The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a concise timeline of the events involving the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-deep-and-visceral-hatred-the-timeline

See the problem? This is the delay. They shared info for a month and Comey and co had no clue?

September 27 – October 26th: FBI Agents in New York Field Office contact Rudy Giuliani and share information about existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. [Reuters, April, 19th, 2018]

You are cherry picking. We don't know the exact date of the leak to Giuliani, but it could have been September 27. In that case, there was no delay. We do know the approximate date of the leak to Nunes and there was definitely no delay in that case:

'Later September' 2016: Some time between the morning of September 27th and September 30th – four days – 'good FBI agents' from the New York Field Office contact Rep. Devin Nunes (R) and other members of Congress about the existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

You are repeatedly doing two things to justify the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

1) justifying it based on conclusions not found in the IG report that Clinton was wrongly exonerated; and;
2) providing a post hoc justification based on the delay in examining the laptop.

Neither of those things justifies illegal leaks and, as the IG report found, those leaks pushed Comey to write to Congress resulting in a significant negative impact on the campaign for Clinton.

The bottom line is that rogue FBI agents influenced the election to Clinton's detriment. Your failed justifications don't change that.

I'm asking you outright if you personally believe that Clinton did nothing illegal and that the upper executives in the FBI did not 'go easy' on her. I'm quite sure you will not answer this with a yes or no.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a concise timeline of the events involving the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-deep-and-visceral-hatred-the-timeline

See the problem? This is the delay. They shared info for a month and Comey and co had no clue?

September 27 – October 26th: FBI Agents in New York Field Office contact Rudy Giuliani and share information about existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. [Reuters, April, 19th, 2018]

You are cherry picking. We don't know the exact date of the leak to Giuliani, but it could have been September 27. In that case, there was no delay. We do know the approximate date of the leak to Nunes and there was definitely no delay in that case:

'Later September' 2016: Some time between the morning of September 27th and September 30th – four days – 'good FBI agents' from the New York Field Office contact Rep. Devin Nunes (R) and other members of Congress about the existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

You are repeatedly doing two things to justify the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

1) justifying it based on conclusions not found in the IG report that Clinton was wrongly exonerated; and;
2) providing a post hoc justification based on the delay in examining the laptop.

Neither of those things justifies illegal leaks and, as the IG report found, those leaks pushed Comey to write to Congress resulting in a significant negative impact on the campaign for Clinton.

The bottom line is that rogue FBI agents influenced the election to Clinton's detriment. Your failed justifications don't change that.

It was apparently VERY clear to the American public that Comey was wrongly exonerating Clinton, based on his own statement and his conclusions from those statements.

And it seems the American public were correct.

Comey withheld the fact that foreign 'actors' had gotten hold of Hillary's emails. A May 16, 2016 email from Stzrok stated: “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers."

That May 16th date is important because it meant Comey knew about this, and knew that at least one document marked Secret, was part of that compromise. Comey told the American people that it was 'possible' when he knew it was certain. Had he told the truth, Clinton probably would have probably been forced to end her candidacy much earlier.

We also know from the IG report that the FBI had been investigating the Clinton Foundation, when they discovered what they called suspicious activity between a foreign donor and the Foundation. Then the infamous tarmac meeting happened just days before Hillary is exonerated.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/15/fbi-clinton-foundation-investigation/

Anyone who believes there was nothing going on behind the scenes re: Clinton/Foundation/Email is simply not being honest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a concise timeline of the events involving the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-deep-and-visceral-hatred-the-timeline

See the problem? This is the delay. They shared info for a month and Comey and co had no clue?

September 27 – October 26th: FBI Agents in New York Field Office contact Rudy Giuliani and share information about existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. [Reuters, April, 19th, 2018]

You are cherry picking. We don't know the exact date of the leak to Giuliani, but it could have been September 27. In that case, there was no delay. We do know the approximate date of the leak to Nunes and there was definitely no delay in that case:

'Later September' 2016: Some time between the morning of September 27th and September 30th – four days – 'good FBI agents' from the New York Field Office contact Rep. Devin Nunes (R) and other members of Congress about the existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

You are repeatedly doing two things to justify the leaks by rogue FBI agents:

1) justifying it based on conclusions not found in the IG report that Clinton was wrongly exonerated; and;
2) providing a post hoc justification based on the delay in examining the laptop.

Neither of those things justifies illegal leaks and, as the IG report found, those leaks pushed Comey to write to Congress resulting in a significant negative impact on the campaign for Clinton.

The bottom line is that rogue FBI agents influenced the election to Clinton's detriment. Your failed justifications don't change that.

I'm asking you outright if you personally believe that Clinton did nothing illegal and that the upper executives in the FBI did not 'go easy' on her. I'm quite sure you will not answer this with a yes or no.

I don't think Clinton did anything for which she could be successfully prosecuted. I do not believe the upper executives of the FBI went easy on her. To the contrary, I think the upper executives of the FBI took actions that hurt Clinton's election chances.

[Anonymous]

There are many people who believe both Clinton and Trump did things that were dishonest and should be called into question. I don't understand why people miss this important fact. Not liking one person's actions does not by default, make you side and support another's actions. . There is a 3rd choice: justice, for all. Find out the truth with all of it. But you adults seem to have a hard time focusing on a factual discussion about it without making it about someone else that did something similar.

There are still many investigations ongoing - we dont know all of what is currently occurring, just as we werent aware in 2016 of the investigations. We arent supposed to be.

Bottom line, both Trump and Clinton have questionable behaviors, and in both politicians, there are major red flags we want addressed. We are all waiting to see what is actually discovered. It's stupid to compare apples to oranges until then. It is better to objectively identify and acknowledge the facts if you truly want to root out the bad apples, and objectively do the same to root out the bad oranges. One spoiled fruit can quickly make the rest of the barrel go bad.

There cannot be a double standard on honesty or integrity to do this. This report, and many other credible reports, demonstrate that there are both Anti-Clinton and Anti-Trump bad actors found throughout any entire chain of stakeholders.

Denying facts on either side of the aisle is irresponsible and discrediting. Continuing to do so only promulgates circular controversy, and distracts resources from looking behind the curtain to find out the true diagnosis and potential solution to grave problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm asking you outright if you personally believe that Clinton did nothing illegal and that the upper executives in the FBI did not 'go easy' on her. I'm quite sure you will not answer this with a yes or no.

NP. No, she did nothing wrong, st least nothing any more wrong than what Colin Powell and Condi Rice recommended she do, nothing more wrong than what the Bush Admin did and she was less wrong than what the Trump Admin is doing with their disappearing messages and refusing outright to save materials. The upper FBI execs set out to wound her candidacy and they did.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm asking you outright if you personally believe that Clinton did nothing illegal and that the upper executives in the FBI did not 'go easy' on her. I'm quite sure you will not answer this with a yes or no.

NP. No, she did nothing wrong, st least nothing any more wrong than what Colin Powell and Condi Rice recommended she do, nothing more wrong than what the Bush Admin did and she was less wrong than what the Trump Admin is doing with their disappearing messages and refusing outright to save materials. The upper FBI execs set out to wound her candidacy and they did.

I will actually push back on this a bit. While it is true that Powell and Rice both practiced and recommended using a private server, the law changed in the mean time and Clinton faced a different regulatory environment. Not to mention that awareness of cybersecurity had increased markedly. Her server was a bad choice and an argument could be made that it was illegal. I doubt such charges could be sustained in court, however, but you never know.

I don't think upper FBI executives set out to wound her candidacy. Comey was overly concerned about protecting the FBI and failed to simply demonstrate common sense. The real problem in the FBI were the roque agents who were very anti-Clinton. They acted on their biases and severely damaged Clinton's candidacy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

I will actually push back on this a bit. While it is true that Powell and Rice both practiced and recommended using a private server, the law changed in the mean time and Clinton faced a different regulatory environment. Not to mention that awareness of cybersecurity had increased markedly. Her server was a bad choice and an argument could be made that it was illegal. I doubt such charges could be sustained in court, however, but you never know.

I don't think upper FBI executives set out to wound her candidacy. Comey was overly concerned about protecting the FBI and failed to simply demonstrate common sense. The real problem in the FBI were the roque agents who were very anti-Clinton. They acted on their biases and severely damaged Clinton's candidacy.

I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I will actually push back on this a bit. While it is true that Powell and Rice both practiced and recommended using a private server, the law changed in the mean time and Clinton faced a different regulatory environment. Not to mention that awareness of cybersecurity had increased markedly. Her server was a bad choice and an argument could be made that it was illegal. I doubt such charges could be sustained in court, however, but you never know.

I don't think upper FBI executives set out to wound her candidacy. Comey was overly concerned about protecting the FBI and failed to simply demonstrate common sense. The real problem in the FBI were the roque agents who were very anti-Clinton. They acted on their biases and severely damaged Clinton's candidacy.

I agree with all of this.

Me too.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm asking you outright if you personally believe that Clinton did nothing illegal and that the upper executives in the FBI did not 'go easy' on her. I'm quite sure you will not answer this with a yes or no.

NP. No, she did nothing wrong, st least nothing any more wrong than what Colin Powell and Condi Rice recommended she do, nothing more wrong than what the Bush Admin did and she was less wrong than what the Trump Admin is doing with their disappearing messages and refusing outright to save materials. The upper FBI execs set out to wound her candidacy and they did.

I will actually push back on this a bit. While it is true that Powell and Rice both practiced and recommended using a private server, the law changed in the mean time and Clinton faced a different regulatory environment. Not to mention that awareness of cybersecurity had increased markedly. Her server was a bad choice and an argument could be made that it was illegal. I doubt such charges could be sustained in court, however, but you never know.

I don't think upper FBI executives set out to wound her candidacy. Comey was overly concerned about protecting the FBI and failed to simply demonstrate common sense. The real problem in the FBI were the roque agents who were very anti-Clinton. They acted on their biases and severely damaged Clinton's candidacy.

Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

[Anonymous]

Comey now officially under investigation

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

I agree with you on many subjects, but also this.

[jsteele]

Here is the same argument I've been making being made by the Plum Line in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/18/there-may-have-been-an-fbi-conspiracy-involving-the-2016-election-but-not-the-one-you-think/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

Agree that it was not Comey's place to do anything.

The problem was that the Clinton Investigation (or non-investigation) was well known. The Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting (which, after listening to the IG testimony was probably set up by Clinton w/o Lynch cooperation) made it even more difficult.
Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information. Comey said this in so many words--and, yet, did not recommend indictment. Had the DOJ been serious about the inquiry, there would have been a Grand Jury.

So, would Clinton have been better off with the "investigation" hanging over her head with no comment? She has no one to blame but herself. Lindsey Graham's questioning today elicited a response from the IG which would indicate she was guilty of "gross negligence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

Agree that it was not Comey's place to do anything.

The problem was that the Clinton Investigation (or non-investigation) was well known. The Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting (which, after listening to the IG testimony was probably set up by Clinton w/o Lynch cooperation) made it even more difficult.
Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information. Comey said this in so many words--and, yet, did not recommend indictment. Had the DOJ been serious about the inquiry, there would have been a Grand Jury.

So, would Clinton have been better off with the "investigation" hanging over her head with no comment? She has no one to blame but herself. Lindsey Graham's questioning today elicited a response from the IG which would indicate she was guilty of "gross negligence."

Agree. Gross negligence = extreme carelessness (and the fact that the text was changed is damning in and of itself). Comey should have let the "matter" (coigh, cough) go to a Grand Jury, and had he done so, the Democrats might have nominated a viable candidate.