IG Report to blast FBI

[HomerThompson]

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

Guidelines aren't the constitution, or the Supreme Court.

 

[HereticBD]

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

Let him dream.

 

[Throttlehead]

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

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

What the fuck am I reading? You don't think the corruption of our democracy reaching the level of the president, is grounds for impeachment or prosecution?

Would you feel the same way if Hilary was president right now and we were discussing the Clinton Foundation?

 

[JamesRussler]

Just like potential entrapment was a problem?
Just like them using a "spy" was a problem?

How about you explain, with any particularity, the legal standard for terminating an investigation based off of the personal texts of investigators. What current standard have the courts passed down to us?

Before you ask laypeople to scour the internet for precedents regarding "personal texts of investigators," why don't you answer this question: is it against the law to initiate a full-scale criminal investigation of your enemies without any actual evidence of a crime?

Now, to address your question, the standard for dismissing corrupt prosecutions in circumstances like this is "outrageous government misconduct," i.e. conduct which "shocks the conscience," amounting to a denial of Due Process of law. It's similar to the entrapment defense, but it a encompasses wider range of behaviors. This is the device which Cliven Bundy's lawyers used to successfully dismiss his indictment with prejudice. Although it's most often used to terminate criminal prosecutions, I see no reason why it couldn't be used to terminate a baseless investigation which does nothing more than harass and disparage its targets.

 

[JamesRussler]

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...

Can't you read? I said the legal conclusions in the report will have no effect, but that the factual determinations will be useful in holding the wrongdoers to account.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Can't you read? I said the legal conclusions in the report will have no effect, but that the factual determinations will be useful in holding the wrongdoers to account.

No effect on what? I'm guessing what was legal and what wasn't? Or no effect on the magic court of beans and hifives?

Sounds like you're basically saying, "nothing will really come of this... but something eventually will surely come of this!!!".

Gotcha.

 

[JamesRussler]

No effect on what? I'm guessing what was legal and what wasn't? Or no effect on the magic court of beans and hifives?

Sounds like you're basically saying, "nothing will really come of this... but something eventually will surely come of this!!!".

Gotcha.

You're out of your depth. Go comment on someone else's post.

 

[SBJJ]

You're out of your depth. Go comment on someone else's post.

WTF is he even arguing?

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

You're out of your depth. Go comment on someone else's post.

No effect on what James? That's a pretty simple question for a guy bringing so much depth.

 

[HereticBD]

WTF is he even arguing?

Nothing. It's Bernie's schtick. Just talks in circles until you get bored of him and his multi-quotes, and then when you walk away after the 9000th variation of a question you've already answered, he claims some sort of victory.

 

[SBJJ]

Nothing. It's Bernie's schtick. Just talks in circles until you get bored of him and his multi-quotes, and then when you walk away after the 9000th variation of a question you've already answered, he claims some sort of victory.

That does seem to be his MO

 

[Darkballs]

Before you ask laypeople to scour the internet for precedents regarding "personal texts of investigators," why don't you answer this question: is it against the law to initiate a full-scale criminal investigation of your enemies without any actual evidence of a crime?

That's a poorly loaded question, and no, that's not what's happening here.
There is no threshold for when an investigation starts. There is for searches, detainment, and others, but not for an investigation, which is vague.

Now, to address your question, the standard for dismissing corrupt prosecutions in circumstances like this is "outrageous government misconduct," i.e. conduct which "shocks the conscience," amounting to a denial of Due Process of law. It's similar to the entrapment defense, but it a encompasses wider range of behaviors.

Bonus points for being the first person to give the obvious answer. Now do you think personal text messages regarding distaste for one person in an investigation that has resulted in 23 indictments, and 3 guilty pleas, "shocks the conscience?"

Clearly, no.

Although it's most often used to terminate criminal prosecutions, I see no reason why it couldn't be used to terminate a baseless investigation which does nothing more than harass and disparage its targets.

They had nothing, yet still managed to nail 23 people with criminal charges. Now that's some luck.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Nothing. It's Bernie's schtick. Just talks in circles until you get bored of him and his multi-quotes, and then when you walk away after the 9000th variation of a question you've already answered, he claims some sort of victory.

Here let me help you and @SBJJ...

In ole Jimmy's post, he states this "has no effect on" something, but doesn't say what that something is. I simply asked him to clarify that, yet for some reason he chose not to.

So what's the shtick? Asking questions and having you pussies flee from the scene? Yeah, I guess that's my shtick....

Just look at SBJJ in this thread. He loves talking about me but hates addressing what I say for some reason. It's almost like he gets upset when he has no answers, or something.

 

[bobgeese]

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.

If the Clinton machine, the most formidable political group in modern history, along with the republicans, and the news media, spies and foreign governments, couldn’t find the death blow in 16, it’s not there to be found.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If the Clinton machine, the most formidable political group in modern history, along with the republicans, and the news media, spies and foreign governments, couldn’t find the death blow in 16, it’s not there to be found.

It's certainly true that Trump has been more heavily scrutinized than any president I can remember with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.

Trump seems to me to be the kind of guy with ample room for skeletons in the closet, so I'd never claim that the death blow isn't there. But so far all that has been proven is that the guy is uncouth, inarticulate, and a philanderer. But the collusion accusations, etc seem to be entirely baseless.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I believe many people are conflating 2 issues. The IG says he found no bias in the Clinton E Mail case. I do not believe he states that about the Texts. In fact I believe he states in the report something about certain agents having a bias that would include using their positions to influence or affect the electorate

It's clear that he found pervasive bias. Like you said, it wasn't merely the statement of political opinions, but strong political views being discussed directly in the context of the investigation and with willingness to take action to affect the election being explicitly stated. It's egregious, and it needs to be asked how FBI standards for professionalism have been allowed to lapse so badly. It wasn't just Strzok. There were at least five individual agents who behaved similarly.

What he didn't find was documentary evidence that any agent made any decision in the investigation based on that political bias. The smoking gun for such a standard would have had to be a text where Agent 1 told Agent 5, 'to help Hillary, I will take such and such an action'.

But his conclusion is very damning:

"While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence."

edit:
I do think at least one text provides documentary evidence that improper considerations were made as to how to proceed in the investigation, namely when Page questions the manner in which Clinton will be interviewed, due to the likelihood that she would win the election.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But the collusion accusations, etc seem to be entirely baseless.

This seems mind-blowing to me, though I suppose it's just blind tribalism, which can't be explained rationally. We know Russia was giving the campaign illegal help. We know that they met secretly with the campaign. We know that many people involved with the campaign had connections to Russia, and that many lied about it. Those are all uncontroversial statements. You might be more confident in either Trump's intelligence or his ethics than others are and think that what we don't yet know exonerates him, but you can't honestly deny that there is cause for concern.

And, serious question, is it possible in theory for evidence to change your mind on the issue? If so, what would it take?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What the fuck am I reading? You don't think the corruption of our democracy reaching the level of the president, is grounds for impeachment or prosecution?

Would you feel the same way if Hilary was president right now and we were discussing the Clinton Foundation?

I don't see how if Trump illegally used his charity to payoff lawsuits rises to the level of corrupting our democracy. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase you're post.

Yes, I'd feel the same if it was Clinton. I didn't vote for either of them; I'm a Never-Trumper, believe me I'm not making any arguments out of loyalty.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't see how if Trump illegally used his charity to payoff lawsuits rises to the level of corrupting our democracy. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase you're post.

Yes, I'd feel the same if it was Clinton. I didn't vote for either of them; I'm a Never-Trumper, believe me I'm not making any arguments out of loyalty.

I think for a lot of people, it's hard to get our heads around how some people are so blase' about the president of the United States being a criminal and the assumption is that it can't be something that people are *generally* OK with--must be that standards are put aside.