Sally Yates -DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Overtly Investigate Clinton Foundation

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

if you weren't being purposefully deceitful on a regular basis you would link the text yourself and break it down word for word so your point was clear

don't worry I'm not expecting you to do that

Why would I be inclined to care what you do or do not expect?

You know what it says. It's there for anyone to read.

Still, you and others are being dishonest.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

"Senior FBI officials"

AKA Peter Strzok and his girlfriend.

They want to castigate the ENTIRE FBI over the dumb actions of two individuals.

Not only that, but the text of the report says "potentially indicated or created the appearance" they were biased.

That means that such a claim was not proven to be true.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I post direct quotations and any opinion I give is based on those direct facts.

I see no quotation marks in your posts.

Making stuff up again?

a reply to: introvert

so boring

let me know when you can actually formulate a proper argument until then hopefully no one is taking you seriously

a reply to: introvert

Well, add to that the fact that the OIG's investigation centered around determining if there were any negative effects on the ongoing investigation by actors such as Peter Strzok.

The report states clearly and repeatedly that there was no evidence that Strzok acted improperly in any part of the investigation.

He misused his work phone to talk to his girlfriend, ergo, let's insult and demean and castrate the entire FBI.

Another REALLY sad thing here is that the majority of FBI agents are former military, white, middle-aged Republicans.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

so boring

let me know when you can actually formulate a proper argument until then hopefully no one is taking you seriously

Do not be dishonest. You know what it says and I even provided a quote above, but it doesn't matter. You only see what you want to see.

You will not change your mind and you have to resort to acting like a teenage girl instead of coming to terms with what it actually said, not what you want it to say.

“Numerous witnesses told us that agents involved in the Clinton Foundation investigation were instructed to take no overt investigative steps prior to the election,”

Telling them not to investigate out in the open before the election seems about right.

Trump admin called it spying when they found out the same was being done with them.


FYI- Overt means one or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.

Strzok said at the time still leading the FBI probe into Clinton "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

Horowitz's report said that message

"not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice."

www.justice.gov...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

so boring

let me know when you can actually formulate a proper argument until then hopefully no one is taking you seriously

Could I ask you to link us to your proper arguments on this topic?

Oh, that's right, there are none. Nothing but ad-hom.

It is ludicrous to claim that those who are quoting primary sources (like the IG report) are "making stuff up."

a reply to: Gryphon66

The investigaton into the Clinton Foundation was ONGOING. Actually Yates was one of the recipients of the cautions not to make the investigation OVERT until after the Election

So could you point me to where and when the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was made public ? And could you update us on the status of the investigation .

Further, the Inspector General found that the actions of
several agents were damaging to the FBI.

"the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the [Clinton] investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence,"


www.justice.gov...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

so boring

let me know when you can actually formulate a proper argument until then hopefully no one is taking you seriously

Do not be dishonest. You know what it says and I even provided a quote above, but it doesn't matter. You only see what you want to see.

You will not change your mind and you have to resort to acting like a teenage girl instead of coming to terms with what it actually said, not what you want it to say.

not sure where your information is in this reply that adds context to the statement that totally changes it's interpretation as you state it does

still waiting and I'll probably be waiting for a while as you're being totally dishonest

had to correct a spelling error before any lefty comes in here and uses it to win something that's not even a contest to begin with

a reply to: Grimpachi

Trump admin called it spying when they found out the same was being done with them. FYI- Overt means one or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.

I thought Comey said that Trump was not under investigation .

Further, the IG Report states that FBI Agent failed to
prioritize the laptop in the scheme of the Russia investigation.



"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [laptop] lead ... was free from bias,"


www.justice.gov...

a reply to: Gryphon66

did you or this member actually source something?

I must have missed it, I would be very surprised

originally posted by: burntheships
Strzok said at the time still leading the FBI probe into Clinton "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

Horowitz's report said that message

"not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice."

www.justice.gov...

Yep. Did he take official action?

Nope. None. And that fact has been pointed out specifically to you FROM the IG report over and over and over.

Here one's one of many again:

Page 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. ... [W]e 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.

Oh, since you are concerned ... heres some extras: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66

did you or this member actually source something?

I must have missed it, I would be very surprised

I'm sure you're surprised by a lot, but you just tipped your hand that you're not reading the thread, you're just writing knee-jerk responses.

Read the thread.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

Well, add to that the fact that the OIG's investigation centered around determining if there were any negative effects on the ongoing investigation by actors such as Peter Strzok.

The report states clearly and repeatedly that there was no evidence that Strzok acted improperly in any part of the investigation.

He misused his work phone to talk to his girlfriend, ergo, let's insult and demean and castrate the entire FBI.

Another REALLY sad thing here is that the majority of FBI agents are former military, white, middle-aged Republicans.

That doesn't matter one bit.

These guys have their minds set and no matter of fact or reality is going to change that.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The quoted IG report states above that there was an ongoing investigation into the CF.

The rest is off-topic. Google is your friend though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hell yes he took action. He went past the chain of command
in communication with Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page.
www.breitbart.com...

He contacted the Judge Contreras in the Flynn case too!
www.nationalreview.com...

All part of the reason why he is now under further investigation.

Your not adding any source to your posts, no source not valid.