Okay fine, but are you going to tell us what report your comments go with. Certainly not the IG's report.
Not sure if I understand this right. Comey knew by his own acknowledgement that the 'evidence' used to start spying on Trump was illegitimate, the planted spies were part of an entrapment scheme, that he was fired based on Rosenstein's advice, and that he illegaly leaked classified documents to have a 'reason' to start a special counsel investigation that had no real evidence to start that investigation. And these fuckers are going to get away with this shit? I really hope that they don't.
THAT'S MEEEEEE!!!!!! I had no idea what I was, now I know! Thank you for clarifying it for me. http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ee-trump-supporters-poor-uneducated-lazy-pos/
Without a doubt the IGs report. I warned you you may not like what an independent review of the investigation yields and here we are now, confirmation of not pursuing charges justified- as if Clinton was ever guilty of espionage- and a finding of no bias. You have to be a brain dead Trump zombie to not conclude the FBI pursued Clinton overzealously and acted in ways the benefited Trump. Your biggest takeaway is Comey didn’t know Weiner and Huma were married as if that would make any difference as to the outcome of the investigation. You’re on some tabloid bullshit while the fbi threw the election to Trump because Trump had so many issues the media and Republican politicians put pressure on the fbi to make a huge deal out of nothing - an administrative issue.
Yeh, maybe it's that part about the IG absolutely confirming that Hillary was exonerated by someone who absolutely lacked the authority to do so that keeps me from buying into your "overzealous" theory. Along with the other 100 plus clear examples of how she got special non-protocol treatment in the investigation- some of which may be in the IG report and most already known. The IG did not even remotely confirm that the FBI follow the protocols for a normal, professional investigation. Also, you will recall that I said that we shall see what the 300,000 plus emails and text messages to be released continue to say. You will also recall that I said about wednesday or so that I did not have a conclusive opinion on how big of a problem that strzok and page had because the IG had memos that I have not seen- plus per the release schedule and court action- they are still rolling in. Nothing confirms that point more than the fact that the explose "we will stop him" text was just uncovered or rather fully unredacted just two weeks ago. More to come. We will now see the next phase when the IG appears for cross-examination and probling. More importantly, we will see what Comey's, McCabe's, Strzok's and Page's positioning is when they are summoned. We will begin to see who hunkers down and who takes the fifth. The lefties who are cheering about the report not going for the kill in many areas may or may not be happy in the coming weeks. The report advances the ball and it advances the outrage over the FBI and creates the need for follow up investigation- especially with all the new material coming in. There will be less cheering if - instead of everything blowing over now- it creates the basis for a special counsel appointment which will keep this alive for years to come. More republicans- certainly not all- are finally smartening up to the fact that the DOJ/Rosenstein are trying to run out the clock here and wait for the dem to take the house and get off their back. That could happen- or the report and other developing information- could cause them to appoint a special counsel whose appointment would survive the election. It could die down or get worse depending on new incoming information and depending on how people who are summoned before the committee behave. Not showing up, would not be good for starters.
Here are the real takeaways from this report for all who care to be intellectually honest about it. As I have acknowledged many times, the Comey press conference did inadvertently launch a torpedo into the Clinton campaign. It did so by exposing for all the world to see the blatant double standards of our corrupt legal system. Comey, dolt that he is, actually thought he was letting her off the hook when in fact he was hurting her campaign. He was in fact letting her off the hook legally, but in doing so exposed a corrupt legal system as afore mentioned. Did that cost her some votes? Absolutely, as it should have. Couple that with Clinton herself running a terrible campaign and she was toast. Cut and dry, that's it in a nutshell. Now the Clintons don't like losing, don't like it at all. When it became apparent to the real insiders that she was done they began a plan to ruin any Trump presidency. The Russia collusion theory was born. Using the very same corrupt legal system that accidently torpedoed the Clinton campaign has been used to launch torpedoes into a Trump presidency. The difference being these torpedoes are being launched with malice and true intent to do harm. This is who the Clintons are and they are dragging the entire democratic party with them. The battle cry is destroy Trump whatever the cost to America. Sorry people, ya' gotta' break a few eggs to make this omelet. Occasionally in shear frustration they'll expose their true selves by shouting out, we need a recession, as Maher did last week. You see it in how they respond to the NK negotiation. Doesn't matter how many people suffer, Trump must be destroyed. This is who the Clintons are, always have been that way, and this is what the left has become. Petty, chicken shit, sore losers who don't and won't play by the rules, and when exposed will burn the house down just for spite.
You are totally brainwashed to the point you can’t even read: “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” the report said. “Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.”
So, the IG confirmed or did not confirm Comey's authority to step forward to exonerate her, and he did or did not characterize his behavior there as inappropriate and subordinate? I am in the middle of things right now, but try to come up with some better bullshit if you are going to try to make that go away.
Insubordination and Bias at FBI The inspector general report is careful in its conclusions, but damning on the facts. By Kimberley A. Strassel June 14, 2018 Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-page report covers plenty, but it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias. Two terms that are chilling in connection with such a powerful agency. That won’t be the message from Democrats and most of the press, who will focus on a few episodes they will claim cost Hillary Clinton an election. Watch for them to blame former FBI Director James Comey, whom the report faults for “a serious error of judgment,” for having “concealed information” from superiors, and for “violation of or disregard for” departmental and bureau policies. True, the report is damning about the man who lectures Americans on “higher loyalty.” It describes how an “insubordinate” Mr. Comey was, as early as April 2016, considering how to cut his Justice Department bosses from a public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton. He hid this scheme for fear “they would instruct him not to do it”—and therefore was able to “avoid supervision.” He then “violated long-standing Department practice and protocol” by using his July 5 press conference for “criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct.” In October, he made public that the FBI had reopened the investigation, even though the Justice Department recommended he not do so. Mr. Comey went rogue, and President Trump had plenty of justification in firing him in May 2017. Yet it is the report’s findings on the wider culture of the FBI and Justice Department that are most alarming. The report depicts agencies that operate outside the rules to which they hold everybody else, and that showed extraordinary bias while investigating two presidential candidates. There’s Loretta Lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an “error in judgment.” Mr. Comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI “resources” were dedicated in October to spinning FBI “talking points” about the Clinton investigation—rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September. We even find that Mr. Comey used personal email and laptops to conduct government work. There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the Clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who “failed to strictly adhere to [his] recusal” when he finally stepped away. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not “fully comply with his recusal,” and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media. Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire “volume of communication” between FBI employees and the press. Not only did these folks have “no official reason to be in contact with the media,” but they also “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.” Be ready to hear the report absolves the FBI and DOJ of “bias.” Not true. It very carefully states that “our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.” Put another way, he never caught anyone writing down: Let’s start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win. But the bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely “hostile” to Candidate Trump. It’s in Ms. Page’s freak-out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.” To which a second agent replies. “Rog—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.” It’s in the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements. The report is largely neutral on all this, giving officials the broad benefit of the doubt on “discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation.” But it immediately follows that statement by noting that its job of evaluating the integrity of decisions was “made significantly more difficult” by the obvious bias among key players, which “cast a cloud” over the entire “investigation’s credibility.” The current FBI and Justice Department leadership can no longer justify its refusal to come clean on its other actions. A neutral arbiter has found they made a hash of the Clinton investigation, and it is reasonable to assume that those same players made a hash of the Trump probe. The sooner they acknowledge it, the sooner Congress can move to reform these agencies so that no such thing ever happens again. https://www.wsj.com/articles/insubo...c4679bb0426fe3d06fe04&ref=article_email_share
“We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” the report said. “Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment offacts, the law, and past department practice.” This is it, “we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, THE LAW, and pat department practice.” Case closed, every time you will get the same answer until you snap out of your hypnosis. You want to beat up Comey, let’s do that but the Clinton investigation is over. There never was any chance she intended to or committed espionage.