IG Report Thread

[theDoctorisIn]

This thread is about the IG report. Which you've been constantly trying to deflect from, or call into question.

So far, the only cogent point you've been able to make is "Strozk and Page were mean to Trump in text messages!".

If you're still planning on becoming an ambulance-chaser you better learn to look past the DNC talking points. When Strozk told Page: "we'll (the FBI) stop Trump from becoming president" he entered into a conspiracy to commit treason.

No, he didn't.

Hope I can be at your first trial when it comes time to defend your dirtbag client you say: "LOL no he didn't" and sit down. I give you a month tops before you're disbarred.

The elements of the inchoate offense of conspiracy are as follows:

1. Intent on the part of the individual to commit a crime.
2. Intent on the part of the individual to conspire with others.
3. An overt act in furtherance of that crime.

Can you prove those elements, in regards to Strozk? (The answer is no).

End of lesson.

Your lesson is lacking the facts from the texts which show intent and communication in an effort to unseat a sitting president. the facts call you out as uninformed and deluded.

None of those texts occurred during Trump's Presidency.

You know that, right?

 

[AntonToo]

Not sure i would trust the current crop of folks to clean it up...

I remember all of the Clinton holdovers in the Bush Administration constantly screwing things up.
Now we have Obama holdovers running all of the investigations.

No problem.
What could go wrong???

President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017

Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia

Any other BS?

And now he has grounds to fire him.

Does he?

What grounds are those?

He needs no grounds................he can just simply do it...

Yea, Nixon did it, why can't Trum...oh wait.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you're still planning on becoming an ambulance-chaser you better learn to look past the DNC talking points. When Strozk told Page: "we'll (the FBI) stop Trump from becoming president" he entered into a conspiracy to commit treason.

No, he didn't.

Hope I can be at your first trial when it comes time to defend your dirtbag client you say: "LOL no he didn't" and sit down. I give you a month tops before you're disbarred.

The elements of the inchoate offense of conspiracy are as follows:

1. Intent on the part of the individual to commit a crime.
2. Intent on the part of the individual to conspire with others.
3. An overt act in furtherance of that crime.

Can you prove those elements, in regards to Strozk? (The answer is no).

End of lesson.

Your lesson is lacking the facts from the texts which show intent and communication in an effort to unseat a sitting president. the facts call you out as uninformed and deluded.

None of those texts occurred during Trump's Presidency.

You know that, right?

some did and some didn't... but that does nothing to intent and the collusion to attempt a coup. the evidence remains..

 

[eagle1462010]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

Yawn.................and who got thrown out of Muellers team...............for bias.............

Yawn................

In the end..........bunch of boring training..............and nothing........pawns may get fragged as cannon fodder.............and nothing more........slime continues to do as they please in our Gov't and abuse their power as they see fit.............

You will never admit they did a lot of BS under Obama.........but hey.......your not biased..........well you admitted you were...........and so it goes..........

You would not be singing the same tune if this had happened to your side................Perhaps Trump should send the IRS to target your side.......and audit them with a Rectal probe and see how you like it..............

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, he didn't.

Hope I can be at your first trial when it comes time to defend your dirtbag client you say: "LOL no he didn't" and sit down. I give you a month tops before you're disbarred.

The elements of the inchoate offense of conspiracy are as follows:

1. Intent on the part of the individual to commit a crime.
2. Intent on the part of the individual to conspire with others.
3. An overt act in furtherance of that crime.

Can you prove those elements, in regards to Strozk? (The answer is no).

End of lesson.

Your lesson is lacking the facts from the texts which show intent and communication in an effort to unseat a sitting president. the facts call you out as uninformed and deluded.

None of those texts occurred during Trump's Presidency.

You know that, right?

some did and some didn't... but that does nothing to intent and the collusion to attempt a coup. the evidence remains..

And by that, you mean no evidence exists.

 

[eagle1462010]

I remember all of the Clinton holdovers in the Bush Administration constantly screwing things up.
Now we have Obama holdovers running all of the investigations.

No problem.
What could go wrong???

President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017

Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia

Any other BS?

And now he has grounds to fire him.

Does he?

What grounds are those?

He needs no grounds................he can just simply do it...

Yea, Nixon did it, why can't Trum...oh wait.

Nixon was never impeached ...........he quit..........this is a seige............and nothing more..........trying to pick off people associated to keep his agenda from proceeding..............and even so...........they are still losing..................

 

[AntonToo]

No, he didn't.

Hope I can be at your first trial when it comes time to defend your dirtbag client you say: "LOL no he didn't" and sit down. I give you a month tops before you're disbarred.

The elements of the inchoate offense of conspiracy are as follows:

1. Intent on the part of the individual to commit a crime.
2. Intent on the part of the individual to conspire with others.
3. An overt act in furtherance of that crime.

Can you prove those elements, in regards to Strozk? (The answer is no).

End of lesson.

Your lesson is lacking the facts from the texts which show intent and communication in an effort to unseat a sitting president. the facts call you out as uninformed and deluded.

None of those texts occurred during Trump's Presidency.

You know that, right?

some did and some didn't... but that does nothing to intent and the collusion to attempt a coup. the evidence remains..

Is Mike Pence in on this grand conspiracy to make him a president?

 

[dudmuck]

So the IG is part of the DEEP STATE too? Just yesterday, all the RWNJs were bragging on him.

Horowitz did his job...............he stayed within his scope.......and didn't go like another group is going........looking to see if ...........ummmm ......someone stole milk money in kindygarden............

The emails show bias.................show top dogs were corrupt as hell..............aka just confirming what we already knew anyway..........

But hey..............the entire FBI now gets training on how not to be like the Wankers leading the place.............

The most import point of IG report is that there is no evidence that FBI rigged the Clinton probe. And that the FBI actually helped Trump get elected.
FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions and allegiances.
Confirming what you already knew? Probably this was not what you hoped. This report just makes Trump look like a lying conspiracy theorists.

 

[Geaux4it]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

The report is only as good as the paper for which it is written. The report lacks credibility and is a clear white wash attempt

-Geaux

 

[theDoctorisIn]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

The report is only as good as the paper for which it is written. The report lacks credibility and is a clear white wash attempt

-Geaux

I know, you're very upset that it didn't come out the way you were counting on.

 

[DarkFury]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

AND those SAME agents who you ADMIT were bias also worked for Mueller. Which now taints HIS work.
Why would their bias stop at one thing? That defies logic. No, his work is now more tainted than ever.

 

[eagle1462010]

And now he has grounds to fire him.

Does he?

What grounds are those?

Democrats have been trying to sell the idea of collusion. And this report shows EXACTLY where it was.
Those ARE the optics.

Wtf are talking about?? The report DIRECTLY CLEARED HIM OF ANY BIAS.

And yet they must train in that aspect............the entire FBI..............and just put the blinders on about the emails in the report.............

They were absolutely biased enough that those people are being investigated by the FBI ethics dept..............a slap on the hand.......bad boy...........and get a beer.............

White Wash..............

IG report clearly said Comey made a completely justifiable call in clearing Clinton.

Hope I can be at your first trial when it comes time to defend your dirtbag client you say: "LOL no he didn't" and sit down. I give you a month tops before you're disbarred.

The elements of the inchoate offense of conspiracy are as follows:

1. Intent on the part of the individual to commit a crime.
2. Intent on the part of the individual to conspire with others.
3. An overt act in furtherance of that crime.

Can you prove those elements, in regards to Strozk? (The answer is no).

End of lesson.

Your lesson is lacking the facts from the texts which show intent and communication in an effort to unseat a sitting president. the facts call you out as uninformed and deluded.

None of those texts occurred during Trump's Presidency.

You know that, right?

some did and some didn't... but that does nothing to intent and the collusion to attempt a coup. the evidence remains..

Is Mike Pence in on this grand conspiracy to make him a president?

Put it in front of a jury on what she did..............and prove it..............LOL

In the report they cleared her of any wrong doing even if the new emails had classified on it.................from the weinner man...........that famous Dem for some reason.

 

[TemplarKormac]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

Let me tell you why that's nonsense. Biases always influence decisions. You need only look to our supreme court for that. Look to our legislative branch for that. You can't honestly sit there and say that these people did their jobs objectively? Can you? Biases influence the very opinions people give on this board.

Political bias is pervasive. I will not sit here for one moment thinking political biases never played a role in the effectuation of that investigation.

 

[eagle1462010]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

AND those SAME agents who you ADMIT were bias also worked for Mueller. Which now taints HIS work.
Why would their bias stop at one thing? That defies logic. No, his work is now more tainted than ever.

It is unethical..........but they don't care..............they never have..................

They show some false outrage for wrong doing and proceed with the same bs.

 

[Care4all]

What could be considered an overt act is his ambush of Flynn at the WH.....that conviction will never stand because Flynn wasn't Mirandized and didn't have counsel present.

Yet, that's the one criminal charge, out of the many greater crimes Flynn & son committed, that Flynn plead guilty on....and swore under oath, before the Judge, that it was with no coercion, that made him plead guilty?

 

[AntonToo]

AND those SAME agents who you ADMIT were bias also worked for Mueller. Which now taints HIS work.

Mueller that kicked them off the team a year ago as soon as he got a whiff of bias?

That Mueller?

 

[del]

You read the whole report?

All 568 pages?

yes what the hell do you think I've been doing?

lying

 

[eagle1462010]

AND those SAME agents who you ADMIT were bias also worked for Mueller. Which now taints HIS work.

Mueller that kicked them off the team a year ago as soon as he got a whiff of bias?

That Mueller?

LOL............Got caught and had to do something...............LOL

 

[theDoctorisIn]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

Let me tell you why that's nonsense. Biases always influence decisions. You need only look to our supreme court for that. Look to our legislative branch for that. You can't honestly sit there and say that these people did their jobs objectively? Can you? Biases influence the very opinions people give on this board.

Political bias is pervasive. I will not sit here for one moment thinking political biases never played a role in the effectuation of that investigation.

Neither Page nor Strozk were in a position to make any sort of major decision regarding the investigation. The report goes into that in detail.

The report also notes that Strozk and Page, in meetings with the FBI team, were harsher on Clinton than other team members.

 

[AntonToo]

....

Salient points my mountainous rear end.

The beginning of the report essentially doesn't match the conclusion of the report.

Why were they so afraid to say political bias played a role in the investigation?

There were examples of it throughout.

The report is very clear on that point.

There is no question that agents involved were "biased" - in other words, they had political opinions of their won.

The report is clear that it found no evidence that that bias affected any decisions made in regards to the investigation.

Let me tell you why that's nonsense. Biases always influence decisions. You need only look to our supreme court for that. Look to our legislative branch for that. You can't honestly sit there and say that these people did their jobs objectively? Can you? Biases influence the very opinions people give on this board.

Political bias is pervasive. I will not sit here for one moment thinking political biases never played a role in the effectuation of that investigation.

I think you are on to something - can't trust those damn REPUBLICANS like Mueller and Rosenstein to investigate a REPUBLICAN campaign and President. How can they ever escape their bias?