IG Report Thread

[Rambunctious]

No, they all agree that unintentional spillage doesn't meet the elements of a criminal violation of the Espionage Act

There are a lot of people in Leavenworth that would disagree with you....
But thanks for showing that Hillary could not be trusted to run our nation due to total incompetence...

 

[LeftofLeft]

In this case, we have a former (Republican) FBI director who took politics into account and made public announcements about an investigation so as to appear impartial. Ultimately helping the Republican nomineee win election.

These Trump cultists should be erecting a statue to Comey for his invaluable help in electing the orange buffoon.......Instead.......

(BTW, why didn't Comey ALSO reveal that there was an on-going FBI investigation on Trump's cronies???)

Did you want US to elect corrupt Hillary? How many smoking guns would you people need to not put her into the White House? The American People observed her behavior and validated actions yet all you people could say: “No Court convictions”. Is that your criteria for winning the White House?

 

[task0778]

Go back and read the parts you bolded. Pay close attention to the words ‘directly affected’.
It doesn’t say there was no bias. lol

Yes. The report says that while Page and Strozk may have been personally "biased" against Trump, those personal biases did not affect any official or investigative decisions.

No, it says they found no evidence that their biases affected any official decisions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. IOW, the IG can't prove it, but when I see what these people were saying, well it's kinda hard to assume they never actually did anything they shouldn't have. Hard to believe IMHO, I would bet serious money that whatever evidence that did exist got cloroxed. Lib dems are experienced int hat stuff.

The report examined every single step in the investigation.

At no point were Strozk or Page in a position to make any decisions that would have changed the investigation. At no point was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of any of the team.

It's very in-depth. For reference, I'm discussing Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report (p.37-160).

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations? That much bias, that much anti-Trump feeling and you think they sat back and did nothing about it?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Who do you think is going to prison? For what?

It's very easy to make up vague claims, and then refuse to back them up.

Seriously, to high-paced FBI agents with exchanges like this:
The IG report included a new text conversation between Strzok and Page from August 2016. Page texted Strzok that they would “stop” Trump from becoming president.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

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

See post #278.

Why? What else is there to say?

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions discussed below, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual. We recognize that these text and instant messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that these political views directly affected the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed in this chapter. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve

Words once said, cannot be unsaid.

Of course they can, this is the internet!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes. The report says that while Page and Strozk may have been personally "biased" against Trump, those personal biases did not affect any official or investigative decisions.

No, it says they found no evidence that their biases affected any official decisions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. IOW, the IG can't prove it, but when I see what these people were saying, well it's kinda hard to assume they never actually did anything they shouldn't have. Hard to believe IMHO, I would bet serious money that whatever evidence that did exist got cloroxed. Lib dems are experienced int hat stuff.

The report examined every single step in the investigation.

At no point were Strozk or Page in a position to make any decisions that would have changed the investigation. At no point was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of any of the team.

It's very in-depth. For reference, I'm discussing Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report (p.37-160).

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

"After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works.

 

[DarkFury]

Again, the IG makes it clear that the FBI followed proper protocol and precedence when deciding not to charge Hillary with a crime.

Did you miss that part?

That's the whitewash part...if you did what she did you would never see a day without bars and bubba the rest of your life....

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Again, the IG makes it clear that the FBI followed proper protocol and precedence when deciding not to charge Hillary with a crime.

Did you miss that part?

That's the whitewash part...if you did what she did you would never see a day without bars and bubba the rest of your life....

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

So you keep loudly telling us. Or are you telling yourself?

 

[Rambunctious]

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is is"

 

[Rambunctious]

Again, the IG makes it clear that the FBI followed proper protocol and precedence when deciding not to charge Hillary with a crime.

Did you miss that part?

That's the whitewash part...if you did what she did you would never see a day without bars and bubba the rest of your life....

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

So you keep loudly telling us. Or are you telling yourself?

read the whole thing Doc.....educate yourself

 

[task0778]

No, it says they found no evidence that their biases affected any official decisions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. IOW, the IG can't prove it, but when I see what these people were saying, well it's kinda hard to assume they never actually did anything they shouldn't have. Hard to believe IMHO, I would bet serious money that whatever evidence that did exist got cloroxed. Lib dems are experienced int hat stuff.

The report examined every single step in the investigation.

At no point were Strozk or Page in a position to make any decisions that would have changed the investigation. At no point was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of any of the team.

It's very in-depth. For reference, I'm discussing Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report (p.37-160).

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

"After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works.

I didn't ask you how you felt about it, I asked you what you believe. I am well aware of how the law works in a court of law no evidence = no case. But the Court of Public Opinion is another story; if you want to dodge the question, that's okay.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The report examined every single step in the investigation.

At no point were Strozk or Page in a position to make any decisions that would have changed the investigation. At no point was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of any of the team.

It's very in-depth. For reference, I'm discussing Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report (p.37-160).

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

"After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works.

I didn't ask you how you felt about it, I asked you what you believe. I am well aware of how the law works in a court of law no evidence = no case. But the Court of Public Opinion is another story; if you want to dodge the question, that's okay.

Yes, you are asking about my feelings. That's what a belief without evidence is - a feeling.

 

[DarkFury]

No, it says they found no evidence that their biases affected any official decisions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. IOW, the IG can't prove it, but when I see what these people were saying, well it's kinda hard to assume they never actually did anything they shouldn't have. Hard to believe IMHO, I would bet serious money that whatever evidence that did exist got cloroxed. Lib dems are experienced int hat stuff.

The report examined every single step in the investigation.

At no point were Strozk or Page in a position to make any decisions that would have changed the investigation. At no point was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of any of the team.

It's very in-depth. For reference, I'm discussing Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report (p.37-160).

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

"After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works.

How the law works and what the PUBLIC THINKS are two different things okay?
Voters could give a shit less what your lawyer thinks, The LAST election set that in STONE.

 

[nat4900]

Bottom line to this IG report is the Latin phrase, "Cui Bono"

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Tomorrow we get to see if we have a Justice system or a caste system. I’m kind of leaning toward caste right now.

I see. So if the report says what you hope it says, America is great. But if it doesn't feed into your confirmation bias, the system is rigged.

Have I got it right?

Yeah, I've got it right.

I hope you have practiced your sad face so you will be ready when Hillary isn't locked up.

It’s pretty obvious we have a two tier justice system don’t you think? If Comey had a press conference to announce the crimes G5000 had committed in his handling of secret documents do you think that press conference would have ended in “but fuck it, he didn’t mean to break the law so we aren’t going to persue any charges”. Or would we be watching the G5000 treason trial on CNN? And it can be someone higher up than you. Do you think if that was Trump it would have been handled in the same manner? No fucking way.

 

[DarkFury]

Again, the IG makes it clear that the FBI followed proper protocol and precedence when deciding not to charge Hillary with a crime.

Did you miss that part?

That's the whitewash part...if you did what she did you would never see a day without bars and bubba the rest of your life....

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

So you keep loudly telling us. Or are you telling yourself?

read the whole thing Doc.....educate yourself

Doc SHOULD post a disclaimer. He WORKED for Hillary and SHE STIFFED himwhen it came time to pay!
How far IN THE TANK do you have to be to let that shit happen?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's the whitewash part...if you did what she did you would never see a day without bars and bubba the rest of your life....

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

So you keep loudly telling us. Or are you telling yourself?

read the whole thing Doc.....educate yourself

Doc SHOULD post a disclaimer. He WORKED for Hillary and SHE STIFFED himwhen it came time to pay!
How far IN THE TANK do you have to be to let that shit happen?

I worked for Clinton's campaign in 2007, for one week - and yes, I never got paid for it.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Rambunctious]

I worked for Clinton's campaign in 2007, for one week - and yes, I never got paid for it.

What does that have to do with anything?

I thought Fury was joking...

 

[task0778]

Sure Doc, that's cuz the FBI/DOJ already got rid of the evidence before the IG ever started. They didn't find any evidence cuz it was long gone. But after reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

Wait... let me make sure I'm getting this straight.

The hypothetical evidence that would confirm your conspiracy theories doesn't exist, therefore that's evidence of the conspiracy?

There is nothing hypothetical about the emails between Strozk and Page. There is nothing hypothetical about somebody changing the words in Comey's speech from "grossly negligent" (which is what the law explicitly says) to "extremely careless". There is nothing hypothetical about the IG being concerned about the actions and decisions made during the Clinton investigation by Strozk, they explicitly said so in the report. And yet they find no evidence; wonder why.

I did not say there is evidence of a conspiracy, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. You didn't answer my question in my earlier post, so I'll ask it again:

"After reading the level of bias we've seen do you really believe no one in the FBI or DOJ acted in any inappropriate way, according to the high standards of both organizations?

You're asking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence.

This isn't about what you or I "believe". That's not how the law works.

I didn't ask you how you felt about it, I asked you what you believe. I am well aware of how the law works in a court of law no evidence = no case. But the Court of Public Opinion is another story; if you want to dodge the question, that's okay.

Yes, you are asking about my feelings. That's what a belief without evidence is - a feeling.

Feelings come from the heart; I'm asking you what comes from your head. Which appears for many to be 'no hard evidence, no guilt, no problem'. For me, that doesn't work; I can't just sweep it under the rug.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I worked for Clinton's campaign in 2007, for one week - and yes, I never got paid for it.

What does that have to do with anything?

I thought Fury was joking...

From 2006 - 2013, I worked professionally in electoral politics. I worked for Obama in 2008, too. Also 8-10 New York State Senate campaigns, 3 NYC Mayoral campaigns, 2 Congressional campaigns, 4 Governorship campaigns, and one San Francisco Board of Supervisors campaign. There's more that I'm forgetting at the moment, as well.

 

[DarkFury]

So you guys constantly say. It's funny, though - I've spoken to a lot of lawyers about this, and not one of them agrees with you.

Talking to lawyers is like putting your faith in polls. It's THE OPTICS, not the word of a shyster THE OPTICS!

So you keep loudly telling us. Or are you telling yourself?

read the whole thing Doc.....educate yourself

Doc SHOULD post a disclaimer. He WORKED for Hillary and SHE STIFFED himwhen it came time to pay!
How far IN THE TANK do you have to be to let that shit happen?

I worked for Clinton's campaign in 2007, for one week - and yes, I never got paid for it.

What does that have to do with anything?

It shows a couple of things.
1, It does not bother you when a Democrat STEALS from you so you don't care WHo they steal from.
2, If a Democrat cheats YOU or ANYBODY it's okay.

I'm telling you IT'S NOT OKAY. Stealing, cheating and lying are just that, NOT OKAY.