IG Report on Clinton email probe is out.

[Jhhnn]

There isn't anyone working in government without some level of bias. Its what you do with it that counts.

Here is the fault tree in order not necessarily degree.

1. Trump gaslighting the FBI and poisoning the well in advance.
2. Bill Clinton pushing his way on that plane knowing his wife is under investigation
3. Loretta Lynch allowing Bill on the plane knowing his wife was under investigation by her Justice department. Failing to do her job on deciding to or not to prosecute
4. Comey reacting to Trump's gaslighting breaking protocols result in favoring Trump and hurting Hillary. Making the decision to or not to prosecute instead of passing it up to Lynch

Don't buy into the bullshit. The investigation was full & fair. The decision not to prosecute was the only reasonable one possible. The IG report verifies that. None of the rest matters. It's all trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is incorrect, the report states that there was zero bias present in any of the prosecutorial decisions around Clinton in either effect or intent.

That is not saying there is zero bias. It is saying that there is zero evidence of bias impacting any of the major decisions around the investigation(s). Perhaps the FBI needs to attend the Starbucks anti-bias training program.

It says some agents said things about Trump AND the other candidates that they shouldn’t have, but that’s something totally different.

The report does end any discussion around a deep state conspiracy against Trump.

Had the Clintons acted appropriately it is extremely likely Clinton would be president.

FTFY

 

[fskimospy]

That is not saying there is zero bias. It is saying that there is zero evidence of bias impacting any of the major decisions around the investigation(s). Perhaps the FBI needs to attend the Starbucks anti-bias training program.

I imagine if you looked at the private texts of people in most companies and industries you would find similarly unprofessional behavior.

The report does end any discussion around a deep state conspiracy against Trump.

FTFY

I agree that Clinton could have simply not used a private email server but considering how widespread private email use clearly is among government officials it seems bizarre to single her out.

All that aside as I’ve said from the beginning Comey’s actions towards the Clinton campaign were extremely unprofessional. I imagine he suffered from the same unconscious bias that made the media so biased against Clinton, the assumption that she would win and they didn’t want to be accused of bias towards her later, something we all know would have happened.

 

[hal2kilo]

I imagine if you looked at the private texts of people in most companies and industries you would find similarly unprofessional behavior.



I agree that Clinton could have simply not used a private email server but considering how widespread private email use clearly is among government officials it seems bizarre to single her out.

All that aside as I’ve said from the beginning Comey’s actions towards the Clinton campaign were extremely unprofessional. I imagine he suffered from the same unconscious bias that made the media so biased against Clinton, the assumption that she would win and they didn’t want to be accused of bias towards her later, something we all know would have happened.

It did not help that all of right wing press was pressuring the FBI at the time. They were sure the FBI and DOJ were covering for Hillary. So Comey over compensates.

 

[HomerJS]

It did not help that all of right wing press was pressuring the FBI at the time. They were sure the FBI and DOJ were covering for Hillary. So Comey over compensates.

Absent the gaslighting by Trump and right wing press the rest either wouldn't have happened or mattered.

 

[fskimospy]

It did not help that all of right wing press was pressuring the FBI at the time. They were sure the FBI and DOJ were covering for Hillary. So Comey over compensates.

It’s the same thing that had them treat the question of ‘did Clinton comply with federal email policy?’ similarly to ‘did Trump steal millions of dollars with a scam university?’ (it turned out he did!)

 

[Starbuck1975]

I imagine if you looked at the private texts of people in most companies and industries you would find similarly unprofessional behavior.

Most likely true, but the only reason we know about biases within the FBI is because of other mitigating factors of unprofessionalism, such as extra-marital affairs.

I agree that Clinton could have simply not used a private email server but considering how widespread private email use clearly is among government officials it seems bizarre to single her out.

As gifted as a legislator she might be, she is just not executive material. This was a self inflicted wound.

All that aside as I’ve said from the beginning Comey’s actions towards the Clinton campaign were extremely unprofessional. I imagine he suffered from the same unconscious bias that made the media so biased against Clinton, the assumption that she would win and they didn’t want to be accused of bias towards her later, something we all know would have happened.

I’ve also said from the beginning that Russia chose to strike because Clinton was a uniquely vulnerable target. How does the candidate who lost to Obama over authenticity and trustworthiness issues become his heir apparent, especially in the face of rising populist sentiments? How is it that the Russians were more in tune to America than the Clinton campaign?

Clinton herself suffered from the assumption of inevitability.

As for Comey, he’s admitted as much...the sentiment that he felt the need to be transparent, recognizing that not doing so would undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton win. I believe the Lynch tarmac meeting played heavily into his thinking. Poorly played Bubba.

 

[fskimospy]

Most likely true, but the only reason we know about biases within the FBI is because of other mitigating factors of unprofessionalism, such as extra-marital affairs.

As gifted as a legislator she might be, she is just not executive material. This was a self inflicted wound.

She's had some of the highest profile executive assignments in the world and done quite well at them so I'm not sure what that's based on. I think she's a rather poor politician, at least in the public campaigning sense, but by all indications she's a world class executive. She's basically the opposite of Trump: terrible at campaigning for the job, would be great at doing the job.

I’ve also said from the beginning that Russia chose to strike because Clinton was a uniquely vulnerable target. How does the candidate who lost to Obama over authenticity and trustworthiness issues become his heir apparent, especially in the face of rising populist sentiments? How is it that the Russians were more in tune to America than the Clinton campaign?

Clinton herself suffered from the assumption of inevitability.

As for Comey, he’s admitted as much...the sentiment that he felt the need to be transparent, recognizing that not doing so would undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton win. I believe the Lynch tarmac meeting played heavily into his thinking. Poorly played Bubba.

It does appear that the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting ended up being a really bad idea, haha. Not because of any actual impropriety or anything to hide (after all, an unbiased third party cleared Clinton) but because it lead to Lynch recusing herself from the investigation. Had she not been recused I sincerely doubt she would have allowed Comey to violate department policy in order to torpedo Clinton in the final weeks of the election.

 

[UNCjigga]

The report exposes clear bias on the part of several FBI agents, and breaking of protocol by Lynch and Comey...but also concludes that none of it was done with malicious intent.

To have not one but both Presidential candidates under FBI investigation is simply unprecedented. There was no way either candidate could win without there being ample reason to question their legitimacy.

Lynch should have known better than to take that tarmac meeting because the optics of it undermines the impartiality of the Clinton email investigation.

FBI agents who are part of active investigations should probably not be texting their feelings so irresponsibly, or manipulating procedure to game an outcome.

As for Comey, he was in a no win situation. I suppose we can blame the guy for making some poor choices, but it was not a crisis of his making. That blame falls elsewhere.

Newsflash, two thirds of the country believes Donald Trump is a crook. FBI agents don't like crooks. More news at 11.

Also, how much prep time did Lynch have for the tarmac meeting? Was she sitting there on a plane thinking "gee, I have a few minutes before wheels up, let's get Bill over here!"??? Did she plan it ahead of time, working with the pilots to coordinate flight schedules?? I'm sure we'd know by now if that were the case.

 

[Sunburn74]

As gifted as a legislator she might be, she is just not executive material. This was a self inflicted wound.

I’ve also said from the beginning that Russia chose to strike because Clinton was a uniquely vulnerable target.

Seems like an odd thing to say that she isn't executive material when everyone on both sides admits she was probably the most highly qualified person to ever run for president in the modern era. It's hard to say shes not executive material when she ran the state department, Clinton foundation,and at the end of the day is wealthier and more powerful than her husband who was a former US president. People seems to forget that the lady they are depicting as a bumbling nincompoop was a Rhodes scholar.

As for the Russians targetting Clinton because of unique vulnerability, I think this too is untrue. They have pretty widely targeted elections in Europe without emphasis on candidates or country. This just seems to be the new thing Russia does. We know that they also collected data on trump and chose not to use it (data some think they are holding as blackmail in order to get favorable treatment from the trump administration)

Let's leave it up to the historians to figure out what happened I would say. We all have theories but honestly the data to really explain it is yet to come.

 

[UberNeuman]

Ah, I see we’re still doing “But, Hillary!”

Lol.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ah, I see we’re still doing “But, Hillary!”

Lol.

Anytime, and all the time. And they talk about TDS.

 

[SKORPI0]

Wow, 568 page report. I wonder if this is unbiased and all the facts are revealed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

She's had some of the highest profile executive assignments in the world and done quite well at them so I'm not sure what that's based on.

I would counter she is highly effective in staff positions. She’s never won when truly asked to compete based on her qualities as a leader.

I think she's a rather poor politician, at least in the public campaigning sense, but by all indications she's a world class executive. She's basically the opposite of Trump: terrible at campaigning for the job, would be great at doing the job.

She is a terrible campaigner but also lacks the executive presence of an Obama or Reagan or even her husband for that matter.

It does appear that the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting ended up being a really bad idea, haha.

It was, another self-inflicted Clinton blunder.

Newsflash, two thirds of the country believes Donald Trump is a crook. FBI agents don't like crooks. More news at 11.

Breaking news. Enough people felt the same about Clinton to cost her the nomination once and the Presidency.

Also, how much prep time did Lynch have for the tarmac meeting? Was she sitting there on a plane thinking "gee, I have a few minutes before wheels up, let's get Bill over here!"??? Did she plan it ahead of time, working with the pilots to coordinate flight schedules?? I'm sure we'd know by now if that were the case.

Irrelevant given the optics of the situation

Seems like an odd thing to say that she isn't executive material when everyone on both sides admits she was probably the most highly qualified person to ever run for president in the modern era.

Only Democrats think that. The only qualification a candidate needs is the ability to win.

at the end of the day is wealthier and more powerful than her husband who was a former US president.

The sources of that money proved to be a liability for her

People seems to forget that the lady they are depicting as a bumbling nincompoop was a Rhodes scholar.

No one says she is stupid, just tone deaf and perhaps entitled and arrogant.

As for the Russians targetting Clinton because of unique vulnerability, I think this too is untrue. They have pretty widely targeted elections in Europe without emphasis on candidates or country. This just seems to be the new thing Russia does. We know that they also collected data on trump and chose not to use it (data some think they are holding as blackmail in order to get favorable treatment from the trump administration)

Fair point although I strongly believe they would have been ineffective against Obama or Sanders.

Let's leave it up to the historians to figure out what happened I would say. We all have theories but honestly the data to really explain it is yet to come.

Agreed. The historians will be debating this election for decades to come.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So let’s summarize:

It’s Hillary’s fault we have Trump
It’s Hillary’s fault we have record deficits *see above
It’s Hillary’s fault we haven’t done anything to prevent future election meddling *see above
It’s Hillary’s fault we have a corrupt FBI that did everything to torpedo her campaign but somehow Trump over came that and won.

Oh and BENGHAZI!!!!!!!


Do I need to add anything else?

 

[fskimospy]

I would counter she is highly effective in staff positions. She’s never won when truly asked to compete based on her qualities as a leader.

If the secretary of state isn't a leadership position I don't know what is. She managed a department with 70,000 employees and a $50 billion budget.

She is a terrible campaigner but also lacks the executive presence of an Obama or Reagan or even her husband for that matter.

'executive presence' sounds like BS to me, frankly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So let’s summarize:

It’s Hillary’s fault we have Trump
It’s Hillary’s fault we have record deficits *see above
It’s Hillary’s fault we haven’t done anything to prevent future election meddling *see above
It’s Hillary’s fault we have a corrupt FBI that did everything to torpedo her campaign but somehow Trump over came that and won.

Oh and BENGHAZI!!!!!!!


Do I need to add anything else?

You forgot how delicious your liberal tears are, and fuck your feels.

 

[ivwshane]

Most likely true, but the only reason we know about biases within the FBI is because of other mitigating factors of unprofessionalism, such as extra-marital affairs.

As gifted as a legislator she might be, she is just not executive material. This was a self inflicted wound.

I’ve also said from the beginning that Russia chose to strike because Clinton was a uniquely vulnerable target. How does the candidate who lost to Obama over authenticity and trustworthiness issues become his heir apparent, especially in the face of rising populist sentiments? How is it that the Russians were more in tune to America than the Clinton campaign?

Clinton herself suffered from the assumption of inevitability.

As for Comey, he’s admitted as much...the sentiment that he felt the need to be transparent, recognizing that not doing so would undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton win. I believe the Lynch tarmac meeting played heavily into his thinking. Poorly played Bubba.

I call bullshit on the bolded. Russia was in the US in as early as 2013 and Clinton hadn't even talked about running.

Russia decided to strike not because of Clinton but because they had a willing partner to spread their agenda. Rigged elections anyone? Birth certificate?

Trump is a traitor and so are anyone one that enables him.

 

[Pens1566]

I tend to agree with the sentiment that she's a terrible candidate, but would end up doing a good to excellent job in the office. Shame it went the other way.

 

[Sunburn74]

No one says she is stupid, just tone deaf and perhaps entitled and arrogant.

I agree with you that Trump is tone deaf, entitled and arrogant and therefore had no chance to win the general election.

I just find it odd that people say all these crazy things about Hillary (she isn't likable, isn't an executive, made mistakes, etc etc) but to Trump himself or the countless GOP candidates he defeated no one says those things. It's like you're reaching for excuses to put the blame on her when perhaps there were other forces at play that were much more significant. There's a reason why parties lose seats the year after winning an election and so on; you can't always blame the candidates for what happens in an election especially when you and I both know that at the end of the day most people are stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree with you that Trump is tone deaf, entitled and arrogant and therefore had no chance to win the general election.

I just find it odd that people say all these crazy things about Hillary (she isn't likable, isn't an executive, made mistakes, etc etc) but to Trump himself or the countless GOP candidates he defeated no one says those things. It's like you're reaching for excuses to put the blame on her when perhaps there were other forces at play that were much more significant. There's a reason why parties lose seats the year after winning an election and so on; you can't always blame the candidates for what happens in an election especially when you and I both know that at the end of the day most people are stupid.

Other forces in play... like decades of corrosive right wing mind rot. Trump voters were part way down the rabbit hole before he started in on them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, I see we’re still doing “But, Hillary!”

Lol.

Always. It's a variation of stuck on stupid.

 

[pauldun170]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/doj-oig-on-comey-clinton-e-mail-investigation-omg-lol/

 

[Starbuck1975]

I agree with you that Trump is tone deaf, entitled and arrogant and therefore had no chance to win the general election.

Trump was a pied piper opportunist who seized on populist sentiments. No one believes Trump is Presidential. If anything, the attraction for his base is that he is not.

I just find it odd that people say all these crazy things about Hillary (she isn't likable, isn't an executive, made mistakes, etc etc) but to Trump himself or the countless GOP candidates he defeated no one says those things.

Trump sucked the oxygen out of the room. He benefitted from a media machine looking to create a horse race and social media platforms that prioritized ad revenues over all other considerations. Everyone knew what Trump was. Running as an anti-establishment candidate looking to stigginit gives you a lot more latitude to get away with some brazen behaviors. Trump is all about risks, and for one reason or another, they pay off for him.

It's like you're reaching for excuses to put the blame on her when perhaps there were other forces at play that were much more significant.

There were many forces of play, I’ve never said otherwise. She deserves some, not all of the blame.

There's a reason why parties lose seats the year after winning an election and so on; you can't always blame the candidates for what happens in an election especially when you and I both know that at the end of the day most people are stupid.

Yes, many voters are stupid and quite tribal. There are a few interesting articles about how jungle primary systems have largely failed in addressing this tribalism.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I agree with you that Trump is tone deaf, entitled and arrogant and therefore had no chance to win the general election.

I just find it odd that people say all these crazy things about Hillary (she isn't likable, isn't an executive, made mistakes, etc etc) but to Trump himself or the countless GOP candidates he defeated no one says those things. It's like you're reaching for excuses to put the blame on her when perhaps there were other forces at play that were much more significant. There's a reason why parties lose seats the year after winning an election and so on; you can't always blame the candidates for what happens in an election especially when you and I both know that at the end of the day most people are stupid.

Its good old fashioned woman victim blaming mentality (you see the same bullshit thinking in those rape cases in small towns where say some star football player gets accused, and then the whole town blames the victim and then claims the town itself is the victim because it robbed them of all the good will of rah-rahing for their team). I think that is something that is being grossly overlooked, is how ingrained that type of mentality is, that it is practically instinctual for them to react like that. Same reason why Obama triggered such distress. And then Turmp is practically hardwired to prey on that (not because he's a genius, but because that's the only thing he ever truly learned is to prey on other peoples' insecurities - because they are his as well, so he knows how to lash out and tap into the irrational chaos on peoples' brains).

Women and minorities were saying this about Turmp and the election. They are keenly aware of this type of behavior because they have to deal with it in smaller situations on a regular basis. They could see the signs before others could and that's why they were trying to get people to stop laughing Turmp off as a joke, because they could see that those reactions were making him a tangible threat by tapping into that irrational mentality, and thus logic and facts wouldn't only stop working on many people, it would actually cause them to double down the irrationality, because it triggers their minds to refuse the information and the only way to do that is for their mind to create its own false narrative to refute it (hence why it attracts conspiracy theories like flies to shit).