Anonymous wrote:The report is full of examples of bias. I read one pundit who compared this to Comey laying out a case for prosecution of Clinton and then saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict. Many "reasonable prosecutors" have said they would have indicted her. Or, at least, called a Grand Jury. They had not intention of indicting her ever--or, a Grand Jury would have been called. Why was no one indicted? Several people lied. Several destroyed evidence, too.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

You probably have rolled your eyes too much and caused yourself some mental stability because you have things completely backwards. There is lots of evidence that gravity exists. There is no evidence that Strzok took any actions as a result of personal political bias. In fact, the IG found the exact opposite -- that no evidence connecting political views to investigatory actions exists. You are imagining evidence where none exists. So, put your eyes back in their sockets and use them to read more carefully.

The report also faults the FBI – and specifically Strzok – for not acting quickly enough after the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the fall of 2016. The report says Strzok and others argued that the Russia investigation was a “higher priority” at the time than reviewing the laptop.

“We found this explanation unpersuasive and concerning,” the report said, noting the FBI could have gotten a search warrant in late September, but waited more than a month to do so -- ultimately revisiting the case days before the election. Clinton has long said that announcement contributed to her defeat. But the report also suggested that Strzok, ironically, may have acted out of bias for Clinton in slow-walking the laptop review.

Based on the Strzok text messages, the report said, “We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/justice-dept-ig-report-released-on-fbis-handling-clinton-email-case-comey-found-insubordinate.html

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Anonymous wrote:Actually, in the report, it says that they did not have confidence that Strozk's decision to delay the Weiner investigation because of the Russian investigation was "free from bias." There are lots of indications of bias and comments that there were concerns about bias in this report.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are living in a fantasy world. The investigation shows just how biased the FBI agents were in favor of Hillary and against Trump. Those agents are Giglio impaired from here on out.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-15/fbi-agent-called-hillary-president-while-investigating-her-texted-screw-you-trump

funny since it says no bias. How did you miss that?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

You probably have rolled your eyes too much and caused yourself some mental stability because you have things completely backwards. There is lots of evidence that gravity exists. There is no evidence that Strzok took any actions as a result of personal political bias. In fact, the IG found the exact opposite -- that no evidence connecting political views to investigatory actions exists. You are imagining evidence where none exists. So, put your eyes back in their sockets and use them to read more carefully.

The report also faults the FBI – and specifically Strzok – for not acting quickly enough after the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the fall of 2016. The report says Strzok and others argued that the Russia investigation was a “higher priority” at the time than reviewing the laptop.

“We found this explanation unpersuasive and concerning,” the report said, noting the FBI could have gotten a search warrant in late September, but waited more than a month to do so -- ultimately revisiting the case days before the election. Clinton has long said that announcement contributed to her defeat. But the report also suggested that Strzok, ironically, may have acted out of bias for Clinton in slow-walking the laptop review.

Based on the Strzok text messages, the report said, “We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

Anonymous wrote:The FBI agents were disturbed by thousands of emails discovered on a pedophile's computer? And, Comey thought (according to Loretta Lynch who refused to recuse herself) that displayed a visceral hatred by the agents. That may have been Comey's excuse to her as to why they had to go public. We don't even know for sure that is what he told her.

Again, if the FBI had properly done their investigation, this computer would have been in FBI possession long before September. It was only discovered because of the Weiner conversations with a young girl (or someone pretending to be one--I don't recall that detail.)

There was plenty of evidence of guilt--yet no Grand Jury was convened. Unlike the Mueller investigation. Why didn't the FBI go into Weiner's house in the middle of the night? We know that HRC's IT guy mishandled and destroyed hardware--AFTER emails were subpoenaed. We know that the FBI let Mills sit in on HRC's testimony. We know that FBI agents knew HRC was lying. We know that Strozk was one of the agents who interviewed her. We know that FBI agents knew there were people allowed in her Chappaqua schiff who were lying. We know that Weiner had an amazing amount of access. And, yet, no Grand Jury.

We also know that "intent" (Sally Yates said there was no bad intent on Clinton's part) has nothing to do with innocence or guilt in the code.

And, for HRC to claim that "c" was alphabetical order on a document defies belief. She cannot possibly be that stupid. And, remember, she told one staffer to send classified information in one of those emails that was released by Wikileaks.

We also now know that Obama was communicating with her at this address and we now have confirmation that her computer was compromised by a foreign nation while in a foreign country--presumably Russia. This was in the report--the presumption of Russia was not.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.