IG Report on Clinton email probe is out.

[dyna]

Did she just incriminate herself?

 

[Phokus]

Qanon from 4Chan said that the IG report would reveal the child prostitution ring the democrats were supposedly running. Gosh it's missing, must be another conspiracy to cover it up.

 

[UNCjigga]

Qanon from 4Chan said that the IG report would reveal the child prostitution ring the democrats were supposedly running. Gosh it's missing, must be another conspiracy to cover it up.

Fox News talking points: "All the bad Hillary stuff and bad stuff about Mueller's probe is coming in the NEXT IG report!!" No, I'm not making this up.

 

[dyna]

It certainly makes the FBI look bad to have people saying this however there is important context to that quote, principally that... you know... they didn't actually do anything to prevent Trump from winning and on balance the actions of the FBI probably tipped the election to him.

That kind of blows up the 'FBI bias against Trump' theory, no?

It doesn't say they didn't do anything, it just says they didn't find anything. It is obvious they felt that the FBI wasn't neutral.

Comey on the other hand was basically called out for essentially going rogue but they were nice and said he did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do in his mind but then recommend that the director should follow protocol in the future.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It doesn't say they didn't do anything, it just says they didn't find anything. It is obvious they felt that the FBI wasn't neutral.

Comey on the other hand was basically called out for essentially going rogue but they were nice and said he did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do in his mind but then recommend that the director should follow protocol in the future.

So, everything is already because he felt good about it? And their feelings is that the FBI was not neutral? Am I getting this right? Are feelings what is important in this report? Did they give anyone a participation trophy?

 

[dyna]

So, everything is already because he felt good about it? And their feelings is that the FBI was not neutral? Am I getting this right? Are feelings what is important in this report? Did they give anyone a participation trophy?

They put language in it that basically says, we know their guilty but just didn't find evidence. Why else would they say what they did?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It doesn't say they didn't do anything, it just says they didn't find anything. It is obvious they felt that the FBI wasn't neutral.

Comey on the other hand was basically called out for essentially going rogue but they were nice and said he did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do in his mind but then recommend that the director should follow protocol in the future.

No evidence is no evidence. What impact do you think one person could have had on that entire investigation? There was nothing to indicate anyone took any action that was politically motivated. So now we should believe it happened anyway because why? You feel there has to be something to show otherwise they didn’t get?

The only person Comey harmed was Clinton.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They put language in it that basically says, we know their guilty but just didn't find evidence. Why else would they say what they did?

Oh bullshit. Cite the part that says that. Or hints at it. Or implies it.

 

[dyna]

Oh bullshit. Cite the part that says that. Or hints at it. Or implies it.

I posted this earlier but here it is again:

The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Did she just incriminate herself?

Yea, that's why she's free, years later, or maybe it was sarcasm....I can see how that is confusing for a con.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I posted this earlier but here it is again:

That in no way says what you claimed. Try again.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't say they didn't do anything, it just says they didn't find anything. It is obvious they felt that the FBI wasn't neutral.

Comey on the other hand was basically called out for essentially going rogue but they were nice and said he did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do in his mind but then recommend that the director should follow protocol in the future.

It doesn't say that at all. The best part?

But Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" with precedent and not affected by bias or other improper actions.

He was also advised by the Justice Department that his intent to tell Congress in October 2016 that FBI agents had recovered additional emails possibly relevant to the Clinton probe would run counter to department policy, and yet he did it anyway.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/ig-report-clinton-email-investigation/index.html

That letter cost Clinton the election, but the FBI was biased against Trump, at least in right wing fantasy land.

 

[dyna]

That in no way says what you claimed. Try again.

That quote is damning of their actions how can you see it any other way? What exactly do you think the quote means?

 

[dyna]

It doesn't say that at all. The best part?

Here is the Comey part:

Second, in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decisionmaking. In so doing, we found that Comey largely based his decisions on what he believed was in the FBI’s institutional interests and would enable him to continue to effectively lead the FBI as its Director. While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice. 498 Moreover, these decisions usurped the authority of the Attorney General and upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions and the accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United States.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

That quote is damning of their actions how can you see it any other way? What exactly do you think the quote means?

It means actions such as ignoring direction not to take action. Like Comey and his letter to Congress. That the texts displayed a lack of judgement and professionalism. He even spelled out that the comments were jokes or attempts at humour.

I can guarantee you haven’t read the report. Even a little bit of it and are basing your position off what some article has told you to think. NOTHING in that statement is about guilt. It’s about not following normal procedures

Your assertion that he says they are guilty but we didn’t find proof is not supported in any way by a single sentence in that document.

 

[dyna]

It means actions such as ignoring direction not to take action. Like Comey and his letter to Congress. That the texts displayed a lack of judgement and professionalism. He even spelled out that the comments were jokes or attempts at humour.

I can guarantee you haven’t read the report. Even a little bit of it and are basing your position off what some article has told you to think. NOTHING in that statement is about guilt. It’s about not following normal procedures

Your assertion that he says they are guilty but we didn’t find proof is not supported in any way by a single sentence in that document.

If you didn't know who they were talking about, I bet you would probably agree with my interpretation. Its all good, we can agree to disagree.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If you didn't know who they were talking about, I bet you would probably agree with my interpretation. Its all good, we can agree to disagree.

What you mean to say is since I read (most of) it and you didn’t you can’t argue the merits of your assertion and, as such, can’t defend your claims.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They put language in it that basically says, we know their guilty but just didn't find evidence. Why else would they say what they did?

If they did not find any evidence then how do they know they are guilty? You know things because you have evidence of those things, otherwise you are in the realm of belief.

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't say they didn't do anything, it just says they didn't find anything. It is obvious they felt that the FBI wasn't neutral.

So what did they do then? Literally all evidence shows they didn’t do anything.

You do realize the IG report shows that if the FBI wasn’t neutral it was biased against CLINTON, not Trump, right? All of the questionable actions the FBI took hurt her and helped Trump.

Comey on the other hand was basically called out for essentially going rogue but they were nice and said he did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do in his mind but then recommend that the director should follow protocol in the future.

It would be nice if the next FBI director wouldn’t intervene to throw the election to the Republicans, yes. Haha.

 

[dyna]

What you mean to say is since I read (most of) it and you didn’t you can’t argue the merits of your assertion and, as such, can’t defend your claims.

I haven't read the whole thing, I'm a slow reader and it is a massive document. I did get that from the conclusion and recommendations sections. Which are basically the cliff notes of the whole document. You can quote all different sections that you have read that invalidates my interpretation, however I suspect that the committee that put together the document intended to make the conclusion highlight the most important aspects, since well it is in the conclusion of the document.

 

[fskimospy]

Is dyna actually trying to argue the FBI acted with bias against Trump during the election? It’s hard to imagine how someone could rewrite history so totally in a relatively short time.

 

[dyna]

If they did not find any evidence then how do they know they are guilty? You know things because you have evidence of those things, otherwise you are in the realm of belief.

It happens all the time. You never heard of anybody getting away with a crime?

 

[ch33zw1z]

It happens all the time. You never heard of anybody getting away with a crime?

So you're assuming their guilty. I'm sure you've already sided with Democrats then when it comes to Trump's guilt.

 

[dyna]

So you're assuming their guilty. I'm sure you've already sided with Democrats then when it comes to Trump's guilt.

I am assuming that the IG report indicates they are guilty, they just couldn't find any hard proof.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I haven't read the whole thing, I'm a slow reader and it is a massive document. I did get that from the conclusion and recommendations sections. Which are basically the cliff notes of the whole document. You can quote all different sections that you have read that invalidates my interpretation, however I suspect that the committee that put together the document intended to make the conclusion highlight the most important aspects, since well it is in the conclusion of the document.

You’ve actually ignored the conclusion where it suits your unsupported claim. The conclusion is the investigation was conducted impartially with no political bias. That’s the conclusion. You’re completely disregarding that due to.... your feels I guess since nothing in the rest of the document says anything different.

But you say they are guilty. What are they guilty of specifically?