FBI Agent Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

a reply to: BlueAjah

"They #'ed it up-- multiple statements lead us to believe some investigators had strong bias and an apparent willingness to act on those biases in an official capacity, but we can't prove they #'ed it up on purpose" is hardly the same as Silly's "It did not find fault with their investigation".

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Thanks for scrolling the screen with the exact same quotes I've already responded to.

So tell us instead of more cut and paste ...

What evidence did the IG fond of Strzoks's actions against Trump.

Not bias, not willingness ... What did he do???

You said:

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

...

The IG stated clearly that all investigative decisions were reviewed.

The IG stated clearly that Strzok was always working in a group of agents and prosecutors.
...

My reply shows that the IG SPECIFICALLY said that he did NOT review all decisions, and that his findings do not cover the decisions of the employees who sent political messages.

Yes. Good job cherry-picking.

Your tactic in use here is typical, post a long quote, then paraphrase what it says to fit your narrative.

We've seen that over and over and over from you.

So answer this question or don't:

What SPECIFIC actions on the part of Strzok (or any other agent you can name specifically) were taken that compromised the Clinton Investigation or harmed the campaign of Donald Trump?

Following Comey’s public statement on July 5, the Midyear prosecutors finalized their recommendation that the Department decline prosecution of Clinton, her senior aides, and the senders of emails determined to contain classified information. On July 6, the Midyear prosecutors briefed Lynch, Yates, Comey, other members of Department and FBI leadership, and FBI Midyear team members about the basis for the declination recommendation.

The Midyear team concluded that such proof (of "gross negligence") was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents. We analyzed the Department’s declination decision according to the same analytical standard that we applied to other decisions made during the investigation. We did not substitute the OIG’s judgment for the judgments made by the Department, but rather sought to determine whether the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias. We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice. We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that were for the Department to make.

As I've said many times:

The decision to decline prosecution was made by the prosecutors working the case in full view of the law.

OIG found that the prosecutors interpretation of 793(f)(1) was consistent with precedent.

OIG found NO EVIDENCE that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or impropery considerations but were based on the facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

HAHAHAHAHAHA
That is a hoot
www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system

Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

HAHAHAHAHAHA
That is a hoot
www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system

Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

Page not found error on your link.

What on earth are you trying to say?

a reply to: Gryphon66

how did "the midyear prosecutors" make the decision when comey stated "Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say."
guess they are not part of the doj eh?

a reply to: shooterbrody

good part from that statement...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received

😃

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

how did "the midyear prosecutors" make the decision when comey stated "Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say."
guess they are not part of the doj eh?

The FBI is part of the DOJ.

He's taking sole responsibility for the statement he was about to read on himself.

Next?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: shooterbrody

good part from that statement...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received

😃

You guys keep trying to litigate this in the court of your own opinions. That's fine.

The fact is that the matters of Clinton's email server have been investigated thoroughly, the problems were identified, and the decision was made without duress, corruption or what have you (as stated by the OIG) that the investigation followed DOJ protocol.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They do not know what I am about to say

from the director himself
i guess you have a different definition of they?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

They do not know what I am about to say

from the director himself
i guess you have a different definition of they?

Nope.

This is an attempt at distraction. The discussion is about FBI Agent Strzok.

Why so desperate?

a reply to: Gryphon66

oreily?
what cases did he work on again?
i am sure he is just misunderstood like Mark Fuhrman

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

oreily?
what cases did he work on again?
i am sure he is just misunderstood like Mark Fuhrman

Well, Christopher Wray, current FBI DIrector was Chris Christies attorney during the Presidential Election, and we all know that Chris Christie was a big part of the Trump Campaign ... so obviously, Chris Wray's actions now are seriously compromised.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter who Trump appoints, it is more than obvious that the decision will be based on political bias.

Therefore, according to the rather absurd logic here ... nothing President Trump does can be trusted.

QED

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is an attempt at distraction. The discussion is about FBI Agent Strzok. Why so desperate?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Watching and Laughing

💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥

a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, actually I was just thinking about what you said, shooter. About Comey.

Well, Comey is long gone from the FBI but Wray is still in charge ... and he's OBVIOUSLY politically biased.

As is the President.

How can we trust people who are so clearly politically biased!!!???!!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Watching and Laughing

💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥

You're so crazy Xuenchen.

I'm just glad that Strzok fellow didn't do anything to hurt the Trump campaign.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is an attempt at distraction. The discussion is about FBI Agent Strzok. Why so desperate?

Apparently, Mr. Strzok will get his chance to give testimony in Congress next week or so.

The Hill

A week ago, Goodlatte triggered the process for subpoenaing Strzok by officially notifying the top Democrat on the panel. But the next day, Strzok attorney Aitan Goelman sent a letter to Goodlatte saying his client would voluntarily testify before the Judiciary panel and that Goodlatte’s pursuit of a warrant was “wholly unnecessary,” according to CNN. Strzok “has been fully cooperative with the DOJ Office of Inspector General" and "intends to voluntarily appear and testify before your committee and any other Congressional committee that invites him,” Strzok’s attorney wrote to Goodlatte.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mr. Strzok is pretty sure he doesn't have anything to hide, eh? LOL.

Just wait until Trey Gowdy gets a whack at him, huh?