DOJ OIG report to find Comey deviated from FBI procedure, no political bias

[TSA]

:lmao is that why OIG was silent?

I decided to stop jumping around and will read the sections on your questions.

[djohn2oo8]

You must have missed this.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfmpu_IUcAI135T.jpg


Quick do your "lol pizzagate" thingy and log off so you don't have to think about it.

Was Hillary arrested? :lmao

[spurraider21]

but what about the stuff about clinton getting special treatment and the exoneration letter and the changing of investigation to matter and recklessness to negligence, etc. you've ducked this several times already.


I assume you’ve read the whole thing?

I haven’t read the entire thing yet. I’m reading about the Weiner laptop right now on Page 329.

“In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we considered the text messages that Strzok exchanged with Page expressing hostility for then candidate Trump and preference for a Clinton victory. 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.”
:lol per par

terrified to talk about OIG report saying nothing about exoneration letter, changing recklessness to negligence, and changing investigation to matter

[TSA]

:lol per par

terrified to talk about OIG report saying nothing about exoneration letter, changing recklessness to negligence, and changing investigation to matter

“I believe it’s equally important for the Director to more fully explain why the FBI can, in good faith, recommend to DOJ that they not charge someone who has committed a crime (as defined by the letter of the law). It’s important the Director explain our recommendation from the FBI perspective and not from the DOJ/prosecutorial perspective. The FBI is recommending that charges not be brought in this instance, not only because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” but because the FBI believes it’s the right thing to do based on.... (Emphasis and ellipses in original).”

[djohn2oo8]

TSA again with nothing.

[TSA]

TSA again with nothing.

Says the Trump/Russia collusion pimp.

[TSA]

:lol per par

terrified to talk about OIG report saying nothing about exoneration letter, changing recklessness to negligence, and changing investigation to matter

There’s actually quite a bit in the report on all of the above.

[Reck]

You must have missed this.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfmpu_IUcAI135T.jpg


Quick do your "lol pizzagate" thingy and log off so you don't have to think about it.

The FBI and DOJ conducts these operations all the time, for one.

And secondly, that's a wild jump from Hillary and co. have a sex ring to DOJ conducts operation and catches thousands of random pedophiles.

Where are you making the connection with Hillary?

Chris, is a good thing you're relatively a nobody and the people you are slandering have no idea you exist or you'd be in a world of hurt with these baseless accusations and such.

[Spurminator]

The only ones doing damage control are the ones running around claiming nothingburger. Have you read more than the summary?

You think they're not going to put the most important things in the summary? Like, page 478 is going to say, "Oh and by the way we found 3 FBI agents in a meeting with Hillary Clinton, where they promised her that they would fabricate evidence against Donald Trump."

Good luck with all of the reading.

[Spurminator]

Did you actually think Horowitz would make criminal referrals in this initial release yes or no?

You thought he would when you posted the Sperry tweet.

[djohn2oo8]

You thought he would when you posted the Sperry tweet.

Yeah that damage control is hilarious especially when pre report he couldn't stop talking about criminal referrals, prosecutions.

[Pavlov]

gotta love your attempts to avoid my questionlol

Question pending, TSA:


OK, what's the big picture?

Who's getting charged with what after all is said and done?

[TSA]

You think they're not going to put the most important things in the summary? Like, page 478 is going to say, "Oh and by the way we found 3 FBI agents in a meeting with Hillary Clinton, where they promised her that they would fabricate evidence against Donald Trump."

Good luck with all of the reading.

This portion of the investigation wasn’t about the Russia investigation what a stupid hypothetical :lol

You really should read more than the summary.

=====

“There’s Loretta Lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an “error in judgment.” Mr. Comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI “resources” were dedicated in October to spinning FBI “talking points” about the Clinton investigation—rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September. We even find that Mr. Comey used personal email and laptops to conduct government work.

There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the Clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who “failed to strictly adhere to [his] recusal” when he finally stepped away. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not “fully comply with his recusal,” and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media. Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire “volume of communication” between FBI employees and the press. Not only did these folks have “no official reason to be in contact with the media,” but they also “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”

Be ready to hear the report absolves the FBI and DOJ of “bias.” Not true. It very carefully states that “our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.” Put another way, he never caught anyone writing down: Let’s start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win.

But the bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely “hostile” to Candidate Trump. It’s in Ms. Page’s freak-out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.” To which a second agent replies. “Rog—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.”

It’s in the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements. The report is largely neutral on all this, giving officials the broad benefit of the doubt on “discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation.” But it immediately follows that statement by noting that its job of evaluating the integrity of decisions was “made significantly more difficult” by the obvious bias among key players, which “cast a cloud” over the entire “investigation’s credibility.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/insubordination-and-bias-at-fbi-1529018176?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/gq91VXrlz5

[TSA]

You thought he would when you posted the Sperry tweet.

Nope. I thought he would follow the same sequence as the report on McCabe.

[Pavlov]

lol Strassel trying hard today

[TSA]

lol

Question pending, TSA:

I’m sorry your autism prevents you from accepting my answer to this question the first time.

[TSA]

lol Strassel trying hard today

lol you really zinged her there.

[Pavlov]

I’m sorry your autism prevents you from accepting my answer to this question the first time.Nope. You chickened out.

lol muh bets

Some sad shit, TSA.

[Pavlov]

lol you really zinged her there.Not trying as hard as you, but pretty damn hard.

[spurraider21]

“I believe it’s equally important for the Director to more fully explain why the FBI can, in good faith, recommend to DOJ that they not charge someone who has committed a crime (as defined by the letter of the law). It’s important the Director explain our recommendation from the FBI perspective and not from the DOJ/prosecutorial perspective. The FBI is recommending that charges not be brought in this instance, not only because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” but because the FBI believes it’s the right thing to do based on.... (Emphasis and ellipses in original).”
:lol who's comment is that?

:lmao trying to pass that off as OIG findings

[TSA]

Not trying as hard as you, but pretty damn hard.

The irony of the most active and frequent poster on the site who always has to get the last word in accusing anyone else of trying hard :rollin

[Pavlov]

The irony of the most active and frequent poster on the site who always has to get the last word in accusing anyone else of trying hard :rollinMy story didn't change today.

Yours did.

Yours has changed many times in the past months.

You thought a United 737 was AF1.

You're working very hard today.

lol

[spurraider21]

There’s actually quite a bit in the report on all of the above.
no. there's absolutely nothing about them changing comey's speech to say negligence instead of reckless.

there's nothing about changing "clinton investigation" to "clinton matter"

nothing about a premature exoneration letter

nothing about an improper decision not to recommend charges

[Winehole23]

IT'S ALL THERE!

[Spurminator]

Nope. I thought he would follow the same sequence as the report on McCabe.

Then you posted something you knew was not possible.

I'd believe that. You have no integrity. But I'm still leaning towards you got duped.

[Spurminator]

This portion of the investigation wasn’t about the Russia investigation what a stupid hypothetical :lol

:lol Nitpicking a sarcastic hypothetical.


You really should read more than the summary.

I'm good. Have fun with it. Whatever makes you feel better about all of the time and energy you've put into this puppy.

[djohn2oo8]

TSA, Spurtacular, Chris all on defense like this every time
https://joemontanasrightarm.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/peytonfake.gif

[TSA]

no. there's absolutely nothing about them changing comey's speech to say negligence instead of reckless.

there's nothing about changing "clinton investigation" to "clinton matter"

nothing about a premature exoneration letter

nothing about an improper decision not to recommend charges

Did you skip over chapter 6? There is literally a section named ”the decision to omit gross negligence”. Do you need me to point you to each page?

[spurraider21]

Did you skip over chapter 6? There is literally a section named ”the decision to omit gross negligence”. Do you need me to point you to each page?
yeah and tell me all about their findings of wrongdoing

[Pavlov]

Did you skip over chapter 6? There is literally a section named ”the decision to omit gross negligence”. Do you need me to point you to each page?

Did they declare it to be an unlawful exoneration?

Yes or no.

lol

[Winehole23]

Did you skip over chapter 6? There is literally a section named ”the decision to omit gross negligence”. Do you need me to point you to each page?there are serious problems pointed out in the report.

you are skipping over them to insist crimes were committed.

you'd get a lot more mileage if you focused on the acknowledged problems rather than conclusions you don't like.

[Winehole23]

here, I'll do one for you:

1007419011297136640

[Chris]

1007450520921858048
1007450852586500096
1007451456201297920
1007452678035681280
1007453241662046208
1007453644839518208
1007454841302470657
1007455278831288321
1007455796362297344
1007456204879060992
1007456849900126208
1007459538193141760
1007462249185796096
1007462959050702848
1007463148025081856

[Pavlov]

https://s22.postimg.cc/7busbliu9/kick.gif

[Chris]

Pavlov found a new gif to spam. Go Pavlov go!

[Pavlov]

Pavlov found a new gif to spam. Go Pavlov go!It fits.

All you guys are saying is "Jes you wait til the NEXT report! Susan Rice is going down for sure!"

Spinning like tops.

[Chris]

It fits.

All you guys are saying is "Jes you wait til the NEXT report! Susan Rice is going down for sure!"

Spinning like tops.

Huh?

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
(https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton)
But my emails.

Kyle Cheney
✔@kyledcheney

IG found that on numerous occasions, COMEY used a personal GMail account to conduct official FBI business, according to source briefed on the report.
(https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1007317351031861248)
4:36 PM - Jun 14, 2018 (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336)

[ducks]

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN that he plans to challenge Inspector General Michael Horowitz at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday about his report findings on the handling of Hillary Clinton's emails.

Graham wants to ask Horowitz why he found no evidence of bias on the part of the FBI and Department of Justice in the Clinton email investigation.

"I think he'll be challenged about his conclusion," the South Carolina lawmaker said. "I think he's a good guy. And we'll see what happens. I'll tell you better after I hear him explain why he got to where he did."

[spurraider21]

still campaigning against clinton :lol

[Winehole23]

worked twice: Obama then Trump.

if Sec'y Clinton doesn't make herself scarce, it could work again.

[SnakeBoy]

still campaigning against clinton :lol

The gift that keeps on giving.

Dems seem to want to give another gift for the midterms

Is Obama Coming Back? Democrats Cry For Help Beating Trump Because 'There's F*****g No One Else'
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-coming-back-democrats-cry-help-beating-trump-because-theres-fg-no-one-978509

[Reck]

The gift that keeps on giving.

Dems seem to want to give another gift for the midterms

Is Obama Coming Back? Democrats Cry For Help Beating Trump Because 'There's F*****g No One Else'
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-coming-back-democrats-cry-help-beating-trump-because-theres-fg-no-one-978509


It does?

Then how come republicans keep losing seats then?

You dummies need to get it through your thick heads, she's done, she doesn't matter. We're moving on.

[pgardn]

Good news ducks:

This finding exonerates Trump. (So he says)
Add this to the finding that the Mars rover has endured a dust storm, and Trump is in the clear.

Stop this witch hunt... we got findings.

[spurraider21]

The gift that keeps on giving.

Dems seem to want to give another gift for the midterms

Is Obama Coming Back? Democrats Cry For Help Beating Trump Because 'There's F*****g No One Else'
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-coming-back-democrats-cry-help-beating-trump-because-theres-fg-no-one-978509
same bullshit like the stuff about hillary running for mayor or governor or whatever the fuck that deadweight rumor was

[Spurminator]

The gift that keeps on giving.

Dems seem to want to give another gift for the midterms


Barack Obama ended his Presidency with a 59% approval rating and the last Gallup Poll put his retrospective approval at 63%.

[TSA]

1007268885408538624
:lmao TSA
:lmao Nothingburger

lol no bias

“Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed ..."

Could a sentence have more limiters in it? No documentary or testimonial evidence that directly tied the political views to specific decisions. As the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel points out, that basically means that no one actually wrote down, "Let's start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win."

Viva le resistance: How political bias infected FBI Trump, Clinton probes

It didn't take long for defenders of the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation to claim that the Justice Department inspector general's report found no bias in the bureau's conduct of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, nor in the early days of the Trump-Russia probe.

"There was no bias in the FBI," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said on MSNBC.

"No bias at the FBI," Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News.

"No evidence ... [that the FBI] acted on the basis of political bias," Rep. Adam Schiff of California, top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

The comments had an otherworldly feel to them, because the IG report not only found, but documented, at great length, an FBI culture that was infested with political bias — specifically a political bias against President Trump.

The inspector general, Michael Horowitz, discovered the bias when he examined the internal communications of FBI officials involved in the Clinton and Trump probes. (The new report specifically covers the email investigation, but also touches on the beginning of the Trump investigation, because they overlapped in time and because a significant number of key FBI officials were involved in both.) Horowitz discovered a group of officials, some of them in key positions in the Clinton-Trump investigations, who made no secret of their support of Clinton and opposition to Trump.

"Our task was made significantly more difficult because of text and instant messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by five FBI employees involved in the [Clinton email] investigation," Horowitz wrote in the executive summary of the report. "These messages reflected political opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and against her then political opponent Donald Trump. Some of these text messages and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the [Clinton email] investigation, and raised concerns that political bias may have impacted investigative decisions."

The conduct of the five FBI employees — including some in very high-ranking positions — "brought discredit to themselves," Horowitz concluded, and also "sowed doubt" about the FBI's conduct of the Clinton investigation and beyond.

The five include the now-famous FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, but also three others, not named in the report but referred to as Agent 1, Agent 5, and FBI Attorney 2.

The single most devastating statement in the report, of course, is from Strzok. When Page, the high-ranking FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair, texted, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

The exchange occurred on Aug. 8, 2016, just a few days after the July 31, 2016, official start of the FBI Trump-Russia probe. Strzok, who played a key role in the Clinton investigation, was there at the very beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, too, and remained with the probe through the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. He was removed from the investigation in late July 2017 after Horowitz brought the texts to Mueller's attention.

The inspector general asked Strzok about the "We'll stop it" text, and Strzok responded that he did not "specifically recall" sending it. Horowitz wrote that Strzok explained "that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation."

The report goes on to detail many more Strzok-Page texts. There were so many that Horowitz divided them into three categories. There were texts in which the two generally dumped on Trump — like Page's March 3, 2016, text, "God trump is a loathsome human," and her July 18, 2016, text that Trump "is an enormous douche." There were texts specifically concerning the Clinton email investigation — like Page's July 26, 2016, text, when watching the Democratic National Convention, that, "Yeah, it is pretty cool. [Clinton] just has to win now. I'm not going to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about trump." And there were texts specifically concerning the Trump-Russia investigation — like an Aug. 6, 2016, exchange in which Page sent Strzok an article about the Khzir Khan matter with the comment, "And Trump should go f himself," to which Strzok responded, "And F Trump," to which Page responded, "Maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace."

And so on; Horowitz included much more from Strzok and Page. But equally newsworthy in the report is what the IG revealed about Agent 1, Agent 5, and FBI Attorney 2.

The report says that Agent 1 and Agent 5 were having a romantic relationship at the time and later married. They communicated their distaste for Trump on the FBI's internal instant messaging system. On Aug. 29, 2016, they were apparently discussing working for the FBI and Agent 1 wrote, "I find anyone who enjoys [this job] an absolute fucking idiot. If you dont think so, ask them one more question. Who are you voting for? I guarantee you it will be Donald Drumpf."

"Drumpf" is a name late-night "resistance" TV favorite John Oliver gave to Trump.

"i forgot about drumpf," responded Agent 5.

On Nov. 8, 2016, Election Day, the two shared a number of comments about the campaign. "You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesnt" asked Agent 1, to which Agent 5 responded, "she better win...otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns," to which Agent 5 later added, "screw you trump."

On Dec. 6, 2016, the two discussed having to be on call for the presidential inauguration. "fuck trump," wrote Agent 1.

Agent 1 was one of two agents who interviewed Clinton on July 2, 2016. Agent 5 was also on the Clinton investigation. Neither, according to Horowitz, was assigned to the Trump-Russia investigation.

Then there was FBI Attorney 2. His case is particularly newsworthy because Horowitz reported — it was not known before — that, like Strzok and Page, FBI Attorney 2 was removed from the Mueller investigation when the inspector general made Mueller aware of FBI Attorney 2's internal communications. "FBI Attorney 2 left the special counsel's investigation and returned to the FBI in late February 2018, shortly after the IG provided the special counsel with some of the instant messages discussed in this section," the report says.

On Oct. 28, 2016, the day the FBI's then-director, James Comey, announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation, FBI Attorney 2 messaged four other FBI employees, saying, "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway" or similar messages.

On Nov. 9, 2016, the day after Trump won the presidency, FBI Attorney 2 messaged another FBI employee, saying, "I am numb."

"I am so stressed about what I could have done differently," FBI Attorney 2 fretted. He later told Horowitz that was a reference to the reopening of the Clinton investigation, which put Clinton on the defensive just days before the election. FBI Attorney 2 worried that the bureau cost Clinton the presidency.

"We broke the momentum," FBI Attorney 2 wrote, apparently referring to Clinton's assumed march to victory. "I'm just devastated. I can't wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days."

"I just can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years," FBI Attorney 2 wrote. "ACA [the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare] 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."

"And it's just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states."

Asked about the various comments, FBI Attorney 2 told Horowitz's investigators that he and the others were "just discussing our personal feelings" and "tend to exaggerate."

On Nov. 22, 2016, two weeks after the election, FBI Attorney 2 and another FBI lawyer were messaging about "the amount of money the subject of an FBI investigation had been paid while working on the Trump campaign," according to Horowitz. The other attorney jokingly asked, "Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?" "Hell no," FBI Attorney 2 responded. "Viva le resistance."

Horowitz asked FBI Attorney 2 about the "viva le resistance" comment. "It's just my political view in terms of, of my preference," FBI Attorney 2 responded. "It wasn't something along the lines of, you know, we're taking certain actions in order to, you know, combat that or, or do anything like that."

FBI Attorney 2 was part of the Trump-Russia investigation from an early date — Horowitz does not say precisely when — until this year. In late February 2018, he became, after Strzok and Page, the third FBI official removed from the Mueller investigation because of overt anti-Trump bias.

Beyond the five FBI employees cited by Horowitz, other FBI workers, referred to in the report as "FBI Employee," also expressed anti-Trump bias. For example, "FBI Employee" tried to comfort FBI Attorney 2 by saying the bureau's actions probably did not sway Clinton voters: "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."

Horowitz did not say whether "FBI Employee" worked on the Trump-Russia investigation.

In the end, Horowitz pronounced himself "deeply troubled" by some of the expressions of bias. He was particularly troubled by Strzok's "We'll stop it" comment, which Horowitz concluded was "not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects."

So where does that leave those Democrats and others who claim the report found "no bias" in the Clinton-Trump investigations? It leaves them without much ammunition.

The defenders point to two remarks from Horowitz. In the first, the IG wrote, "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice." The problem is that statement was limited to the Justice Department's specific decision not to prosecute Clinton and did not address the Trump-Russia situation. Concerning one Strzok decision in the Trump-Russia affair, Horowitz wrote, "We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias."

The defenders also point to this from Horowitz: "Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed ..."

Could a sentence have more limiters in it? No documentary or testimonial evidence that directly tied the political views to specific decisions. As the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel points out, that basically means that no one actually wrote down, "Let's start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win."

The fact is, bias — political bias, anti-Trump bias — was pervasive in some quarters of the Trump-Russia investigation. And that is just what the inspector general found in his review of the Clinton investigation — not his main examination of the Trump-Russia probe. That inspector general investigation is going on now and will ultimately — no one knows when — result in a report that will likely be at least as long and at least as newsy as the report released Thursday. There could be a lot more to discover.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/byron-york-political-bias-infected-fbi-trump-clinton-investigations?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

[spurraider21]

lol moral victories

[TSA]

1007681699998728192

[Pavlov]

lol TSA's spin is longer than the report itself.
1007681699998728192Is this BIG BOOM?

I'm going to say right now it isn't.

[Spurtacular]

1007268885408538624


That's not saying it didn't happen. That's saying it wasn't found. Which is not surprising when this is the claim of the IG:


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.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/

:lmao Trump Derangement Syndrome at work.

[Reck]

That's not saying it didn't happen. That's saying it wasn't found. Which is not surprising when this is the claim of the IG:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/

:lmao Trump Derangement Syndrome at work.

Derp, you're way out of your element here. Quietly exit thread.

[Spurtacular]

Derp, you're way out of your element here. Quietly exit thread.

:lol Tranny triggered as fuck these days.
:lol You should probably realize you don't have anything when you're quoting beta Jon Cryer tweets.

[Reck]

:lol Tranny triggered as fuck these days.
:lol You should probably realize you don't have anything when you're quoting beta Jon Cryer tweets.

That's a quote from inspector Horowitz. :lol

[Spurtacular]

That's a quote from inspector Horowitz. :lol

Quoting a Cryer tweet, bruh. Of course I know it's the inspector. I'm the one quoted his report for a rebuttal.

:lol "out of your league"
:lol Today's tranny

[Reck]

:lol You should probably realize you don't have anything when you're quoting beta Jon Cryer tweets.


Of course I know it's the inspector.


No. No you didn't.

[Spurtacular]

No. No you didn't.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/

:lol That's a link to an article on the IG's report, dumb ass.
:lol Fully ethered in three posts. (Resorting to the 'nuh uh defense' :lol)
:lol Speaking of Jon Cryer, does it make you mad that he's a closet tranophobe / phony progressive?

[Reck]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/

:lol That's a link to an article on the IG's report, dumb ass.
:lol Fully ethered in three posts. (Resorting to the 'nuh uh defense' :lol)
:lol Speaking of Jon Cryer, does it make you mad that he's a closet tranophobe / phony progressive?

So you're going against your own words which you posted here? Living up to your designated given name here, I see. Good for you.

:lol giving himself a victory

[TSA]

2 lowest IQ posters going blow for blow lol

[Reck]

2 lowest IQ posters going blow for blow lol

:lol Conspiratard senior talking about IQs. :lmao

How are all your predictions working out?

[Spurtacular]

2 lowest IQ posters going blow for blow lol

You don't want a piece of this, bitch. You never have. Talkin' that shit out of leftfield like a certified pussy.

:lmao cuck Blake level posting right there.

[Spurtacular]

So you're going against your own words which you posted here? Living up to your designated given name here, I see. Good for you.

:lol giving himself a victory

I'm not going against anything I said tranny. I posted the words of the IG to show how worthless chump jr.'s assertions about what the IG stated were. And you being a dumbfuck is not a victory so much as it is you being a dumfuck. Par.

[Winehole23]

Publius Tacitus, with a so far canonical alt-right take: the report and its conclusions are schizoid.

The report proves the deep state coup, the stated conclusions deny it.


G Horowitz is adopting a very narrow legal interpretation while opting to give DOJ and FBI officials the benefit of the doubt. In other words, unless he was presented with "documents" or "testimony" that political bias was influencing decisions, Horowitz decided to assume that everyone was acting in good faith. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/06/doj-ig-horowitz-fails-to-admit-what-he-proves.html

[Winehole23]

I find the bit rhetorically persuasive.

I also find it hard to conclude that by election day, the FBI hurt DJT more than it hurt HRC.

[Winehole23]

one conundrum of being the FBI and being DJT: the mere fact of an FBI investigation of DJT would be politically damning.

why did the DEEP STATE CABAL against DJT stay mum about the Russia investigation during the campaign?

so it could slam DJT's reputation after he won the election?

[Winehole23]

it barely makes sense. TRAITOROUS DEEP STATE COUP PLOTTERS choosing to forgo election tampering in favor of letting DJT win, then smearing him afterwards.

[Spurminator]

Best not to over extend yourself questioning the basic logic of any Trump or MAGA soldier version of reality. It doesn't matter to them. Protect at all cost, even if the cost is truth and logic.

[boutons_deux]

why did the DEEP STATE CABAL against DJT stay mum about the Russia investigation during the campaign?


yep, FBI was investigating both Hillary and Trash, actually Trash and mafiya for MUCH longer, but kept silence about the Trash side, while going public on national TV in Jul 16 to trash Hillary.

FBI/etc did tell Congressional leaders and Obama about the Trash-Russia connection and Russian meddling, but Bitch McC refused to go public, blocking Obama's requirement of unanimity to go public.

[Winehole23]

Spurminator: I can't see how it hurts to try to understand what someone is trying to say.

Many of my people are Trump voters; many of them express relevant pop conspiracy hypotheses.

[boutons_deux]

FBI didn't "stay mum", it told Dem/Repug congressional leaders and Obama about Trash + Russian stuff, but Bitch McC blocked going public

Comey going public in July about Hillary broke FBI protocol, erred, and was opposed by others in FBI, and was insubordinate per OIG. Comey said he did it to pre-empt leakers in FBI NYC office.

[Winehole23]

FBI didn't "stay mum", it told Dem/Repug congressional leaders and Obama about Trash + Russian stuff, but Bitch McC blocked going publicfair enough. that is accurate.

I was kinda trying to flesh out the perspective of the putative DEEP STATE PLOTTERS who don't leak a single thing about Russia during the campaign, but fluently ever afterward.

[Winehole23]

Comey going public in July about Hillary broke FBI protocol, erred, and was opposed by others in FBI, and was insubordinate per OIG. Comey said he did it to pre-empt leakers in FBI NYC office.Both announcements were very inappropriate. The second one cast a shadow on the election, it was very close.

[boutons_deux]

Both announcements were very inappropriate. The second one cast a shadow on the election, it was very close.

the 2nd wasn't annonced, it was a letter to congress that Trash-fellator Nunes leaked to screw over Hillary.

538 said there significant movement, in WI, MI, PA (the states that elected Trash) from Hillz to Trash in they days after Nunes leaked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.269b19bd4d35

[DarrinS]

fair enough. that is accurate.

I was kinda trying to flesh out the perspective of the putative DEEP STATE PLOTTERS who don't leak a single thing about Russia during the campaign, but fluently ever afterward.


When did Harry Reid write a letter to James Comey?

[DarrinS]

Who briefed Harry Reid on dossier?

[Winehole23]

you tell us, Darrin.

did you memorialize it?

[Winehole23]

which campaign got hurt more at the hands of the FBI on election day?

[DarrinS]

you tell us, Darrin.

did you memorialize it?


John Brennan briefed Reid et. al. in August 2016. Of course, Brennan pleaded with Reid (wink, wink) not to write a letter.

Then this

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/politics/document-Reid-Letter-to-Comey.html

[pgardn]

The election was gonna be close no matter what.
There was a very significant movement in the Republican Party to nominate Trump out of a very large field as well.
Conclusion: The country was very divided. There were a large number of Americans who considered our orange clown; this has to be respected and more importantly, understood.

Boots can If and But all he wants facts are many people chose Trump twice.

Sadly imo, the US still has a solid 1/3 respect a lying cheap salesman.

[Pavlov]

When did Harry Reid write a letter to James Comey?


Who briefed Harry Reid on dossier?


John Brennan briefed Reid et. al. in August 2016. Of course, Brennan pleaded with Reid (wink, wink) not to write a letter.

Then this

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/politics/document-Reid-Letter-to-Comey.htmlWhat's your conspiracy theory here, Darrin?

Let us know what you think.

[Winehole23]

John Brennan briefed Reid et. al. in August 2016. Of course, Brennan pleaded with Reid (wink, wink) not to write a letter.

Then this

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/politics/document-Reid-Letter-to-Comey.htmlThat's not leaking. that's official correspondence.

how did it hurt DJT during the campaign?

[Spurminator]

Spurminator (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=45): I can't see how it hurts to try to understand what someone is trying to say.

Many of my people are Trump voters; many of them express relevant pop conspiracy hypotheses.

It doesn't hurt, I've just found it fruitless. Many of my people are as well.

Here's how it works.

1. Presume conclusion that validates Donald Trump's innocence and/or unfair treatment by the media/deep state/etc
2. Discredit or ignore questions or explanations as to why their conclusion is logically impractical

In short, don't expect your questions to be answered.

[Spurminator]

If you like, consider my response a piggyback of yours. The questions should continue to be asked, because these useful idiots deserve to be challenged.

[SnakeBoy]

Barack Obama ended his Presidency with a 59% approval rating and the last Gallup Poll put his retrospective approval at 63%.

He's also proven to be better at getting Republicans to the polls than Democrats when he isn't on the ticket.

[Spurminator]

He's also proven to be better at getting Republicans to the polls than Democrats when he isn't on the ticket.

I know this is a sports board, but this is lazy smack akin to saying teams should avoid Lebron James because the Cavs lost the Championship.

Hillary Clinton had a little more to do with getting Republicans to the polls than Barack Obama. She won't be on the ticket this time. Dems may still lose but saying it's because of Barack Obama is not something you can justify beyond "They lost so I'm right."

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

listen/read any of the Trash supporters, the ignorance, willful or not, is scary.

[Spurminator]

For 2018 campaigning, the Dems need a liberal that Republicans aren't reflexively hostile towards, like... (checks notes)... uh...

[boutons_deux]

For 2018 campaigning, the Dems need a liberal that Republicans aren't reflexively hostile towards, like... (checks notes)... uh...

They'll keep the superdelegates, so the Dem establishment's choice, reliably as corrupted by BigMoney and well right of center as Hillary and Slick Willie, will start 500 Dem nominating votes ahead of any lefty challenger, just as Bernie did.

No more McGoverns, nor Carters for the Dems.

They just passed the anti-Bernie rule, that the nominee must be a confessed, official Dem and must run as a Dem.

[Spurminator]

They'll keep the superdelegates, so the Dem establishment's choice, reliably as corrupted by BigMoney and well right of center as Hillary and Slick Willie, will start 500 Dem nominating votes ahead of any lefty challenger, just as Bernie did.

No more McGoverns, nor Carters for the Dems.

They just passed the anti-Bernie rule, that the nominee must be a confessed, official Dem and must run as a Dem.

The superdelegates don't come into play in 2018. We're talking about a Democrat advocate for the midterms, not the Presidential candidate.

[DarrinS]

John Brennan briefed Reid et. al. in August 2016. Of course, Brennan pleaded with Reid (wink, wink) not to write a letter.

Then this

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/politics/document-Reid-Letter-to-Comey.html

Hmmm

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html




WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.

The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed primarily at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews.

The former officials said that in late August — 10 weeks before the election — John O. Brennan, then the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break.

It is unclear what new intelligence (dossier :lol) might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the campaign’s final weeks, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat.

In an Aug. 25 briefing for Harry Reid, then the top Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Brennan indicated that Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election, according to two former officials with knowledge of the briefing.

The officials said Mr. Brennan also indicated that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election. The F.B.I. and two congressional committees are now investigating that claim, focusing on possible communications and financial dealings between Russian affiliates and a handful of former advisers to Mr. Trump. So far, no proof of collusion has emerged publicly.

Mr. Trump has rejected any suggestion of a Russian connection as “ridiculous” and “fake news.” The White House has also sought to redirect the focus from the investigation and toward what Mr. Trump has said, with no evidence, was President Barack Obama’s wiretapping of phones in Trump Tower during the presidential campaign.

The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. declined to comment for this article, as did Mr. Brennan and senior lawmakers who were part of the summer briefings.

In the August briefing for Mr. Reid, the two former officials said, Mr. Brennan indicated that the C.I.A., focused on foreign intelligence, was limited in its legal ability to investigate possible connections to Mr. Trump. The officials said Mr. Brennan told Mr. Reid that the F.B.I., in charge of domestic intelligence, would have to lead the way.

[Pavlov]

HmmmWhat is your conspiracy theory here, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

What is your conspiracy theory here, Darrin?

I'm just picturing Brennan frantically peddling the piss dossier to members of Congress. :lol

[Pavlov]

I'm just picturing Brennan frantically peddling the piss dossier to members of Congress. :lolBut what is your conspiracy theory here, Darrin?

You're really pushing this for some reason.

Why?

[DarrinS]

But what is your conspiracy theory here, Darrin?

You're really pushing this for some reason.

Why?


one conundrum of being the FBI and being DJT: the mere fact of an FBI investigation of DJT would be politically damning.

why did the DEEP STATE CABAL against DJT stay mum about the Russia investigation during the campaign?

so it could slam DJT's reputation after he won the election?


Lol, stayed mum

[Pavlov]

Lol, stayed mumSo what did the cabal make public to hurt Trump during the campaign, Darrin?


Be specific.

[Isitjustme?]

Lol, stayed mum

You are impossibly obtuse

[Spurminator]

The DEEP STATE CABAL was quite a bit less mum about the Weiner laptop prior to the election, one would think, were one not a hopelessly partisan useful idiot like Darrin.

[Brazil]

:lol viva le resistance... dat French is great

[rmt]

1007376361101582336

Not saying that I condone Comey using Gmail but that at least that has the full force of Google protecting it (from foreign bad guys) while hers sat in a closet?

[djohn2oo8]

The DEEP STATE CABAL was quite a bit less mum about the Weiner laptop prior to the election, one would think, were one not a hopelessly partisan useful idiot like Darrin.

Their biggest L to date. But it will be surpassed.

[djohn2oo8]

TSA

[Winehole23]

Lol, stayed mumthe alleged DEEP STATE CABAL wasn't leaking to the media about the Russia investigation before election day. the NYPD and the NY FBI desk weren't so scrupulous about their political bias against HRC.

[ducks]

Peter Strzok says he's willing to testify before House Judiciary Committee
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/peter-strzok-house-judiciary-committee-testify/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/17/peter-strzok-fbi-agent-pulled-from-mueller-probe-over-anti-trump-texts-open-to-testify-to-congress.html

[TSA]

Horowitz with the goods today.

[Pavlov]

Horowitz with the goods today.Which goods?

Use your words, TSA.

[Pavlov]

Sorry, I meant to say use WWI grocery flamethrower words.

[ducks]

the media is trying to downplay this with the imagration talk

[Pavlov]

the media is trying to downplay this with the imagration talkWell tell us all about it ducks.

We'll read it.

[Reck]

Not saying that I condone Comey using Gmail but that at least that has the full force of Google protecting it (from foreign bad guys) while hers sat in a closet?

What?

[Reck]

Which goods?

Use your words, TSA.

I think the fact that his post was literally one short sentence should tell you all you need to know.

Usually, TSA's posts contain links, walls of texts, twitter etc.

No idea why he would even bother showing up. :lol

[Pavlov]

I think the fact that his post was literally one short sentence should tell you all you need to know.

Usually, TSA's posts contain links, walls of texts, twitter etc.

No idea why he would even bother showing up. :lolI predict a can will be kicked.

Jes' you wait!

[RandomGuy]

For 2018 campaigning, the Dems need a liberal that Republicans aren't reflexively hostile towards, like... (checks notes)... uh...

At this point the Trump Party is going to view even the most moderate centrist Democrat as a screaming, bomb-throwing communist. Quite frankly, as a Democrat, not really caring too much.

The Trump party got what it wanted, and has proven, finally, conclusively, that they can't be trusted to run a government.

I just don't think it matters at this point.

[Winehole23]

At this point the Trump Party is going to view even the most moderate centrist Democrat as a screaming, bomb-throwing communist. Obama got pilloried as a hair on fire, bone through the nose, white-people hating third-world Marxist-Leninist...and he was basically a moderate Republican.

[DarrinS]

Obama got pilloried as a hair on fire, bone through the nose, white-people hating third-world Marxist-Leninist...and he was basically a moderate Republican.

:lol

[Winehole23]

well, he was.

just look at his signature legislative acheivement: the ACA was basically copped wholesale from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney.

[Reck]

well, he was.

just look at his signature legislative acheivement: the ACA was basically copped wholesale from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney.

True. :lol

I dont think you could put a sheet of paper between Hillary's and Obama's policies. They're almost identical.

Obama had the benefit of being the fresh new guy and that's why he was able to not only beat her, but also be in the goodwill of so many people from the extreme left to the moderate centrist of the political spectrum.

[Winehole23]

Obama kept Robert Gates, his predecessor's defense secretary and kept defense policy roughly the same.

Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts.

There was a good deal of continuity between GWB and Obama, for better and for worse.

[AaronY]

Obama got pilloried as a hair on fire, bone through the nose, white-people hating third-world Marxist-Leninist...and he was basically a moderate Republican.
Lol far left retard

[AaronY]

Obamacare essentially took a lot of money from the rich and redistributed it to the working class but didnt outright proclaim it as such. Fucking retarded to go so left that Obama's right wing now

[DarrinS]

Obamacare essentially took a lot of money from the rich and redistributed it to the working class but didnt outright proclaim it as such. Fucking retarded to go so left that Obama's right wing now

Actually, it forced young healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize baby boomers health care. Rich people got their own.

[spurraider21]

obamacare was well intentioned but didnt have enough teeth as they watered down the bill to shit in congress.

[AaronY]

Actually, it forced young healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize baby boomers health care. Rich people got their own.

No it was wealth reditribution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-debate-over-the-affordable-care-act-is-really-a-debate-over-wealth-redistribution/2017/03/07/36b7d048-034e-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.f41cbc672c5d

They just didnt sell it as such
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-obamacare-boldly-redistribute-wealth/

[rmt]

What?

Gmail (what Comey was using) is a Google product - security (from foreign hackers) is protected by teams of very smart computer security personnel - unlike Hillary's server in her closet.

[boutons_deux]

obamacare was well intentioned but didnt have enough teeth as they watered down the bill to shit in congress.

"they"?

the oligarchy: BigMed / BigInsurance / BigPharma divisions, the oligarchy runs the country and ACA is their self-enriching shit that they dump on us.

[Winehole23]

Obamacare essentially took a lot of money from the rich and redistributed it to the working class but didnt outright proclaim it as such. Fucking retarded to go so left that Obama's right wing nowHE WAS ROBIN HOOD!

[rmt]

I was responding to Hillary's snarky comment about Comey's emails - his were a lot more secure than hers.

[rmt]

"they"?

the oligarchy: BigMed / BigInsurance / BigPharma divisions, the oligarchy runs the country and ACA is their self-enriching shit that they dump on us.

Then it's the Democrats who bowed to your Bigs since no Republicans voted for it.

[AaronY]

HE WAS ROBIN HOOD!
Sorry he wasn't enough of a far left retard to satisfy your dumb ass who probably wants $15 minimum wage and other santa clause bullshit like free college

[boutons_deux]

Then it's the Democrats who bowed to your Bigs since no Republicans voted for it.

The Dems allowed 1 year of ACA debate, and 100 (weakening) amendments.

They did achieve wonderfully expanding humanitarian health care to people at risk, in bad health, poor, at the cost of paying the Pound of Flesh to the Shylock oligarchy. If no Pound of Flesh paid, Dems would have gotten nothing. The oligarchy dominates.

[Winehole23]

Lol far left retardeh, what do you know about me?

Andrew Sullivan's hypothesis that Obama was a Tory, a guardian of the status quo and a proponent of NO CHANGE, plus strengthening his own office; or, at the very least, a man whose duty it was to hand over the powers of his own office AT LEAST UNDIMINISHED -- is more than minimally supported IMHO.

The biggest beneficiary of Obama enlarging the powers of the executive branch at the moment is Donald John Trump.

[rmt]

The Dems allowed 1 year of ACA debate, and 100 (weakening) amendments.

They did achieve wonderfully expanding humanitarian health care to people at risk, in bad health, poor, at the cost of paying the Pound of Flesh to the Shylock oligarchy. If no Pound of Flesh paid, Dems would have gotten nothing. The oligarchy dominates.

At cost of the young and healthy - that's probably most of you on this board. You blame everything on this oligarchy.

[AaronY]

When you're so far left of center you look at Obama and think hes a republican :lmao

[Winehole23]

what do you think he was?

[Winehole23]

Sorry he wasn't enough of a far left retard to satisfy your dumb ass who probably wants $15 minimum wage and other santa clause bullshit like free collegeI agree Obama wasn't a far left retard.

[boutons_deux]

At cost of the young and healthy - that's probably most of you on this board. You blame everything on this oligarchy.

what was the cost? how many youths lives and wealth were saved by ACA? better they pay their own coverage than taxpayers pay their ER costs.

and you ignore that the wealth- and health-sucking cost of health care racket is defined by, rigged by the oligarchy.

[Reck]

Gmail (what Comey was using) is a Google product - security (from foreign hackers) is protected by teams of very smart computer security personnel - unlike Hillary's server in her closet.

That's not actually remotely true.

You're fooling yourself if you think a free service is going to protect you in any way. It won't and it doesn't.

Having the homebrew server probably saved Hillary's bacon because only she had access to her email and only she knew what she wanted to hand over and what she would keep.

Totally innapropiate and borderline illegal when you're a Government official but I think without it, she would have had to turn over everything she had and probably would have been found liable of a crime.

There was no evidence the server was ever succesfully hacked.

[Winehole23]

torture whistleblower John Kiriakou sounds off:


There are several potential crimes in the IG report and in my own experience with the FBI. First, it’s a violation of the Espionage Act for any FBI agent to give classified information to a reporter. The US Code defines “espionage” as “providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.” “National defense information” is not further defined. So it can mean whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean. That’s how the FBI targeted Tom Drake (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/the-frontline-interview-thomas-drake/), Bill Binney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28intelligence_official%29), Kirk Wiebe (https://www.whistleblower.org/bio-william-binney-and-j-kirk-wiebe), Jeffrey Sterling (https://theintercept.com/2015/06/18/jeffrey-sterling-took-on-the-cia-and-lost-everything/), and me, among others. It was to clamp down on dissent with an iron fist and to frighten any would-be whistleblowers with the possibility of prison and financial ruin.


As it turns out, though, FBI agents were doing the same thing, at the same time, with impunity. And by the way, information in exchange for a tangible benefit like invitations or tickets is bribery. It’s the very definition of corruption. All of these crimes are felonies.
https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/50702-the-ig-report-says-the-fbi-is-deeply-flawed-i-know

[Winehole23]

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. In a fight between Donald Trump and the FBI, we don’t have to pick a side. We can have a situation where there’s no good guy. I think this is one of those situations. Don’t think that this is an endorsement of the Trump administration or the criminals who staff it. It certainly isn’t. We’re supposed to be a country governed by the rule of law, where everybody at least ought to be treated equally. Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Mike Flynn, and the rest of them deserve what they’re getting. But the FBI is corrupt. The entire system is corrupt. There’s one version of the law for you and me and another version for the FBI. The Inspector General laid it all bare. Now let’s see if anybody does anything about it. Don’t hold your breath.

[boutons_deux]

I agree Obama wasn't a far left retard.

Far left retards in Dem party are marginalized by the fully corrupt DNC

[TSA]

1009102397778681856

:lol Mueller's assembled team

[Pavlov]

1009102397778681856

:lol Mueller's assembled teamAnd?

What do you say this means, TSA?

Use your own words.

[monosylab1k]

1009102397778681856

:lol Mueller's assembled team

Tricking Manafort into committing federal crimes! Liberal trickery!

[Spurminator]

:lol TSA's shitty Twitter sources

[TSA]

1009177190070669313

1009182792834584576

[Reck]

He knows but won't tell shtick.

Watching too much tv.

[Spurminator]

Yeah you posted about that yesterday.

[Pavlov]

1009177190070669313

1009182792834584576Why doesn't he just say what he says he knows, TSA?

[Spurminator]

Meadows' intern probably handed him some Qanon posts. :lol

[Pavlov]

Meadows' intern probably handed him some Qanon posts. :lol
:lol

I don't think TSA realizes his grand conspiracy has been gradually whittled down to three or four people sending mean texts.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1072258229013372928
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1072262099630321664

[djohn2oo8]

So what does it mean Chris?

[Pavlov]

Was dumb to go to the feds without also going to local law enforcement tbh. That guaranteed to slow down any investigation.

[Spurminator]

1009102397778681856

:lol Mueller's assembled team

Wonder who's now-deleted tweet this was.

[djohn2oo8]

Wonder who's now-deleted tweet this was.
:lmao

[spurraider21]

Wonder who's now-deleted tweet this was.
:lol good question

[Winehole23]

IG report embedded at the link:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-inspector-general-report-handling-comey-memos

[Spurs Homer]

Comey cleared -

was looking for this thread!


:lol:lol



"but-but - DEEEEEEP STATE!!!!!!!"

[Spurminator]

Wonder who's now-deleted tweet this was.

*whose

[Winehole23]

Comey cleared -

was looking for this thread!


:lol:lol



"but-but - DEEEEEEP STATE!!!!!!!"I haven't read it, but would be willing to bet that other posters will say exactly the opposite.

[Spurminator]

So the report is basically a stern rebuke of Comey with no further action? It's like a Pelosi tweet about Trump, but longer.

This is sure to be very disappointing for the local Q crew but I'm sure they'll find a way to spin the rebuke as a part of a larger plan.

[boutons_deux]

IG report embedded at the link:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-inspector-general-report-handling-comey-memos

No doubt, the corrupt shitbag Barr, on the job since Feb '19, had plenty of opportunity to assure the Comey was trashed.

And I'm no fan of Comey who elected Trash.

absolutely NOTHING out of Barr's DoJ is trustable

[Winehole23]

No doubt, the corrupt shitbag Barr, on the job since Feb '19, had plenty of opportunity to assure the Comey was trashed.

And I'm no fan of Comey who elected Trash.Comey violated policies, but no charges are recommended, unlike with McCabe.

[boutons_deux]

Comey violated policies, but no charges are recommended, unlike with McCabe.

yep, McCabe is being screwed by Trash/Barr.

Trash/Barr/Repugs know Comey, otoh, violated DoJ protocols and got Trash elected.

[Spurs Homer]

I haven't read it, but would be willing to bet that other posters will say exactly the opposite.

Just read the IG's analysis -here it is boiled down:


Comey did what any patriot would do - try to sound the alarm that a traitor was working for Russia.

In doing so -

Comey - violated FBI "policy" in disseminating a memo which

A) Comey felt were his own personal notes on a conversation with traitor trump

B) The DOJ trump stooges decided that trumps words "let flynn go" - were "classified" words lololol


So


bad bad Comey committed a ... (clutches pearls tightly)



PROCESS POLICY VIOLATION!


:lol:lol


That is basically it.


An american patriot felt it was his duty - to make sure trump's siding with russia and trying to stop the FBI from investigating his treason - was exposed -


so he did his duty.


Too bad the traitor working for Russia has all of the protections that he does and is being shielded from justice by a corrupt DOJ.

[Spurminator]

1167444235701891078

[pgardn]

1167444235701891078

It takes a wicked lying president to lead us into these questions.
I guess that's a good thing in long run.

[djohn2oo8]

Here is how today will go. The MSM will try and downplay the OIG's initial report. A few days will go by and the 500 page report will be reviewed line by line and the MSM will be forced to report on how damning it is.
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[TSA]

:lmao nervous laughter
:lmao nervous bumping

[djohn2oo8]

Horowitz with the goods today.

[TSA]

:lmao I broke the poor fella again

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao I broke the poor fella again

TSA: wrong on spygate

[Spurs Homer]

Comey in prison yet?

No BOOOM yet?