OIG Report Released: Full text

You know, as far as getting a lot of new factual info, the report isn’t bad...


As far as interpretations and justifications, there is whole lot more stuff...

How is anybody gonna ever be convicted of crimes in the future when all they have to say is:

“I don’t remember,” “I didn’t mean to,” “Bias didn’t play a part...” “can’t prove intent.”

I wonder how many convictions will have to be appealed using this new subjective FBIing... or policing, for that matter? Are local investigators and prosecutors better at identifying intent, bias, and motive than top agencies?

But let’s apply this to Trump and the administration... when they have to be judged, this is all gonna be precedent... Those who are protecting the misconduct are possibly/probably protecting Trump in the future...

Or should everyone not get the same treatment?

a reply to: face23785

That's either an intentional or ignorant misreading of the IG report.

Here, I'll help you with the relevant part:

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election


pp iii

As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.

Thanks for your stilted paraphase, but I'll stick with the wording in the report.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rexsblues

Well what kind of influence could they possibly have? I mean the Russians didnt have any effect right?
if all of that didnt effect the election then nothing that two people said possibly could.

So if they could have no effect, why were they even on the case? Seems pointless, why are we the people paying for them to have no effect on investigations they are involved in?

a reply to: RickinVa

Got any proof that Powell did similar?

Yeah, his own words. ([url=https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/DOS-HOGR-09022016-000001%20to%20000003.pdf]source[/url ])

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal emails accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Other than the emails that were retro actively classified after being in the government archives, available to the public for years? Those emails?

What you're repeating is the defense that both Powell and Clinton made in terms of record keeping, that the emails would be captured in other people's emails. Clearly that's not the case when he was using an AOL account to email foreign leaders and senior State Department people on their private email accounts.

The report also says that Comey knew by April of 2016 that their investigation would result in a declination and that he spoke with Sally Yates about how to make the announcement without Loretta Lynch doing it because they worried it would look political if she did.

In April. And you guys worked that he made the decision just before Clinton sat down with them.
It was three months before that.. That's how soon they knew that they weren't going to charge her with anything.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You aren’t worried about the content of what you just wrote?

a reply to: Sillyolme

The report also says Comey didn't know Huma was married to Anthony Weiner.

😃😃

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He's really not.

I demonstrably am but hey, haters gonna hate.

There are messages where they do not suggest, they say they won't let Trump win.

Or they don't. What Strzok intended to say is open to interpretation. More importantly, the IG report states repeatedly, "we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions."

We also have Senior officials taking direct action to hurt Trump.

Gosh you're lazy. Why excerpt the WaPo article instead of the IG report? The "senior official" in question IS Peter Strzok. That's a whole lotta derp. We do not "have Senior officials taking direct action to hurt Trump" either. Again, the IG report literally refutes that false claim 6-7 times:

"we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions"

If you're going to try to call me out, try harder.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah but they were just texts. They still conducted their investigation as they are supposed to and those words did not effect their work. That's the determination.
This is the report you all were pinning your hopes on. This is what they found.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where in this report does it say people lied to the FBI?

a reply to: face23785

Here's another thing: If her defense is that she "didn't know" or "lacked intent" then how did they know well enough not to use specific language indicating it's classification?

...the senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to “talk around” classified information...

Don't know why I didn't make that connect sooner.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dead on.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's not from the report.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

That's either an intentional or ignorant misreading of the IG report.

Here, I'll help you with the relevant part:

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election


pp iii

As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.

Thanks for your stilted paraphase, but I'll stick with the wording in the report.

I quoted directly from the report earlier in the thread where they outlined where procedures weren't followed and bias was found. Apparently you lied about having read the thread, or you just don't read very well.

a reply to: face23785

They clearly can investigate more than one thing at a time. They are still investigating collusion or more specifically Conspiracy against the United States.
The charges (or not) will come when they are concluded.
Not a minute before.
You demanding it won't make it happen.

Slow browser. Impatient member.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: face23785

Here's another thing: If her defense is that she "didn't know" or "lacked intent" then how did they know well enough not to use specific language indicating it's classification?

...the senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to “talk around” classified information...

Don't know why I didn't make that connect sooner.

Truth. The intent is clear, and it would be demonstrable to a jury.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

They clearly can investigate more than one thing at a time. They are still investigating collusion or more specifically Conspiracy against the United States.
The charges (or not) will come when they are concluded.
Not a minute before.
You demanding it won't make it happen.

Great response. Could you formulate one that actually addresses anything in the post you're replying to?

a reply to: xuenchen

Christopher Wray is saying in press conference he will be making criminal referrals to OPR, but won't say how many, and they will be held accountable.

Hillary Clinton also just had the balls to tweet..

But my emails...referring to Comey having a personal fbi email account.

Hillary Clinton ‏ Verified account @HillaryClinton 21m21 minutes ago More Hillary Clinton Retweeted Kyle Cheney

But my emails.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

That's either an intentional or ignorant misreading of the IG report.

Here, I'll help you with the relevant part:

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election


pp iii

As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.

Thanks for your stilted paraphase, but I'll stick with the wording in the report.

I quoted directly from the report earlier in the thread where they outlined where procedures weren't followed and bias was found. Apparently you lied about having read the thread, or you just don't read very well.

Drop the silly ad hom. Procedures weren't followed? Yeah, we've known that Comey went out on his own for two years.

Bias? Yeah, personal bias was evident, but as I quoted, time and time again, the report states CLEARLY that bias didn't affect the investigation.