IG Report on Clinton email probe is out.

[fskimospy]

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

You realize the report concluded there was no bias, correct?

 

[dyna]

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?

They are guilty of this:

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.

 

[fskimospy]

They are guilty of this:

What do you think of this conclusion?

We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.

 

[deathBOB]

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’s referring to the FBI’s “reputation” and not any actual wrongdoing. The paragraph is clearly talking about how the appearance of impropriety can be harmful on its own, even if there was no improper conduct.

I don’t find any of this concerning. I certainly expect FBI agents to have private political feelings just like everyone else, and I also expect them to carry out their duties without regard to their beliefs. The report confirms both of my expectations.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They are guilty of this:

No you said they were guilty of not being neutral. Specifically that. The conclusion of the report says otherwise. It explicitly states they were not guilty of being anything but neutral.

We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.

Try again.

 

[dyna]

What do you think of this conclusion?

No you said they were guilty of not being neutral. Specifically that. The conclusion of the report says otherwise. It explicitly states they were not guilty of being anything but neutral.


Try again.

The fact there was no bias and or impact does not make them innocent of being a neutral organization. Just consider it, disaster averted.

 

[ch33zw1z]

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

Oh, is that all? 'Murica!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The fact there was no bias and or impact does not make them innocent of not being a neutral organization. Just consider it, disaster averted.

So there was no bias or impact? What does that mean to you?
Your statement is weird.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The fact there was no bias and or impact does not make them innocent of not being a neutral organization. Just consider it, disaster averted.

No you said specifically the IG felt they were guilty. He just didn’t find evidence. I mean sweet Jesus everything says otherwise. The IG spelled it out very clearly.

They ruled solely on fact and law and precedent. That is the very definition of impartiality.

 

[dyna]

No you said specifically the IG felt they were guilty. He just didn’t find evidence. I mean sweet Jesus everything says otherwise. The IG spelled it out very clearly.

They ruled solely on fact and law and precedent. That is the very definition of impartiality.

Have you ever heard of no harm, no foul? That is basically what happened. They were not neutral but it didn't cause harm.

 

[fskimospy]

The fact there was no bias and or impact does not make them innocent of being a neutral organization. Just consider it, disaster averted.

There being no bias means exactly that, actually. That’s what ‘no bias’ means.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Edit goddammit it showed my post twice so I dp’d one and now I got nothing. Fuck it. Arguing with people who ignore facts being spoon fed to them is a waste of time anyway.

But one more time. You said the wording was such that it implied they were guilty of not being neutral. It didn’t. Full stop. This statement is not ambiguous. It’s clear. They were the definition of neutral.

We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.

To imply anything else is to ignore reality.

 

[UNCjigga]

Edit goddammit it showed my post twice so I dp’d one and now I got nothing. Fuck it. Arguing with people who ignore facts being spoon fed to them is a waste of time anyway.

I'm literally getting sick of the derp factor with these people. Oh, you think the IG concluded that Comey's actions played a part in the FBI's "reputation" being sullied??? Comey was maybe 20% of the cause. The rest came from Trump, GOP House, Fox News and all the other Trump Waterboys and trolls trying to sell a narrative that the FBI was Deep State. Why aren't they mentioned?

Come to think of it, if anything is missing from the IG report, it would be what actions the NYC field office and Giuliani took to leak and politicize the Wiener laptop and force Comey's hand. Did Justice censor that out??

 

[dyna]

Edit goddammit it showed my post twice so I dp’d one and now I got nothing. Fuck it. Arguing with people who ignore facts being spoon fed to them is a waste of time anyway.

But one more time. You said the wording was such that it implied they were guilty of not being neutral. It didn’t. Full stop. This statement is not ambiguous. It’s clear. They were the definition of neutral.

We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.

To imply anything else is to ignore reality.

Your correct, the prosecutors were not biased but....

Even more seriously, text messages between Strzok and Page pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

 

[UNCjigga]

Your correct, the prosecutors were not biased but....

Except... They [Strzok and Page] took no such action, and Trump is now President. If anything, the FBI Director is being chided for direct actions that likely hurt Hillary's chances of getting elected. What was your point again??

 

[dyna]

Except... They [Strzok and Page] took no such action, and Trump is now President. If anything, the FBI Director is being chided for direct actions that likely hurt Hillary's chances of getting elected. What was your point again??

The point is that there was misconduct in the FBI. Is that not "shocking?" The fact that conclusions weren't impacted as a result doesn't undermine the lack of ethics and potential intent to undermine our democracy. Sounds a lot like the Russians doesn't it?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Your correct, the prosecutors were not biased but....

You left an important part out.

“our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed.”

 

[SMOGZINN]

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

Once again, if you don't have proof of a thing. If you don't have evidence pointing at a thing. You don't know the thing. That is literally what it means to know something.

So, what we are left with is that they feel that they got away with a crime, but they don't really have any reason to feel that way. It is just how they feel. That, by the way, is actually the definition of a bias.

Here is your participation trophy.

 

[dyna]

Once again, if you don't have proof of a thing. If you don't have evidence pointing at a thing. You don't know the thing. That is literally what it means to know something.

So, what we are left with is that they feel that they got away with a crime, but they don't really have any reason to feel that way. It is just how they feel. That, by the way, is actually the definition of a bias.

Here is your participation trophy.

Their penalty was that they got fired. They really didn't get a way with it.

 

[Phokus]

lol, when a republican says the IG report says Comey helped Trump win

https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1007346194845224961

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Their penalty was that they got fired. They really didn't get a way with it.

Edit. I’m solely focused on Page and Strzok. Withdrawn.

 

[dyna]

Edit. I’m solely focused on Page and Strzok. Withdrawn.

I suspect he won't be around much longer unless he has some dirt on somebody important. Which knowing his way of handling things wouldn't be all that surprising.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's an attempt to discredit the FBI in general, to reduce their credibility in the eyes of the public. I have no idea why any honest President would want to do that.

 

[Jhhnn]

I suspect he won't be around much longer unless he has some dirt on somebody important. Which knowing his way of handling things wouldn't be all that surprising.

Can we get a little more innuendo over here?

 

[soundforbjt]

Hannity: “The IG report is out, and it’s worse than we thought.” Really...?
I guess that means it’s harder to create talking points than they thought it would be.