FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agreed. That's why I did not include him as biased. However he did say that the election, and assuming that Hillary was going to win, played a part in his decisions. I don't think he was trying to help her win. He was just trying to save his own skin if she won.

I think Comey used poor judgment and made awful decisions. He also was blind to what the people he was working with were doing, which is why he was also incompetent.

And yes, insubordinate.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Sillyolme

If you would actually read the report, then you would understand.

I've read significant portions of the report, as you have.

I do not agree with your interpretations. You don't agree with Silly's.

a reply to: BlueAjah

FBI NYO held them. If they had been released in Sept they could have been on and off the public consciousness weeks earlier than the eleven days before the election. In September it would have been a problem. In October it was a disaster that cost her the election.
Chew on that.
Holding it back worked against Clinton. It wasn't done to protect her because it did the opposite.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Comey did all the wrong things for the right reasons.

He wanted to protect the FBI as an institution.

Sadly, by breaking the FBI's protocols, he failed.

MIserably.

a reply to: Justoneman

Good argument.

Lol

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you actually read the report, you would know it addresses bias from Lynch.
It was not only about her meeting with Bill Clinton. The report references information that is in the classified Appendix 1, which gave Yates great concern, and influenced Comey's decisions.

There is actually quite a bit in the report about Comey/Lynch/Yates/Axelrod that is concerning.

As I said, I don't think Comey was biased, other than trying to save his own skin because he thought Clinton would win the election.

a reply to: BlueAjah

And what was the outcome? What did he have to tell congress a week later?
Hmmm? Oh yeah.

NEVER MIND...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you actually read the report, you would know it addresses bias from Lynch.
It was not only about her meeting with Bill Clinton. The report references information that is in the classified Appendix 1, which gave Yates great concern, and influenced Comey's decisions.

There is actually quite a bit in the report about Comey/Lynch/Yates/Axelrod that is concerning.

As I said, I don't think Comey was biased, other than trying to save his own skin because he thought Clinton would win the election.

Why do you keep repeating the "if you read the report" line?

I know that you are desperate to interpret the report that way, for the reasons I've said.

It is certain that the IG's report isn't kind to the DOJ or the FBI ... past or current personnel.

Do you understand what the job of the Inspector General's office is? To find at which points policies and procedures were not followed and to evaluate the impact of same on the work of the DOJ/FBI.

You can read the report any way you wish with your own biased filters in place ... but please, stop implying that anyone looking at the simple facts of the matter, as well as the statements made in the report, are incorrect.

Have you read every one of the 576 pages yourself, by the way?

a reply to: xuenchen

Nah. I was eating and didn't feel like looking it up. It was easier to just ask.
Pass the salt please...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Nah. I was eating and didn't feel like looking it up. It was easier to just ask.
Pass the salt please...

LOL, you communist.

a reply to: xuenchen

The classified parts aren't going to reverse the findings.
The conclusions weighed everything. What was classified and what wasn't classified.
They are what they are.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The classified facts indicating potential bias by the former Attorney General referenced in Comey’s testimony are discussed in the classified appendix to this report. As described in more detail in that appendix, Comey had concerns about Lynch’s ability to credibly announce the closure of the investigation, in part because of classified information learned by the FBI in March 2016 regarding alleged attempts to influence the Midyear investigation by Lynch, as well efforts by Comey to extend the investigation to impact the election.

Comey also had an extended exchange with Senator John Cornyn about
whether Lynch had an appearance of a conflict of interest requiring appointment of
a special counsel.

SENATOR CORNYN: But it seems to me that you clearly believe that
Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, had an appearance of a conflict of
interest on the Clinton email investigation. Is that correct?

COMEY: I think that’s fair. I didn’t believe she could credibly decline
that investigation, at least not without grievous damage to the
Department of Justice and to the FBI.

SENATOR CORNYN: And, under Department of Justice and FBI norms,
wouldn’t it have been appropriate for the Attorney General, or, if she
had recused herself—which she did not do—for the Deputy Attorney
General to appoint a special counsel? That’s essentially what’s
happened now with Director Mueller. Would that have been an
appropriate step in the Clinton email investigation in your opinion?

COMEY: Certainly a possible step, yes, sir.

As described in the classified appendix to this report, Comey told the OIG that he became concerned in mid-June 2016 that classified information suggesting that Lynch was exerting influence on the Midyear investigation would be publicly released, and that this would impact her ability to credibly announce a declination.

And much more.

a reply to: BlueAjah

"Indicting potential bias" is a) not a declaration that bias was found and b) is a part of the classified matter that we obviously don't have access to.

"Appearance of a conflict of interest" is unrelated to bias or the IG report findings.

"And much more" is still a fallacious reference.

You're making an argument that things neither you nor I know to be true are true.

You do not know what is in the Classified material; to assume it supports your argument is fallacious.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

The classified parts aren't going to reverse the findings.
The conclusions weighed everything. What was classified and what wasn't classified.
They are what they are.

There are additional findings in the classified sections.

That's why it's classified.

It's the "Holmes vs Watson" complex.

You have nothing to worry about.

🚬🔫🔑

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

The classified parts aren't going to reverse the findings.
The conclusions weighed everything. What was classified and what wasn't classified.
They are what they are.

There are additional findings in the classified sections.

That's why it's classified.

It's the "Holmes vs Watson" complex.

You have nothing to worry about.

🚬🔫🔑

Are you arguing that the material in the classfied sections supports some specific narrative?

a reply to: xuenchen
And these findings are going to contradict the published one?
Sure they are. And you know this because....

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm thinking they arent. Food for another thread. Why haven't they ?

a reply to: BlueAjah

Two versions?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Comey did all the wrong things for the right reasons.

He wanted to protect the FBI as an institution.

Sadly, by breaking the FBI's protocols, he failed.

MIserably.

You don't protect an institution by violating its protocols put in place to protect it.

He went so far as to hide what he was doing from his superiors so he'd not be told what he was doing was wrong.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes.
Chapter 13 has two versions.
The public version was modified.
Appendix Two has the full version not public, marked Law Enforcement Sensitive.

There is a great deal about McCabe in that section, as well as about the email server investigation.