Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2018, 11:49   #1
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
The DOJ IG’s Report

One of the more thoughtful articles on the subject.

The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
June 15, 2018 2:08 PM
National Review

But who knows?

You’ve got to hand it to Michael Horowitz: The Justice Department inspector general’s much-anticipated report on the Clinton-emails investigation may be half-baked, but if it is, it is the most comprehensive, meticulously detailed, carefully documented, thoughtfully reasoned epic in the history of half-bakery.

Why say do I say the report “may be half-baked”? Why don’t I just come out and declare, “The report is half-baked”? Well, I figure if I write this column in the IG’s elusive style, we’ll have the Rosetta Stone we need to decipher the report.

See, you probably sense that I believe the report is half-baked. But if I say it “may be” half-baked . . . well, technically that means it may not be, too. I mean, who really knows, right?

If that annoys you, try wading through 568 pages of this stuff, particularly on the central issue of the investigators’ anti-Trump bias. The report acknowledges that contempt for Trump was pervasive among several of the top FBI and DOJ officials making decisions about the investigation. So this deep-seated bias must have affected the decision-making, right? Well, the report concludes, who really knows?

Not in so many words, of course. The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start: It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did. In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong. The cop-out is that we are dealing here with “discretionary” calls; therefore, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude. Consequently, the IG says his job is not to determine whether any particular decision was correct; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness, the decision was defensible. And he makes that determination by looking at every decision in isolation.

But is that the way we evaluate decisions in the real world?

In every criminal trial, the defense lawyer tries to sow reasonable doubt by depicting every allegation, every factual transaction, as if it stood alone. In a drug case, if the defendant was photographed delivering a brown paper bag on Wednesday, the lawyer argues, “Well, we don’t have X-ray vision, how do we really know there was heroin in the bag?” The jurors are urged that when they consider what happened Wednesday, there is only Wednesday; they must put out of their minds that text from Tuesday, when the defendant told his girlfriend, “I always deliver the ‘product’ in paper bags.”

Fortunately, the judge ends up explaining to the jury that, down here on Planet Earth, common sense applies. In our everyday lives, we don’t look at related events in isolation; we view them in conjunction because they read on each other. Let’s say on Monday I confide to my friend that I can’t stand Bob, and on Tuesday I tell Bob I can’t join him for dinner because I have other plans. It may or may not be true that I have other plans, but common sense tells you my disdain for Bob has factored into the decision — even if I don’t announce that fact to Bob.

For all his assiduous attention to detail, IG Horowitz has weaved a no-common-sense report.

On August 8, 2016, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, borderline hysterical, texts her lover, agent Peter Strzok, about GOP candidate Donald Trump: “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replies, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Now mind you, Page isn’t just any old lawyer; she is counsel to the FBI’s deputy director (Andrew McCabe) and involved in virtually every significant decision the bureau makes. And Strzok is not any old agent; he is deputy assistant director and one of the FBI’s top counterespionage agents — and he steered both relevant investigations, Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia.

This August 8 text exchange does not occur in a vacuum. It is part of ceaseless stream of anti-Trump bile. It is, moreover, just a week before the infamous text in which we learn that top-level bureau officials met in the deputy director’s office to discuss what they saw as the harrowing possibility of a Trump presidency; Strzok urged that, though highly unlikely, this prospect was so intolerable that the bureau needed an “insurance policy” against it — i.e., the Russia investigation.

The August 8 text also occurs against a backdrop in which the FBI has rushed to close the Clinton-emails investigation on an arbitrary deadline for patently political reasons — no other criminal investigation is guided by the electoral calendar. And it occurs at the moment the FBI is moving aggressively to turn its counterintelligence powers against the Trump campaign: An informant has already been deployed, intelligence agents are mobilizing, foreign intelligence contacts have been tapped, and the bureau will soon submit to the FISA court an application to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page — an application that breaks every rule in the book: anonymous foreign sources spouting multiple hearsay, no corroboration, no disclosure to the court that it comes from the opposition presidential campaign, no explanation that the foreigner who supplied the unverified allegations has been booted from the investigation for lying, etc.

Yet you’re not supposed to string any of that together. On August 8, Strzok vows that the FBI will “stop” Trump, but if you’re asked to evaluate the agents’ motivation for actions that helped Clinton on a different day, you’re supposed to pretend that August 8 never happened — that the striving for a case against Trump at the same time the case against Hillary was being buried never happened.

How does the IG pull this off? Two ways.

The first, as mentioned above, is methodology. By disavowing any intention to pass judgment on the rightness of any particular investigative decision, by announcing upfront that he is confining himself to an assessment of whether the decisions were rational, Horowitz reads motivation out of the equation. If there were two investigative options — e.g., (1) give immunity to Paul Combetta (the service technician for Clinton’s server who lied to the FBI and destroyed evidence) or (2) prosecute him for false statements — the IG says his analysis is limited to whether the option chosen was objectively defensible.

This turns out to be an abstract analysis with a lot of gobbledygook about whether the prosecution would have served federal interests, whether Combetta was undermined by bad lawyering, etc. The IG is going to tell you that while immunity might not have been the best choice, it was a defensible choice — it enabled the FBI to get his testimony faster (i.e., to lie to them in a more timely fashion on the artificially compressed deadline they’d established for closing the case without charges). What is Horowitz not going to consider? That a hundred times out of a hundred, in cases not involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, most normally aggressive federal prosecutors, including Trump-Russia prosecutor Robert Mueller, would have charged Combetta and squeezed him to roll over on his confederates.

Instead, Horowitz says it was a rational decision, so we’re done with that one. Whoa, whoa, wait a second. Was it an appropriate decision? Was it made because they were in a rush to close the case so that Clinton (their preferred candidate) could run against Trump (whom they were determined to “stop”) without the cloud of an investigation hanging over her?

The IG won’t answer that question — not without a canyon’s worth of wiggle room. Utterly biased people may have made manifestly flawed decisions, he tells us, but as long as they were not blatantly irrational decisions, we’re going to call them justifiable and move on. But were the decisions politicized? If a biased person makes a less than optimal decision, isn’t there an itty-bitty possibility that the bias clouded his judgment?

In essence, the IG answers, “Who really knows?” . . . except he says it in a way that enables the FBI to pretend he has found no evidence of bias at all. Observe this gem, from the report’s executive summary:

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions.

Directly affected? What does that mean? Do the FBI and Obama Justice Department have to stamp the “I’m with Her” logo on Combetta’s immunity agreement before we can say bias directly affected the decision? Could bias have indirectly affected the decision?

Who really knows, right?

<snip>
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 11:51   #2
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
IG Report article cont’d

Cont’d from above...

The IG’s second tack involves the facts he chooses to present. The report is truly half-baked because it omits half the story — all Clinton emails, no Trump-Russia. Of course, that’s neither how the cases evolved, nor how the investigators looked at them.

When Ted Cruz dropped out of the GOP presidential race, making Trump the de facto nominee, the very first thing Strzok said upon hearing the news from Page was, “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE” — i.e., “Mid Year Exam,” the code name for the Clinton caper. The best way to “stop” Trump was to free Hillary to beat him. So, the bureau simultaneously labored to close the case on her and invent a case on him.

In the blink of an eye, then-director Comey was briefing Obama’s National Security Council on Carter Page; the Obama intelligence agencies were tapping their foreign partners, targeting Trump-campaign advisers to run informants at, and internalizing the Steele dossier. While the FBI scooped up the last laptops it needed to complete the predetermined closing of the emails probe, Attorney General Lynch had her convenient tarmac chat with Bill Clinton, and the bureau conducted the perfunctory interview with Hillary — an interview so pointless that the FBI and Justice Department did not object to the presence of Mrs. Clinton’s co-conspirators in the room, even though the IG report concedes that this flouted elementary investigative protocols.

Meanwhile, here is Strzok, having finished the Clinton interview and closed out the emails case, preparing to wing his way to London to conduct some real interviews — interviews with witnesses who might help him “stop” Trump:

And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure that we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.

Get it? This, the Trump case, “MATTERS” in comparison to the Clinton case. The only thing that mattered in the Clinton case was that the FBI avoid doing anything too grossly indefensible in implementing the months-long strategy to close the case without charges after appearing to do an energetic investigation. But the Trump case matters because it “MATTERS” — because in the Trump case, Strzok and Page and the others actually get to do what the FBI usually does: make a case on a bad guy we have to “stop” — informants, wiretaps, subpoenas, predawn search warrants with guns drawn, charging people who lie to us, threatening decades of imprisonment against witnesses we’re trying to flip.

How do you best evaluate the FBI’s approach to the Clinton case? Well, if I may invoke that term again, common sense says you look at how the same agents handled another case which bore on the same event that informed their every decision, the 2016 election. The question is not whether every Clinton-case decision was defensible considered in isolation; it is whether the quality of justice afforded to two sides of the same continuum by the same agents at the same time was . . . the same.

It wasn’t. One was kid gloves, the other was scorched earth. The candidate they hoped would win got the former; the candidate they needed to “stop” got the latter. The candidate they were almost certain would win got the case dropped; the candidate they needed an “insurance policy” against . . . well, whaddya know — the case against him is still going . . . and going . . . and going.

Did bias have anything to do with that? In 568 pages that leave out the Trump half of the story, we’re told the answer is, “Who really knows?”

I think we know.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...not-supported/

ETA: link below to complete 568 page IG report.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Last edited by tonyz; 06-16-2018 at 12:09.
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 12:04   #3
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Along the same lines - this might be interesting to watch.

JUDICIARY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES TO HOLD HEARING ON IG REPORT EXAMINING DOJ AND FBI ACTIONS IN 2016

Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
FULL HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
PUBLISHED: JUN 7, 2018

Washington, DC – On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., the House Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform will hold a joint hearing on “Oversight of the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election.” At the hearing, Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify before the Committees on the findings of the forthcoming report on Justice Department and FBI actions in advance of the 2016 presidential election.

Media Guidance: The hearing will take place in Room 210 of the House Capitol Visitor Center (HVC-210).The hearing will be webcast live at judiciary.house.gov and oversight.house.gov. Media will be allowed access to the hearing room at 9:15 a.m.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/...tions-in-2016/
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 12:22   #4
Mustang Man
Guerrilla
 
Mustang Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 286
Quote:
On August 8, 2016, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, borderline hysterical, texts her lover, agent Peter Strzok, about GOP candidate Donald Trump: “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replies, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Hmmmm I wonder who else Peter referred to saying "We'll stop it."?

Looks like WE stopped you FBI! Thank god for that freak show Anthony Wiener.
__________________
"Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going into McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger. It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown."

BMT
Mustang Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 13:00   #5
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang Man View Post
Hmmmm I wonder who else Peter referred to saying "We'll stop it."?

Looks like WE stopped you FBI! Thank god for that freak show Anthony Wiener.
That “insurance policy” might consist of the “we” - sometimes I can’t help but wonder if Sessions is part of that cabal? He was pushed on Trump by the swamp very early.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 16:31   #6
Paslode
Area Commander
 
Paslode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Occupied Wokeville
Posts: 4,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyz View Post
That “insurance policy” might consist of the “we” - sometimes I can’t help but wonder if Sessions is part of that cabal? He was pushed on Trump by the swamp very early.
Spot on TZ. It is too ironic that he pressed for the job, took the position and then abdicated his power upon taking the reigns.
__________________
Quote:
When a man dies, if nothing is written, he is soon forgotten.
Paslode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2018, 17:00   #7
bblhead672
Area Commander
 
bblhead672's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,585
Well, House clown Trey Gowdy has threatened Justice and the FBI with "We're going to get compliance, or the House of Representatives is going to use its full arsenal of
constitutional weapons to gain compliance."

Is that the full arsenal used to send Eric Holder to jail for contempt?

Gowdy likes to talk and make threats, but in the end, what has he done that's any different than the rest of the swamp creatures? I used to think Gowdy was a bulldog that was going to be taking bites out of the establishment, now I laugh at his little chihuahua yip, yip, yip act.

When someone in Washington finds people in the Justice dept with the guts to prosecute, issue warrants and arrest the Obama/Clinton/DNC cabal let me know so I can turn on the tv to watch the perp walks.

Otherwise its just bread and circuses to keep the peasants attention while we are chewing on the last crusts of freedom and liberty.
bblhead672 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2018, 17:40   #8
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
What is funny is watching the leftist week after week rip apart everything Trump does they are even calling the conservatives cult members to the Trump cult....You gotta love the leftist outlets CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher, The Young Turks, The View, 60 minutes, Jim Acosta etc....freak out and show the nature of the leftist mind...to democrats who have slowly switched sides.

Bill Maher rubs me raw to watch he is not very witty and I think he borders on well......stupid.....Win for conservatives

Cenk Uygur is so arrogant he gets flustered when he has no answers he simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to debate giants like Ben Shapiro....Win for conservatives

Joy Behar can't help how stupid and yet passionate she is for leftist views and given her audience and apparent not well concealed blind hatred for conservatives and she is confused the entire show....win for conservatives

Bill Clinton takes 27 trips on the Lolita express to the Island of underaged possible human trafficked woman from ??? and leftist say nothing.....Win for conservatives

NFL players want to take an American past time that brings American together and wallows us to escape our own lives and turn it into a political statement but then again isn't the NFL game considered a workplace?...Win for conervatives

Leftist idiots are so oblivious of how distorted they really are they can't see the Dems walking away they see the snippets of college kids snowflakes and seem to think that its this that is the true feelings of America.....what a bunch of maroons.

Thank god so many leftists are in entertainment and have jumped on politics they are the best weapons we have to keep the swamp monsters out of D.C.
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.

Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 06-18-2018 at 20:48.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2018, 20:30   #9
cbtengr
Area Commander
 
cbtengr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
What is funny is watching the leftist week after week rip apart everything Trump does they are even calling the conservatives cult members to the Trump cult....You gotta love the leftist outlets CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher, The Young Turks, The View, 60 minutes, Jim Acosta etc....freak out and show the nature of the leftist mind...to democrats who have slowly switched sides.

Bill Maher rubs me raw to watch he is not very witty and I think he borders on well......stupid.....Win for conservatives

Cenk Uygur is so arrogant he gets flustered when he has no answers he simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to debate giants like Ben Shapiro....Win for conservatives

Joy Behar can't help how stupid and yet passionate she is for leftist views and given her audience and apparent not well concealed blind hatred for conservatives and she is confused the entire show....win for conservatives

Bill Clinton takes 27 trips on the Lolita express to the Island of underaged possible human trafficked woman from ??? and leftist say nothing.....Win for conservatives

NFL players want to take an American past time that brings American together and wallows us to escape our own lives and turn it into a political statement but then again isn't the NFL game considered a workplace?...Win for conervatives

Leftist idiots are so oblivious of how distorted they really are they can't see the Dems walking away they see the snippets of college kids snowflakes and seem to think that its this that is the true feelings of America.....what a bunch of maroons.

Thank god so many leftists are in entertainment and have jumped on politics they are the bets weapons we have to keep the swamp monsters out of D.C.
All great points! You may be surprised to know the "Meathead" Rob Reiner feels that idiots like De Niro are only helping the Presidents cause.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bert-Niro.html
__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
cbtengr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2018, 21:01   #10
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbtengr View Post
All great points! You may be surprised to know the "Meathead" Rob Reiner feels that idiots like De Niro are only helping the Presidents cause.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bert-Niro.html

Isn't amazing how close the meathead character is to real life? even in that show they tried to make Archie the working class beer drinking patriot look like the bad guy the center of the joke but the wisdom in that show and the different ideologies kind of mirrors today doesn't it? I saw him on a interview and yes he is left but he was a lot more reasonable than a majority we see anyway. What you have got to love about Hollywood is a guy like Harvey Weinstein can get actresses who are also womens lib leftist to trade their body for a acting part like a commodity which is how they used it then they bitch later saying they were coerced and he was inappropriate all the way to the bank? it was a transaction of two consenting adults right? Those crazy looneys spend much of their lives being someone else in movies playing parts that glorify the very thing they claim to detest....no wonder they are confused
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2018, 20:15   #11
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Masterful performance by the IG today. Just as Comey remarked about everything they found about Hillary, that met the criteria of the statute & then some (until wordsmithed by Strozk for Comey), "nothing to see here folks, move along." And with all the evidence of criminal violations of oath, and conspiracy to attempt undoing an election (and the documentation of explicit bias as motive), "nothing to see here folks, move along."

Fast & Furious, IRS, Benghazi, HRC email, Clinton Foundation, Uranium One...
Nothing.Will.Happen.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 13:24   #12
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
IMHO the behavior of many cited in this article was extremely unprofessional or worse. Much, much worse.

When management of the supposed premier law enforcement agency in the nation calls both their acts AND their omissions into question (prosecutorial discretion is VERY, VERY powerful when you are empowered to turn your back on some things and not others)...the 7th floor needs some extreme renovations...if not more.

The FBI Needs to Be Turned on Its Head
TownHall
Bruce Bialosky|Posted: Jun 24, 2018 12:01 AM

Unless you have been hiding on a South Seas island, you have become quite aware of the Justice Department Inspector General’s (IG) report released regarding the Clinton Investigation plus more. There are so many points here, but let’s focus on the most important ones:

1. This has nothing to do with the everyday men and women of the FBI. FBI Director Christopher Wray should stop hiding behind them like his mother’s skirt. This is all about the leadership of the FBI – the seventh floor of the building.

2. There was a culture created and protected that allowed a definitive bias to exist during the 2016 election and beyond in that group. That is on Comey’s head and there is no evidence Wray has obliterated that culture.

3. The fact that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page exchanged so many damning text messages on their FBI devices is evidence of that culture. We, in private industry, learned long ago that all of our emails/texts are subject to review at a further time. Strzok and Page most likely knew that because they had seen it used against FBI suspects. They went ahead with their communications anyway. There is only one rationale for their behavior. They thought they would never be looked at. They thought they were above the law because they thought they were the law.

4. Now that all the leadership has been alerted to the fact that they should not communicate their deeply-prejudicial political views on FBI devices should not mean they are just transferred to private devices. Wray’s comment that he will initiate bias training will not alleviate the bias any more than Howard Schultz shutting down Starbucks for racial bias training will alleviate racial bias.

5. The fact that FBI agents were being hosted by members of the media for golf outings and meals staggers the imagination. The vast majority of them did not even have authorization to communicate with the press.

6. There are a lot of reasons to question the wisdom and leadership of James Comey. But we now have one that is irrefutable. This man did not know that Huma Abedin was married to Anthony Weiner. How out of touch can one person be? I could go on with snarky remarks amplifying this astonishing fact, but all one has to say is: REALLY?

7. Why was Comey involved in the Clinton decision anyway? When AG Lynch had her meeting with former President Clinton and then lied to the public that the discussion was about grandchildren, she finally had to fess up and step aside. Why did her number

two not take over like when AG Sessions stepped aside? No one seems to have asked that. Why did it fall to Comey to make the decision whether to indict Clinton?

8. Some of the texts in the report were ones that were sent to Congress with incremental parts redacted. That means there is an active cabal within the FBI to hide information from us and our elected officials responsible for their oversight. That means Wray is not doing the job. That means Wray should be fired. The New FBI Director/acting FBI Director should immediately release all information unredacted to Congress and stop hiding behind the lie of “national security.”

9. Why did it take a congressman to provide the names of lawyer #2 and #5? Why did the IG hold back these names that sent inflammatory texts? The FBI stated they were working in counterintelligence when they were not. Why do they continue to treat us and our elected officials like children? Another reason the seventh floor needs to be swept clean.

10. The fact that the IG did not find direct bias in the decisions of the FBI is different from the fact that there was no bias. A blind man could see there was bias – extreme bias. The fact that the IG did not see it in the decisions is his own interpretation. Let’s not believe that despite the fine job the IG did he did not have an institutional bias to preserve the integrity of the FBI and Justice Department.

11. It is almost impossible to believe that people like Strozk and Page and others who harbored great animus toward Trump did not allow any of that animus to invade their work on the Clinton or Trump investigations. It defies almost any experience I have had in my life. It is possible, but the chances are the same for me flying to Mars.

12. Here is something to think about: The IG stated they could find no bias in the decisions made. Yet we discover through the report that Comey either inappropriately or illegally had used a private email address to perform FBI business. Thus, he was guilty of doing the same improper behavior Ms. Clinton was excused of in the investigation. Is it not possible that Comey knew if he endorsed indictment of Clinton his own malfeasance would come out and thus that drove his decision? Isn’t that bias?

13. As an aside, this report brought out that President Obama lied. And I thought Trump was the only president who lied. The report validated that Obama lied about when he knew that Clinton had a private server. But this should have been known two years ago if we had a functional press at the time. Obama had to be getting emails from her private email address as opposed to Hillary@secretaryofstate.gov. Didn’t he see that and say to himself “Why is Hil sending me an email from a private email address?” He neither said anything about it nor put a stop to it. He just lied about it when asked.

Of the tens of thousands of words I have read about this report, these words from the editors of the Investor’s Business Daily are my favorites: “But look at the report in its totality and you see that time and again officials made ‘judgment calls’ that weakened their investigation. In other words, from the range of options available to them, they consistently chose the less aggressive course of action.”

Here is another thought from the best source for analysis of these matters, Andy McCarthy;

“It has become a refrain among defenders of the FBI and Justice Department that critics are trying to destroy these vital institutions. In point of fact, these agencies are doing yeoman’s work destroying themselves — much to the chagrin of those of us who spent much of our professional lives proudly carrying out their mission.”

Don’t take the IG’s statement that he found no bias as it has been twisted by some. He found nothing that said “I am tanking this investigation to make sure Clinton wins and Trump loses.” This report clearly displays the FBI was out of control. It is still out of control evidenced by their belligerent attitude toward delivering subpoenaed information to our elected officials.

This organization needs a gutting at the top.

https://townhall.com/columnists/bruc...-head-n2493019
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 14:53   #13
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Now that they're alerted (unless living under a rock) that their FBI device comms are in play, the rest of the iceberg is/has been, on private-sector comms. I would like to see someone indicted where those become in play. And see the very people who lust for monitoring of their peasants - while screaming "but...National Security!" - squirm about privacy when someone drops a dime to Ft Meade and says "gimme all ya got" on this terminal slug.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 15:29   #14
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger52 View Post
Now that they're alerted (unless living under a rock) that their FBI device comms are in play, the rest of the iceberg is/has been, on private-sector comms. I would like to see someone indicted where those become in play. And see the very people who lust for monitoring of their peasants - while screaming "but...National Security!" - squirm about privacy when someone drops a dime to Ft Meade and says "gimme all ya got" on this terminal slug.
Perhaps, the ticket to management at FBI/DOJ - should be that all of management’s devices are in play. Not rank and file...just management.

Make unannounced review/sample of management’s devices by the IG’s office.

Make IG’s devices reviewed by rotating office of rank and file.

...with increase of rank and pay comes increased accountability.

Trust is earned.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies