OIG Report Released: Full text

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burntheships

If it's from the IG report why are you sourcing The Hill?

Because you're citing COMMENTARY ... Do you genuinely not know the difference?

I'd love to see any proof you have for Obstruction ... Got any?

I am quoting you again to prove that you did not read the IG Report.

The GUT has even posted a snippet of the IG Report that
the article cites, You are intentionally being obtuse.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, it says they found no direct evidence. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, only they did not uncover direct evidence. It states a cloud is cast over the investigation.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The report stated that investigators "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected [the Clinton email investigation]," but added that “we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

That assessment coupled with the segment noting Strzok prioritized Trump over Clintons investigation is the bias confirmation.

Comey weighs in -

James Comey✔ @Comey

I respect the DOJ IG office, which is why I urged them to do this review. The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some. People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently. I pray no Director faces it again. Thanks to IG’s people for hard work.
1:28 PM - Jun 14, 2018

a reply to: Xcathdra

Translation -

"Thanks for wording things in such a way that I wont go to prison"

I just read the report, it's a big nothing burger.

actually it's proof that Trump is one of the biggest criminals in world history and he needs to stopped at all cost!!

a reply to: burntheships

I quoted the IG report.

You quoted The Hill.

Further your quotes from the Hill are not from the IG report.

How desperate are you guys to spin this???

LOL

a reply to: Gryphon66

The part she quoted is from the OIG report. I also supplied you with the quote and you ignored it.

Trying to derail the thread by refusing to accept reality doesnt help.

Here it is... again.

The report stated that investigators "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected [the Clinton email investigation]," but added that “we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

You do understand how quotations work right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

But it did not effect the investigation or the performance of the agents.
Strzok will likely be demoted or maybe, based on Chris Wrays announcement earlier this evening, he could be fired.

That's because the evidence was never presented to anybody. It was buried.

Similar to the "not classified at the time" tactic.

🚬🔫🎃

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

But it did not effect the investigation or the performance of the agents.
Strzok will likely be demoted or maybe, based on Chris Wrays announcement earlier this evening, he could be fired.

That's because the evidence was never presented to anybody. It was buried.

🎃🚬🔫

or it was referred to Huber. Intentionally sabotaging a criminal investigation to benefit the suspect falls under obstruction of justice. If Clinton had won and the agents were rewarded you move beyond obstruction into several other criminal charges.

People dont seem to understand the OIG report is not based on violations of law but violations of FBI policy and guidelines. Any law violations are referred to Huber.

The OIG is essentially an independent internal affairs appointed by the President and answerable to Congress.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is the quote in question:

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burntheships The topic here is the OIG report; that's what I'm quoting from ... why are you dredging up opinion articles???

Hmmmm?

Your intentionally ignoring the quotes from the IG Report.

WHY?

Special Agent Strzok’s political ‘bias’ may have been a cause of the FBI’s failure, between September 29 and October 25, 2016, to seek a second search warrant for the Anthony Weiner laptop,” Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement.

That is not from the IG report.

It's not from the quote from The HIll that you're trying to overlay on it.

I do understand how quotes work, and you do too ... for some reason you seem to believe that you can post an obvious untruth and not be called on it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you get called out and go for the personal attack.

typical...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you get called out and go for the personal attack.

typical...

I didn't attack you. You posted an untruth and I stated that.

I supplied the quote from the other member that I was citing. It's literally a quote from Mr. Goelman, Strzok's attorney.

Is that quote from the IG report, or not?

If it isn't, and it isn't, don't you want to preseve a small bit of your dignity and admit that?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is it your assertion that Director Wray would not have responded to the "policy review" (talk about spin) from the IG if there were criminal charges being referred?

You guys have been chomping at the bit for weeks thinking that this "policy review" was going to fulfill all your dreams about getting revenge and covering for Trump ...

... and now it's a "policy review."

You can't make this up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dude, you got called out, everybody sees it. Take your licks and begone.

a reply to: Gryphon66

More personal attacks.. the irony.

You were given the links and the quotes that debunked your untruths and you ignore it and attack the people.

You should not be lecturing anyone on dignity.

The FBI agents personal bias is in fact under investigation. It is why they were referred to the FBI for internal review. It is why the OIG report stated they were not confident that their personal bias didnt affect their decision making process with regards to the investigation.

This is indisputable and yet you claim it never happened, even after being provided the quotes saying it.

Stop derailing the thread with your nonsense. Just because you cant accept the facts doesnt mean you have to ruin it for everyone else by trying to bury the info under your denials it never happened.

You have anything on topic that doesnt revolve around a personal attack?

Sounds like there's something for everyone in this report.... and around and around we go ... where we stop no body knows ... but where ever we stop I'm sure its not going to be good, distraction has been on over drive for a while now.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, it says they found no direct evidence. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, only they did not uncover direct evidence. It states a cloud is cast over the investigation.

So, when an investigation finds no evidence, people are nonetheless still guilty?

Oh, right right.

"A cloud is cast" over the actions of the agents who were dumb enough to send personal communications over their work devices.

The IG's report states, once again, that the investigation was not compromised by the agents in question.

Now, you guys can keep talking about your feelings, beliefs, intuitions and whatever ... but you're not talking about the facts.

Bon appetit.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The OIG doesnt not answer to the FBI or DOJ. Any criminal referral goes to Huber, the DOJ prosecutor from Utah. Policy violations go to the FBI since its a policy review of the agents actions. Any improper action by DOJ prosecutors that possibly violated policy goes to the DOJ for a policy review.

You up to speed now or do we need to explain it to you in another way for you to understand it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Personal attacks? Then report the post.

If not, get on with it and stop posting off topic.

It's really simple. I posted the quote from the other user that I stated was not from the IG report.

It isn't, it's a statement by the attorney.