IG Report Thread

[TemplarKormac]

Note the language of the report, it says "there is no testimonial or documentary evidence of political bias" they did not say there wasn't any political bias at all, nor that it hadn't occurred. It would be a major presumption on the OIG's part to say that no political bias existed in the enactment of this investigation.

Loving how everyone is taking this report at face value.

 

[KissMy]

Comey repeatedly substituted his own judgment for department policy in making highly sensitive decisions to publicly reveal information about the Clinton probe, costing her the election.

Specifically, the IG faulted Comey for going rogue by holding a news conference in which he discussed the particulars of a case against a person — Clinton — who wasn't going to be prosecuted, and for failing to directly discuss with Justice Department leaders his decision to inform Congress roughly two weeks before the election that he was essentially re-opening the case to look at Clinton emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.

"We concluded that Comey's unilateral announcement was inconsistent with department policy and violated long-standing department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton's uncharged conduct," the IG's office wrote at one point.

"Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decision-making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding department policy or practice," the IG's office wrote of the laptop call.

Comey, naturally, begged to differ. "I do not agree with all of the inspector general’s conclusions, but I respect the work of his office and salute its professionalism," Comey wrote in a New York Times op-ed Thursday. "All of our leaders need to understand that accountability and transparency are essential to the functioning of our democracy, even when it involves criticism. This is how the process is supposed to work."

He also pointed to two conclusions that he implied gave him comfort: The IG concluded there was no evidence of improper action in the investigation of Clinton — and that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was reasonable, as the IG wrote, "based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice."

 

[Billy_Bob]

Note the language of the report, it says "there is no testimonial or documentary evidence of political bias" they did not say there wasn't any political bias at all, nor that it hadn't occurred. It would be a major presumption on the OIG's part to say that no political bias existed in the enactment of this investigation.

Loving how everyone is taking this report at face value.

there are a few of us who look much deeper...

 

[busybee01]

My take is that Rosenstein's days are not long.

Very important Rosenstine is impeached and prosecuted. Rosenstine is obstructing justice and attacking our democracy. Rosenstine is obviously influenced by Mueller in that he feels he can raid anyone's personal documents for any reason.

Rosenstein is not the one attacking our democracy. Trump and the Republicans are attacking our democracy. Republicans are the ones obstructing justice. They are taking information from a Justice Department active investigation to pass onto Trump's attorneys. Rosenstein should not give any information to Congress. He should open up a investigation on who leaked the last bit of information that Rosenstein gave to Congress.

 

[busybee01]

Comey repeatedly substituted his own judgment for department policy in making highly sensitive decisions to publicly reveal information about the Clinton probe, costing her the election.

Specifically, the IG faulted Comey for going rogue by holding a news conference in which he discussed the particulars of a case against a person — Clinton — who wasn't going to be prosecuted, and for failing to directly discuss with Justice Department leaders his decision to inform Congress roughly two weeks before the election that he was essentially re-opening the case to look at Clinton emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.

"We concluded that Comey's unilateral announcement was inconsistent with department policy and violated long-standing department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton's uncharged conduct," the IG's office wrote at one point.

"Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decision-making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding department policy or practice," the IG's office wrote of the laptop call.

Comey, naturally, begged to differ. "I do not agree with all of the inspector general’s conclusions, but I respect the work of his office and salute its professionalism," Comey wrote in a New York Times op-ed Thursday. "All of our leaders need to understand that accountability and transparency are essential to the functioning of our democracy, even when it involves criticism. This is how the process is supposed to work."

He also pointed to two conclusions that he implied gave him comfort: The IG concluded there was no evidence of improper action in the investigation of Clinton — and that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was reasonable, as the IG wrote, "based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice."

The IG is wrong on this. Comey was right to release the information publicly. Voters had a right to know especially since Loretta Lynch said she would abide by his decision. Policies and guidelines are not always the right thing to do and this was a case where they should not have been followed.

 

[busybee01]

I can’t understabd how it keeps getting said “they were grossly incompetent , insubordinate and in violation of agency policy” BUT they didn’t do it on purpose so not illegal

There should be No “but”.
Being that awful at your job is guilt of the charges brought

Amazing...a blind man could see there was complete political motivation for wrapping up Clinton investigation and going after Trump.

You are so full of bullshit. You are the blind person here. If Comey was so pro-Clinton then why did he announce the investigation was being re-opened. Strzoka played a role in it as well. Then why was the fact that Trump was under investigation not leaked.

 

[Bush92]

I can’t understabd how it keeps getting said “they were grossly incompetent , insubordinate and in violation of agency policy” BUT they didn’t do it on purpose so not illegal

There should be No “but”.
Being that awful at your job is guilt of the charges brought

Amazing...a blind man could see there was complete political motivation for wrapping up Clinton investigation and going after Trump.

You are so full of bullshit. You are the blind person here. If Comey was so pro-Clinton then why did he announce the investigation was being re-opened. Strzoka played a role in it as well. Then why was the fact that Trump was under investigation not leaked.

If there was no wrong doing...why are FBI agents going to be, according to Director, “disciplined?”

 

[S.J.]

One word describes the report from Horowitz (an Obama appointee)...Whitewash. Just as I predicted. It should come as no surprise to anyone.

Just as predicted? For the past two days you were predicting they would be throw in jail.

Horowitz and Obama appointee? Trump admin has had 1.5 years to replace him. If they had doubts about him, somebody else would have taken the inspector general role.

I suggest you to back and read this thread again. This time, pay attention, dumbfuck.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If Comey was so pro-Clinton then why did he announce the investigation was being re-opened.

If Comey were so Pro-Trump, why'd he let Clinton off the hook? As far as I can tell, she's still off the hook.

Yeah. I didn't think so.

 

[KissMy]

Comey repeatedly substituted his own judgment for department policy in making highly sensitive decisions to publicly reveal information about the Clinton probe, costing her the election.

Specifically, the IG faulted Comey for going rogue by holding a news conference in which he discussed the particulars of a case against a person — Clinton — who wasn't going to be prosecuted, and for failing to directly discuss with Justice Department leaders his decision to inform Congress roughly two weeks before the election that he was essentially re-opening the case to look at Clinton emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.

"We concluded that Comey's unilateral announcement was inconsistent with department policy and violated long-standing department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton's uncharged conduct," the IG's office wrote at one point.

"Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decision-making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding department policy or practice," the IG's office wrote of the laptop call.

Comey, naturally, begged to differ. "I do not agree with all of the inspector general’s conclusions, but I respect the work of his office and salute its professionalism," Comey wrote in a New York Times op-ed Thursday. "All of our leaders need to understand that accountability and transparency are essential to the functioning of our democracy, even when it involves criticism. This is how the process is supposed to work."

He also pointed to two conclusions that he implied gave him comfort: The IG concluded there was no evidence of improper action in the investigation of Clinton — and that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was reasonable, as the IG wrote, "based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice."

The IG is wrong on this. Comey was right to release the information publicly. Voters had a right to know especially since Loretta Lynch said she would abide by his decision. Policies and guidelines are not always the right thing to do and this was a case where they should not have been followed.

The public should never have known Hillary was being investigated. There should never have been a special prosecutor investigating Kevin McCarthy's nothing-burger political Benghazi witch-hunt. 23 in Trump's campaign charged with real actual crimes & it was kept quiet so Trump could defeat Clinton.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s2298/BILLS-114s2298is.pdf

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e)
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

Mishandling Classified Material: How Former CIA Agent's Case Compares with Clinton | National Review

As I have recently explained, the misimpression that Clinton’s case is primarily about “extreme carelessness” rather than willful misconduct is the result of Obama administration sleight-of-hand. Mrs. Clinton should have been investigated (and charged) under section 793(e) since she, like Lee, willfully and unlawfully retained classified information in unauthorized places (and transmitted it to unauthorized people). The gross-negligence felony (793(f)) should have been the prosecutors’ fallback position — i.e., even if a jury somehow rejected the overwhelming evidence that she willfully mishandled the intelligence, she could still be convicted if the jury concluded she was grossly negligent.

Clinton was like Lee: She should have been prosecuted for willful misconduct.

In a deceptive two-step, the Obama Justice Department first claimed Clinton could not be prosecuted for willful mishandling because she did not have a motive to harm the United States (not an element of the offense, and thus not true). Then, it claimed that she could not be prosecuted for gross negligence, either. To do so, they insisted, would (a) be constitutionally problematic because negligence is usually a civil-law standard, not a basis for criminal guilt; and (b) unfairly single her out because the Justice Department rarely brings such cases. This was nonsense on stilts: There is plenty of constitutional support for using negligence as a basis for criminal liability (for example, negligent homicide); the standard here was gross negligence, and it was applied only to a special category of government officials who were given security clearances after extensive training in the proper handling of classified materials; military officials have been prosecuted for gross negligence for misconduct far less serious than Clinton’s; and section 793(f) is a presumptively valid congressional statute that has never been held unconstitutional in its century on the books, so if there was any question, the Justice Department should have defended the law, not undermined it.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Hillary was investigated under Section F.................So the guidelines they used were to find Gross Negligence............

Yet Flynn and others were tried under Section E....................

So.............this slight of hand to say Justice was served..........is all BS...........Negligence and Recklessness are still violation of Law...........and these are crimes prosecuted under Section E...................Not F...................

Section F is reserved for cases more like spies.................and is for more SEVERE cases of violations under the Espionage Act..............

But by going the route of F instead of E................they ran the narrative of Intent had to be MALICIOUS................Basically needing to prove Hillary was a spy type situation.............which guaranteed her a pass...........

In the cases of Flynn and Lee.........they had no such luck.............just having a notebook with some jotted notes was enough to prosecute Lee.......It didn't matter whether the intent was there..............It only mattered he was NEGLIGENT and RECKLESS in having them............In these situations...........INTENT NEED NOT BE PROVED..............

So......through the slight of hand...............they gave Hillary a pass..........others.........they fragged.

 

[KissMy]

Bush / Cheney Lies killed 10,000 US citizens. Where is the Outrage, War Crimes Tribunals & Execution?

Trump's Campaign colluded with Foreign Enemies & Destroyed US Election Democracy. Where is the Outrage?

You still continue to use government power on a twice exonerated double jeopardy political witch-hunt to lock up Clinton for accidentally receiving a few classified emails in wrong account.

 

[eagle1462010]

Fair Or Double Standard? Petraeus To Be Sentenced

This afternoon, David Petraeus will enter the federal courthouse in uptown, and be sentenced for violating the Espionage Act. Petraeus, a retired four-star general and former director of the CIA has admitted he gave his mistress access to classified information and lied to the FBI as they investigated the case. A plea agreement signed by Petraeus and federal prosecutors calls for a sentence of 2 years probation and a $40,000 fine.

The government’s case against David Petraeus revolves around eight notebooks. Each with a black cover, and with Petraeus’ business card taped to the front.These notebooks were effectively diaries where Petraeus jotted down his daily appointments and meetings, and notes on highly classified meetings.

The plea deal states they contain quote the identities of covert officers, war strategies, quotes, deliberative discussions by the National Security Council and personal discussions between David Petraeus and the president.

Petraeus gave these “black books,” as they’re called in court documents, to his biographer and mistress – Paula Broadwell. She had security clearance – but not at a high enough level to see the contents.



Petraeus was negligent with handling classified information.........he loaned his black books or notes to his lover to look at his biography and history in the War..............both had security clearances...........but his lover didn't have the need to know and high enough classified clearance to see it. Even had she had that clearance...........she didn't have the need to know and therefore a violation of the espionage act. Under SECTION E............

There was NO GROSS MALICE..............in letting here see it...........He had NO CRIMINAL INTENT..............But Negligence and Recklessness is NO EXCUSE under the law..............

Later.........when he went OH SHIT I SCREWED UP.............he lied about it and sealed his fate..............given a lesser sentence for the crime......and it ended a Great Career of a man who did more for this country in Iraq than anyone..........

BUT.............Negligence and Recklessness are NO EXCUSE under the Law................

 

[eagle1462010]

Bush / Cheney Lies killed 10,000 US citizens. Where is the Outrage, War Crimes Tribunals & Execution?

Trump's Campaign colluded with Foreign Enemies & Destroyed US Election Democracy. Where is the Outrage?

You still continue to use government power on a twice exonerated double jeopardy political witch-hunt to lock up Clinton for accidentally receiving a few classified emails in wrong account.

A few................BS...............many..........and they were hacked................

She's been in gov't for a very long time..............she is a lawyer............and knew damn well what she was doing..........she knew what she was doing when she Bleached the servers.............and destroyed her Black Berries....................and unless you live under a rock you'd know it too.

They set the standard high for her.............to find her guilty they needed it to be GROSS NEGLIGENCE............very hard to prove......even against KNOWN SPIES...................

Under the lesser charge SECTION E................INTENT IS NOT NEEDED...............they gave her a pass............others...........not so much.

 

[KissMy]

Bush / Cheney Attacked Joe Wilson & Exposed Covert CIA Valerie Plame

 

[DarkFury]

This statement makes me doubt your claim of reading the whole report

I read it you should do the same....

So, you read the part where the IG determined that the FBI's decision not to charge Clinton was unbiased, and according to protocol and precedence?

That doesn't really jive with your claim that the FBI "let her walk" and did a "phony investigation".

Yeah....I was pretty sure that this would be the finding.....even though anyone with half a brain can point out a shitload of examples of blatantly political biased activity.

You know this IG report reads not much different than Comey's report. Pages of bias shown but in the end says not enough. And their was no names given as far as which FBI agents got "GIFTS" or from which news services.
A cop getting a GIFT is a BRIBE. We have a right to know WHO and what they got from WHO. Because it's THAT, that will clean up our crooked press.