait. What? How... how come every mistake Strzok makes makes works out in Clinton's favor and against the prosecution?
"In sum, we concluded that the explanations given for the failure of the FBI to take action on the Weiner laptop between September 29 and the end of October were unpersuasive. The FBI had all the information it needed on September 29 to obtain the search warrant that it did not seek until more than a month later. The FBI’s neglect had potentially far-reaching consequences."
-- Was it grossly negligent though?
Re: Matthew Sablan:
-- How was he supposed to do that without software?
Cheryl Mills is a lawyer how should she know? (haha)
That said, the critical thing here is the issuance of the Congressional preservation order on March 3, 2014. She gave the instruction in late 2014, before the issuance of the order; he did the deletions after the order I guess because he forgot to it before. Now, even in November/December 2014, a reasonable man would be able to guess that these emails would be important given the the letters the State Department was sending out in October/November 2014 asking for emails. But the DOJ investigation didn't start until July 2015.
Still. You and I aren't Cheryl Mills. Seems like a very risky set of choices.
It also indicates that Obama was one of the individuals Clinton was in contact with using her clintonemail.com account.
Corruption, fraud, and treason is standard practice for the FBI and DoJ, going back to at least 1975 with Whitey Bulger. FBI agents knew exactly what people Mr. Bulger was going to murder, but refused to let them know so they could protect themselves. And the DoJ knew who was doing the killing, but instead framed innocent men for the murders and refused to provide their defense attorneys with the evidence that would clear them.
THERE ARE NO "GOOD COPS" in the FBI.
And THERE ARE NO "GOOD PROSECUTORS" in the DoJ.
"Several FBI witnesses told us that the reason the FBI decided to seek a search warrant on October 27 was because the Midyear team learned important new information about the contents of the Weiner laptop at around that time. We concluded, however, that this decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for SDNY on October 21."
-- The FBI flat out lied to the OIG, and the report calls them on it here.
"The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop."
-- That's... rather suggestive about a bias to me.
Now we’re going to be seeing a huge effort to parse Horowitz’s and even commenters comments here.
So, the FBI lied to the OIG; interfered with the prosecution; refused to follow leads to evidence of crimes; accepted bribes; and then we have the message treasure trove... but since there's no written evidence: "I did X because I hate Trump/love Clinton," no evidence of bias.
A frustrating report to read.
Another reason why I love the boys at Conservative Treehouse (hat tip: Dr. K)
Here's how they frame it:
Read, but don’t focus on, the “executive summary” or “conclusions”; those two sections were written by political administrators in FBI and DOJ leadership. Focus on the substance of the documented facts within the IG report.
The facts are much more important than the conclusions. It will take a bit of time to digest, but I'm not as down on it, as some of my right honourable colleagues here. I don't want to smash the FBI, but I do want to purge the leftwing activists from within it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY
March 3, 2014 => 2015. Sorry, kind of important. . .
All good. Now acceptable tg weaponize the FBi and CIA. And we have six long years to do it.
Balfegor,
Impeach the IT guy? Sure.
But can that IT guy give you help getting to the next guy up the chain? We will never know.
'Comey said that he recalled first learning about the additional emails on the Weiner laptop at some point in early October 2016, although he said it was possible this could have occurred in late September 2016. Comey told the OIG that this information “didn’t index” with him, which he attributed to the way the information was presented to him and the fact that, “I don’t know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the time.”'
As for that last quote, I call bullshit. Utter (udder?), steaming, fly-swarmed, mounded-up and moist...BULL. SHIT.
Scrabbling for a way to get his and McCabe's testimony to jibe.
You can't fight the Derp State.
The more I read of the middle, the more I think the front and back are because they don't have a smoking gun, they can't point a finger. But... the FBI accepted bribes and lied to the OIG about why they did things. Read between the freaking lines.
Summation of the report:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31867/12-things-you-need-know-about-inspector-generals-ben-shapiro
Comey... didn't know one of his key witnesses' husband? Who is famous? And...
Really? Really?
I wonder if Comey realized at the time that Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's wife. Apparently he doesn't follow current events.
Blogger Roy Jacobsen said...”Why should we give a f[ig] what Comey's motivation was?
What is known, that he "clearly and dramatically" failed to follow "FBI and department norms," thus FUBARing an investigation where it is KNOWN (and not merely alleged) that laws were broken, is damning enough.”
As was Comey’s ‘she broke the law but we couldn’t prove she meant to’.
FBI received "gifts" from reporters
Re: Matthew Sablan:
So, the FBI lied to the OIG; interfered with the prosecution; refused to follow leads to evidence of crimes; accepted bribes; and then we have the message treasure trove... but since there's no written evidence: "I did X because I hate Trump/love Clinton," no evidence of bias.
When I perform internal investigations, I try to be very disciplined about drawing links between pieces of evidence. It's very easy to play the prosecutor, and sort of smear everything together and say that once you've got a couple "hot" emails, that infects everything you do, so all your actions get interpreted in a malign light. (Since I sit on the defense side, that's, well, pretty much my impression of exactly what prosecutors tend to do). But that's not really fair -- someone may joke about bribery, but still do his level best to keep his company far away from any actual instances of bribery.
I think the IG here may have bent over backwards to be fair to the people under investigation. But the task of linking expressions of bias to particular acts is hard, especially if there is countervailing evidence that people did try to do the right thing. I'm only skimming at this point, haven't really dug into it, but the report lays those facts out there, repeats, in great detail, some pretty inappropriate communications. It's pretty damning. I think it's a solid job. And there's at least one sequel still waiting to drop, I believe.
Here comes comment #350; I'm more interested in what US Attorney Huber will be doing with the evidence. He's been shadowing the IG almost from the start & can empanel grand juries and indict alleged criminals.
Let's just allow Inga and ARM to enjoy their delusions right now. The time will come ...
ARM will struggle with reality because he prefers lies. Inga will struggle because of very poor or non-existent reading comprehension.
In the end, Trump will be re-electd, Comey will whore himself on the TV. the resistance will become an increasing laughingstock and even more FBI and DOJ employees will lose their jobs. Maybe they will get work with the Clinton Crime Family or their propaganda arm.
We will prosper as a nation and these silly little arguments will be forgotten.
Re: Birkel:
But can that IT guy give you help getting to the next guy up the chain? We will never know.
They gave him immunity to ask him precisely those questions (or so they told the IG), and were satisfied with the truthfulness of his answers. Those answers evidently didn't implicate others, probably because he was ordered to delete the emails before the first preservation order.
Now, there's a question of what was known after that point -- maybe Clinton's counsel learned from him after the March 2015 preservation order that the emails hadn't actually been deleted, and told him to delete anyway to "coverup" (as he put it in one message) what had happened. And then he deleted the emails and ran BleachBit. But I wasn't the one there questioning him. I've never met him. I can't just substitute my judgment for theirs, as to how best to get that information out of him, if he had any such information to give. The IG met with the prosecutors who made that call, and he either found them credible or not.
Heh -- I love it! From Ben Shapiro's review of the IG Report:
Comey said that he didn’t realize Weiner was married to Huma Abedin.
How is this ignorance possible? You mean during the campaign season, Althouse's Hillbilly commentariat knew more about Huma the Puma, than Comey did?
The man must live in a sanctimonious bubble.
Comey wasn't sure if Huma had shown intent to marry Weiner.
The facts are much more important than the conclusions.
I'm with you. It's like reading a research paper, the conclusion of which says something like, "Data suggest that..." when careful scrutiny of the date shows it doesn't even broadly hint, much less suggest.
Like headlines. Some people read them and feel informed.
Comey: Apparently I made mistakes. I'm glad the IG pointed them out so I can learn from them.
Director Wray: It sounds like we need more training. I'll make it a priority when I submit a budget to the Ways & Means Committee.
Liberals: Emails! BENGHAZI!!! HAHAHAHA
Not a smidgen of corruption wins the day! Again...still.
How is this ignorance possible?
It's not. More possible is that Comey lies like a rug.
"But it says there was no evidence that Lynch and Clinton discussed the investigation into Hillary Clinton or any other inappropriate discussions."
What utter tripe. We're supposed to believe Billy just wanted to talk golf and grandkids?
"I am alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s finding of numerous failures by DOJ and FBI in investigating potential Espionage Act violations by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
— Trey Gowdy
And I thought Gowdy was Inga's new BFF...
IG Report: "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed."
Other than the texts between Strzok and Page indicating exactly that that was their intent. When is a smoking gun not a smoking gun? When it points inconveniently at the FBI and DOJ. As Whitey Bulger well knows.
”Now, there's a question of what was known after that point -- maybe Clinton's counsel learned from him after the March 2015 preservation order that the emails hadn't actually been deleted, and told him to delete anyway”
I thought that was exactly the case. Am I wrong?
Hillary must be indicted and brought to trial. The only way this scandal can be put to rest or sanctioned is to let a jury decide whether what she did was criminal or merely foolish.
RE: California Snow:
What utter tripe. We're supposed to believe Billy just wanted to talk golf and grandkids?
They found no evidence. No one wrote it down. No one admitted in interviews.
Re: robother:
Other than the texts between Strzok and Page indicating exactly that that was their intent. When is a smoking gun not a smoking gun? When it points inconveniently at the FBI and DOJ. As Whitey Bulger well knows.
Those are some "hot" messages, sure. But as others have pointed out here, "directly" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence.
Re: Original Mike:
”Now, there's a question of what was known after that point -- maybe Clinton's counsel learned from him after the March 2015 preservation order that the emails hadn't actually been deleted, and told him to delete anyway”
I thought that was exactly the case. Am I wrong?
I think there's a call around the time he actually does the deletions in March 2015, from which one could draw that inference. But evidently no one involved admitted as much to investigators.
'In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.'
This suggests the investigation into the collusion investigation will have much more damning nuggets in it. Also note that Strzok was removed from that investigation when the texts began to be released. Texts during the email investigation got Strzok removed from Mueller's goon squad. Yes, we already knew this, but Horowitz seems to be saying it really is as bad as it looks.
Christopher Wray live press conference.
Opening statement : We did nothing wrong, and what we did wrong we are already correcting.
Our Director of the FBI - who was investigating Anthony Weiner -- did not know he was married to Huma Abedin -- the Chief of Staff of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton -- whom he was also investigating.
I wrote above: "The man must live in a sanctimonious bubble."
I was wrong. I should have wrote:
"The man must live in a hermetically-sealed, sanctimonious bubble."
Or he is lying, as Mockturtle notes above.
This man tried to gallantly swing the election towards Hillary, and ended up face-planting on top of Hillary, taking both she and himself out!
“Inga will struggle because of very poor or non-existent reading comprehension.”
Francisco struggles everyday around this time when the alcohol he’s consumed all day starts making him lapse into black out territory. Soon he’ll be talking about enjoying a some sautéed brains and liver with a good Chianti.
Classic bureaucratic defence.
1. One individual, in isolation, committed all the improprieties that have been discovered so far.
2. No other individuals, or at least no one at the same level or senior to that individual, has been found to have committed similar improprieties.
3. The improprieties that were committed were in violation of well-established and documented policies of this organization.
4. To ensure that such improprieties do not happen again, we are changing published policies and guidelines to make them even more explicit, and establishing new penalties for violations.
5. Going forward, we are committed to ethical blah blah blah all the stuff we have never quite been in the past. Gotcha!
There's a lot of things I believe but cannot prove. Which is how I feel about this report.
LOL-
Wray: It was just a couple people 'Strzok/Page', and about one thing. Other than that, we're good. Outside of needing more appropriations for training so we don't get caught again.
From IG report: Agent discusses interview with a witness who assisted the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence:
FBI Employee: "how did the [witness] go”
Agent: “Awesome. Lied his ass off."
Agent: "Even if he said the truth ... aint noone gonna do shit”
Ace has quotes from agents acknowledging a witness lied and if he told the truth no one would do anything to him anyway.
Not a good look for the FBI.
You could argue, maybe, there was no partisan bias, but only if you admit there was uni-party, deep state political bias.
The report is incredibly damning to the FBI
This Wray guy is a stooge.
Holy smokes.If you can't watch this press conference now, watch it later (youtube, CSPAN, etc).
FBI Director Wray admits nothing, accepts no responsibility and is completely defensive. What an ass.
“This Wray guy is a stooge.”
Isn’t Wray a Trump pick?
I used to think that in our country, for the most part, there wasn't special treatment for the elite. Now, based on the recent behavior of the FBI and Justice department, I am convinced I was wrong. There clearly is special treatment for the privileged and connected. Sad to say.
Wray is a Trump pick.
One FBI agent on the Hillary investigation wrote in an FBI text:
“Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.”
Trump stole our Democrat base!
Not to worry, the Mueller probe is all on the up and up!
An FBI attorney who worked on the special counsel’s Russia investigation until earlier this year sent anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, including one exclaiming: “Viva le Resistance.” The attorney’s comments are revealed in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Thursday.
The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" and not affected by bias or other improper actions. But it said that senior leaders' handling of the Clinton case cast a cloud over the bureau and did lasting damage to the FBI's reputation.
True that.
So...
It walks like a duck
It quacks like a duck
It's just not a duck
Comey used a private email account for official business related to the FBI's investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server which included knowing messages between Hillary and obama.....
....gee, I cannot imagine why Comey decided (and we know this for a fact now) to exonerate Hillary months before Hillary and top aides were going to be interviewed.
But hey, no bias there.
Diogenes of Sinope: "Wray is a Trump pick."
Trump didn't know him from Adam.
Unfortunately for Trump, he was in a position as an outsider to depend on the advice from those closer to DC for specific picks.
Agents taking SWAG (Stuff We All Get) from reporters
No wonder that Hillary insisted that there be no IG for State while she was there. No wonder Obama fired, illegally fired, the IG that found the Porkulous corruption by an Obama supporter Sad Diego. “Not a smidgen of corruption!” <<- Possibly his biggest lie!
An interesting outcome of the Pompeo move to State is that Pompeo is cutting out those who act in opposition internally to Trump policy and putting people in now who can be trusted to work as a Trump admin policy advocate.
Quite frankly, it will not be until Trump's second term that all the departments are primarily staffed with people who actually support Trump's policy.
The Russian Hoax IG Report will likely be more exciting.
We get to see how these fools used the Steele-Russian-Hooker-urination Dossier as a primary source document to con the FISA Court to enable them to spy on Trump campaign officials.
In general, Russian hookers are not supposed to pee in the bed. They know this.
“Trump didn't know him from Adam.”
Trump should’ve done his homework. Interesting how Trump’s followers so often don’t hold him responsible for anything.
“Consistent” with what? The way they sent that sailor to jail for far less? Consistent with what?
And does he support the INFERENCE that there was no political motivation?
FBI Employee: "how did the [witness] go”
Agent: “Awesome. Lied his ass off."
Agent: "Even if he said the truth ... aint noone gonna do shit”
Inga and ARM are cool with that.
Because democrat.
Interesting how Trump’s followers so often don’t hold him responsible for anything.
Said the participant in the conspiracy of silence that kept #M3TOO on hold for 30 years.
“Said the participant in the conspiracy of silence that kept #M3TOO on hold for 30 years.”
Says the guy who is participating in the conspiracy of silence when it comes to Trump’s victims.
#TrumpistHypocrisy
Wray is a Trump pick.
So is Rosenstein. Highly recommending, with bi-partisan support. Easy confirmation.
Gee, I wonder why?
If only Trump would have spent 30 years in Washington, he'd have known better, eh?
The IG found that Obama was "one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account."
But Inga and ARM are cool with that.
Because democrat.
Here's Christopher Wray explaining to Pres. Trump why the FBI deserves accident forgiveness.
From IG report: Agent discusses interview with a witness who assisted the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence:
FBI Employee: "how did the [witness] go”
Agent: “Awesome. Lied his ass off."
Agent: "Even if he said the truth ... aint noone gonna do shit”
Oh yeah. No deep state here, covering up felonies so their chosen candidate can win the election.
Inga said...
“Said the participant in the conspiracy of silence that kept #M3TOO on hold for 30 years.”
Says the guy who is participating in the conspiracy of silence when it comes to Trump’s victims.
#TrumpistHypocrisy
What victims?
Not a single credible woman has come forward with anything other than consensual relationships.
But you supported a rapist. So of course you have to lie.
I know it is hard to deal with but you are transparently amoral.
”Here's Christopher Wray explaining to Pres. Trump why the FBI deserves accident forgiveness.”
If only Hillary had had the grace of that kid and split the scene.
The IG report says Obama emailed Clinton's illegal server.
That is a crime.
There is no dodging that.
Obama and Clinton would be in jail if they were merely service members in the armed forces.
But democrats don't believe in the rule of law.
Hell, Trump was willing to roll with Sally Yates even after she sandbagged Flynn. It was only after she sent out a directive to ignore the President that she was fired.
Trump, nor anyone outside of Washington, had any clue what the deep state had in store for him. Who would? It reads like a cheesy fiction novel.
“What victims?
Not a single credible woman has come forward with anything other than consensual relationships.”
You don’t believe they’re credible, but then you’re a nutcase. Clinton had accusers and so does Trump. I believed ALL the women in both cases.
"prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" and not affected by bias or other improper actions."
Consistent with the relevant provisions of the relevant law that said nothing about intent?
Post a Comment