IG Report to blast FBI

[SBJJ]

Nunes just said that FBI whistleblowers testified to Congress in September 2016 about the Weiner Laptop and the Clinton Emails

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Nunes just said that FBI whistleblowers testified to Congress in September 2016 about the Weiner Laptop and the Clinton Emails

HUGE news. Oh wait... Nunes? Damn, almost got excited for a second....

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Remember gentlemen, this is only the report on the Clinton investigation. It has now been shown without a doubt that the doj and fbi committed wrongdoing. This cripples the media’s ability deny wrongdoing by them.

Look at the new text that was revealed.

“We will stop him”

Do you really think this is the last we’ll hear about this?

Lastly, where is everyone who was sucking off Trey Gowdy last week. His comments are damning.




P.S. you can kiss your dreams of obstruction for firing Comey goodbye.

I don't want Trump charged with obstruction, but if they uncover crimes then I think he should be charged when he's out of office just like the rest of us peons.

 

[SBJJ]

1 - The IG will be investigating the spying on trump. The next one up is if they let Hillary off the hook. Patients grasshopper.

2- I’m not sure a legal standard needs to be reached, you just need enough pissed off republican leaders. There is already talk of impeaching rosenstien.

I was honestly surprised to see republicans going after Meuller hard today.


Popcorn worthy indeed.

So Media Outlets were supposedly bribing FBI agents according to this report

I’d like to know which media outlets were doing this

I think a big problem is the media has just been a mouthpiece for decades for the intelligence agencies

 

[SBJJ]

HUGE news. Oh wait... Nunes? Damn, almost got excited for a second....

He’s been spot on with most of this

 

[SBJJ]

I don't want Trump charged with obstruction, but if they uncover crimes then I think he should be charged when he's out of office just like the rest of us peons.

Totally agree

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

What case? Are they investigating Trump now?

Why do you guys keep repeating this? They're investigating issues with HIS campaign, including the people he knows and hired. If along the way, it turns out he himself has done something against the law, what do you think happens?

Did daddy convince you he can't possibly face any legal ramifications from the investigation some how? Because that's simply not reality.

What happened with those 2 minor characters? The Head Agent was a minor character?

Did you read the IG report and what he actually concluded about Strzok? Because he really disagrees with you

Totally true, we should remove them from the investigation immediately!

Here is ONE for you. The Emails on the Weiner laptop were sat on for a month. The IG states there is no rational reason why this happened. You know who sat on those Emails? The minor character that you say sort of disliked Trump.

From what I've been told repeatedly in here, the FBI is incompetent. But it's more likely they did it to give Hilary the election. Oh but wait....

Again, you are one of the last diehards here. Even the MSM is starting to catch on

He says while giving us blow by blow from Fox.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

He’s been spot on with most of this

Yeah these bombshells are really explosive. Like those snaps you throw at the ground during mild celebrations.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Totally agree

Hold on just to clarify....

You and @PainIsLIfe feel if it's found Trump has committed crimes, it's better he serves out his term first, then we charge him? Am I really reading this? Please tell me "when he's out of office" means something else.

 

[SBJJ]

Yeah these bombshells are really explosive. Like those snaps you throw at the ground during mild celebrations.

So FBI agents testifying to congress that higher ups were sitting on New Emails is not a big deal?

If FBI agents testified to Congress right now that the FBI higher ups were sitting on Obstruction or Collusion evidence against Trump. Would you think that was not a big deal?

 

[SBJJ]

Hold on just to clarify....

You and @PainIsLIfe feel if it's found Trump has committed crimes, it's better he serves out his term first, then we charge him? Am I really reading this? Please tell me "when he's out of office" means something else.

Wow, have u been under a rock for 20 years. Are you really not understanding why we’d have to wait til he’s out of office

I’m being serious, are you 8 years old?

 

[JamesRussler]

The full report: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

This report was pretty much useless except for the facts it established. The legal conclusions in particular will have almost no effect on the identified wrongdoers.

First of all, the scope of the analysis was rigidly confined to certain issues and investigations such that it was "blind" to the bigger picture. For example, it focused on "bias" with respect to "Mid Year Exam," but pretty much ignored it as it "pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review." So when the IG concluded that "we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed," it gave the impression that the wrongdoers didn't act on their biases. That was not what the IG found. In reality, the IG didn't analyze the effect of bias on the Russia investigation, or other matters, although it did allude to it (e.g., the IG found that "in assessing Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead . . . we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias," and his anti-Trump messages are "indicative of a biased state of mind [and] a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects"). It's kind of like concluding that "this house isn't on fire," just because the the kitchen isn't burning. We need an investigation that looks at the whole house.

Second, the IG was limited in scope to issues within the jurisdiction of his office. The IG doesn't investigate or prosecute crimes, and it only enforces a relatively narrow set of federal laws governing professional conduct of DOJ employees. The few laws the IG does enforce typically prescribe civil penalties (e.g., fines, suspension, termination). In other words, the facts analyzed in this report might actually show multiple violations of the law, including crimes, but the report basically ignores them because they're beyond the scope of the OIG's jurisdiction. We need an investigation into whether these people committed crimes.

Third, the IG employed the typical institutional processes which are extremely deferential to government actors, and which rely on endless bureaucratic processes for definitive answers. You might have noticed that the IG made a few "referrals" back to the FBI. Rest assured, those referrals will result in another round of referrals, and probably a few more referrals before they ever result in a prosecution. There is almost never a finding of wrongdoing because of the wide "discretion" afforded to government actors – even for decisions that are outside the bounds of common sense. If there's arguably an objective reason to do something, they'll ignore almost any pretextual motive. That's how we got this mind-boggling conclusion that "Mid Year Exam" was untainted by bias: because each individual decision made was arguably justified by an objective fact, setting aside the obvious bias of the investigators. So when you string together a few thousand of arguably justified investigative decisions in which every possible use of discretion is exercised in Hillary's favor, it results in an obviously guilty person not being charged because of political bias in her favor. Again, the IG's deference to prosecutorial discretion pretty much guarantees that it won't ever find wrongdoing based on evaluation of the evidence itself. We need an investigation that is genuinely adversarial to the bad actors in the FBI and DOJ.

There are other reasons to criticize this report, but instead, I'd like to just point out some of the positives. First, it establishes facts which would otherwise not have seen the light of day about misconduct at the FBI and DOJ. It is now basically undeniable that the upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ hated Trump and were willing to act for the purpose of destroying his candidacy. By the same token, it's pretty obvious that ranking FBI and DOJ members were not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton, regardless of their findings. We have messages, e-mails, memoranda, and sworn interviews from the bad actors here, so a prosecutor is free to make his/her own decision, regardless of what the IG concluded. Second, John Huber has been looking at this stuff for a long time, and he was appointed to do what a special counsel would otherwise do with regard to the FBI and DOJ agents discussed in this report. I'm confident that this is just another step in ultimately holding the bad actors here accountable. In the end, it is still possible that the Hillary investigation will be reopened, and that bad actors like Strzok, Page, Comey, and McCabe will face prosecution. You can't attempt a soft coup and not face life-ending consequences.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

So FBI agents testifying to congress that higher ups were sitting on New Emails is not a big deal?

What new emails? Can you show me these new emails so I know how big of a deal this is?

If FBI agents testified to Congress right now that the FBI higher ups were sitting on Obstruction or Collusion evidence against Trump. Would you think that was not a big deal?

That would definitely be a big deal. If I found out about it in 5 years after the investigation was totally concluded, re-opened and concluded again? Not much to get riled up about.

Wow, have u been under a rock for 20 years. Are you really not understanding why we’d have to wait til he’s out of office

I’m being serious, are you 8 years old?

If Donald Trump murdered a man on national television for calling him a name, tomorrow, what would happen SBJJ?

I know what impeachment and the office of president is, I'm ASKING YOU if you think it's best we let Trump finish out his term if it's revealed right now he committed crimes relating to the election. So, do you?

In the end, it is still possible that the Hillary investigation will be reopened, and that bad actors like Strzok, Page, Comey, and McCabe will face prosecution. You can't attempt a soft coup and not face life-ending consequences.

This report was pretty much useless except for the facts it established. The legal conclusions in particular will have almost no effect on the identified wrongdoers.

Which JamesRussler to believe.... I just can't decide....

"No effect" vs "YOU CAN'T HIDE". I know which one makes for a better campaign slogan...

 

[SBJJ]

What new emails? Can you show me these new emails so I know how big of a deal this is?



That would definitely be a big deal. If I found out about it in 5 years after the investigation was totally concluded, re-opened and concluded again? Not much to get riled up about.



If Donald Trump murdered a man on national television for calling him a name, tomorrow, what would happen SBJJ?

I know what impeachment and the office of president is, I'm ASKING YOU if you think it's best we let Trump finish out his term if it's revealed right now he committed crimes relating to the election. So, do you?





Which JamesRussler to believe.... I just can't decide....

"No effect" vs "YOU CAN'T HIDE". I know which one makes for a better campaign slogan...

I’m absolutely speechless at your rebuttals. It’s as if u do not think before u post stuff. And your continually just arguing over the most lame shit.

Ok. Here you go. NO, I think from now on all future presidents should be tried while they are sitting presidents. What bad could ever come of that?

Here is what happens when Trump kills a man on national television. He is immediately impeached therefore he is no longer a sitting president. At that time he would be prosecuted as an EX president

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

I’m absolutely speechless at your rebuttals. It’s as if u do not think before u post stuff. And your continually just arguing over the most lame shit.

It's strange how so much of your posts never seem to address what's been said. Hmmmmm....

Ok. Here you go. NO, I think from now on all future presidents should be tried while they are sitting presidents. What bad could ever come of that?

You can't even actually say it! LOL. SBJJ, let's try one more time: If President Trump is found to have committed crimes tomorrow, would you prefer he be impeached and prosecuted or allowed to serve out his first term?

What I've been asking you is pretty clear, but why you're trying not to directly answer it is not.

Here is what happens when Trump kills a man on national television. He is immediately impeached therefore he is no longer a sitting president. At that time he would be prosecuted as an EX president

Now let's replace murder with obstruction of justice and collusion to interfere in a national election? What do you think should happen then?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Hold on just to clarify....

You and @PainIsLIfe feel if it's found Trump has committed crimes, it's better he serves out his term first, then we charge him? Am I really reading this? Please tell me "when he's out of office" means something else.

You can't charge a sitting president, they will hold any charges until he's out of office, whether that be from impeachment or fulfilling his term(s).

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

You can't charge a sitting president, they will hold any charges until he's out of office, whether that be from impeachment or fulfilling his term(s).

Fully aware. Your post said "I think he should be charged when he's out of office", but what did you mean by that? That could be interpreted as you thinking they should "remove him from office first" or they should "let him finish his term".

Your wording left it open ended, and the guy agreeing with it was making it look worse just by doing so.

 

[HomerThompson]

You can't charge a sitting president

That's not necessarily true. We don't know the answer to this question, as it's never been done.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Fully aware. Your post said "I think he should be charged when he's out of office", but what did you mean by that? That could be interpreted as you thinking they should "remove him from office first" or they should "let him finish his term".

Your wording left it open ended, and the guy agreeing with it was making it look worse just by doing so.

I'd say it depends on what the crime is. You wouldn't impeach a president for Jaywalking, but you certainly would for murder.

I think that if they find anything on Trump it will be his "charity" or bribing foreign officials to grease the political wheels for his developments - those probably wouldn't be something that everyone is willing to impeach for.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That's not necessarily true. We don't know the answer to this question, as it's never been done.

The DOJ said it '73 and again in 2000, so I'm gonna go with them on it.