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

[TSA]

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.





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

Was Hillary arrested?

[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 cir stances, 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.”

per par

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

[TSA]

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]

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.





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 question

lol

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

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 do entary 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/insubor....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 , 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).”

who's comment is that?

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

[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

My 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.