It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Gryphon66
I don't need to argue anymore.
Truth is already upon is.
Those who have eyes can see it.
Nothing I can do you for you or Silly anymore. You two are waaay gone at this point.
It's sad.
originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Gryphon66
You're saying that "we're not gonna like the results" ever since the first investigation was announced.
And guess what:
WE ARE LOVING IT!
Fail again.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Good point. You can tell though, by the scale of the deflection, that this is huge.
You can even see it in this thread
Deflection from what, exactly?
Yes, some have adopted the Republican spin on the matter probably see attention to the facts as "deflection."
Here's the summary again:
IG Horowitz's investigation of the Midyear (Clinton Email) Investigation found nothing material compromised because of political bias. (I can provide the quote from the report if needed.)
Horowitz told lawmakers that as a result of the report's findings, the FBI found two additional FBI agents beyond Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as well as one attorney that exposed political bias during the investigation. While employees have a right to a political opinion, "their job is to check them at the door" Horowitz added.
"The one thing I thought we all understood, you're entitled to be and should be part of the public, government, democracy we live in, when you get in the office you leave your views outside when you walk in the door," the IG said.
Horowitz explained that the most troubling aspect of Strzok and Page's exchanges was the fact that they thought their messages were private when they weren't.
"They were using their FBI devices, sometimes at work, sometimes not at work, to speak about individuals that they were investigating. They weren't just speaking about a generic election," he said, adding that Page and Strzok had "tied their discussions to their investigate work and that's what's concerning."
"My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values of the department," Horowitz said of the largely anti-Trump and politically biased messages exchanged. Horowitz reiterated, however, that through the investigation, "we didn't find or see evidence prosecutors were impacted by that bias."
Horowitz said that Strzok "exhibited" some form of bias but that decisions made by others during the Clinton investigation "were not infected by that bias." As for fired FBI Director James Comey, Horowitz said that from the IG's report "we did not find any evidence Comey acted out of political bias."
"We did have concerns, however about how we thought what was a biased state of mind impacted his October decisions regarding the [Anthony] Weiner laptop. We could not say one way or the other but we couldn't rule it out," said Horowitz.
My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values of the department," Horowitz said of the largely anti-Trump and politically biased messages exchanged. Horowitz reiterated, however, that through the investigation, "we didn't find or see evidence prosecutors were impacted by that bias."
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66
Correct....prosecutors. Not investigators.
Amend a few 302's and the prosecutors have no need to be biased...the decision is made for them.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66
Correct....prosecutors. Not investigators.
Amend a few 302's and the prosecutors have no need to be biased...the decision is made for them.
... And the evidence of that from the IG report?
(1:13:34) Horowitz: "We were not saying that for every single decision … there are hundreds of decisions being made."
(1:13:34) Horowitz: "We did not find no bias with regards to the October events." (Read that carefully.)
(02:25:30) Horowitz: "What we say here is not that there was no bias ... ." (Again, read that carefully.)
(1:18:56) Horowitz (referring to FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok focusing more attention and energy on Trump-Russia collusion and away from the Hillary Clinton email probe): "We were not convinced that was not a biased decision."
(3:00:09) Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.): "… your investigation found fault in an exchange of text messages that you identified that demonstrated some political bias. Is that right?" Horowitz: "Correct."
(3:02:12) Horowitz: "The one area where we were concerned about bias was in the October time period, and the weighing of Agent Strzok between focusing on the Russia investigation versus the Weiner laptop [Clinton emails] and our concern about his decision given the text messages."
(2:05:15) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) "What you’re telling us is you found bias … those who you found the bias among said, ‘Well, we didn’t let it bleed into our work performance' and you don’t have evidence to disprove that." Horowitz: "Correct."
(2:02:46) Horowitz: "When we got to October we had concerns that there may be bias impacting the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation … ."
(2:02:46) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): "You’re not saying you didn’t find bias … ." Horowitz: "… I think it’s clear … Strzok had, as we say here, a biased state of mind."
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Is there a difference between having bias and acting on that bias?
Reading your same citation above ... if there were issues discovered with the investigation (procedural, inculpatory evidence found and hidden, etc.) wouldn't IG Horowitz have told us in his report?
He did not do that because no negative actions were found and they obviously combed through every single point of evidence, every decision, etc.
The only thing that comes CLOSE is Strzok's apparent decision to focus on the Russia investigation (his own efforts, presumably) over the Weiner laptop.
How did that affect the Clinton case in her favor in the election? It didn't.
How did that affect the Trump case against his favor in the election? It didn't.
Again, in sum, does the mere presence of bias mean compromising actions were taken?
No, it doesn't.
So I ask again: is there any evidence that any FBI agent with whatever biases tooki action to harm Trump or to help Clinton?