↓
 
Home » Some tweets related to the IG’s report

Some tweets related to the IG’s report

The New Neo Posted on by

A sampler:

This entire episode brings up the question of whether people can put aside that sort of intense bias when they’re doing a job directly related to that bias. My opinion is that it’s a very rare ability. It’s not possible to have a staff of entirely unpolitical people in these jobs; most people (and certainly most lawyers) have political opinions and biases. The problem is that in the case of the group doing the investigating, it seems as though they were uniformly on one side of the political spectrum: the Democratic side. This is true of lawyers in general, by the way, and of people in the employ of the federal government.

Comments

Some tweets related to the IG’s report — 36 Comments

  2. On a very cursory reading, the “Executive Summary” and the actual content in the chapters of this report differ.

    The Summary glosses over the wrong-doing; the details in the report’s chapters are pretty pretty damning.

    Compare and contrast.

  3. Trump needs to declassify everything thing dealing with the hrc investigation and the Mueller investigation so far. It would be like nuking the site from orbit just to be sure.

  4. I just viewed FBI Director Wray’s press conference concerning his reactions to the IG’s Report and I was struck, in particular, by one of his answers.

    Wray was asked if he thought that the Report put the FBI in a bad light, was a stain on it’s reputation.

    Wray then went on to say that he only looks to the opinions about the FBI and it’s conduct held by people who really know the FBI, the other law enforcement and government employees/officials that the FBI deals with–other agency’s personnel they interact with, and the grateful victims they help–that these are the people whose opinions about the FBI he values and that matter.

    This, to me, seemed a totally wrong view of just who the FBI is responsible to, and whose opinions they should be considering, and worry about.

    Ultimately, the FBI works for the citizens of the U.S., and it is the opinions of everyday citizens–people who have no official connections to the FBI, and who have probably never interacted with an FBI agent or investigation–that should, in fact, be his constant concern.

    Given all that we have found out, these citizens, it seems to me, have less and less faith in and trust of the FBI, it’s agents, and it’s methods–it’s basic competence, and especially of it’s objectivity, and honesty.

    That’s whose options about the FBI he should be worried about, and it appears that he couldn’t care less about average citizen’s opinions about, and their view of the FBI..

    I would remind Wray that the FBI needs the cooperation of citizens, and that if citizens don’t trust the FBI, they will not get that cooperation.

    Moreover, citizens vote for the members of Congress and the President, who have control over the FBI, it’s leadership, structure, budget, and it’s very existence.

    And, if the FBI is seen by citizens and their representative as enough of a threat to them, their Freedom and their Liberties, as crooked, as out of control, it can be radically changed, heavily constrained, or even abolished and, then, totally restructured.

    That’s what Wray should really be worried about.

  5. Snow on Pine:

    I think Wray’s answer indicates he’s well aware that in the eyes of ordinary citizens the report damages the FBI’s reputation. He’s ignoring that and saying that it doesn’t matter. Whether that’s what he really thinks I don’t know. My guess is that he’s not pleased, but he also believes that what the ordinary citizen thinks doesn’t much matter, because he (and the people who really DO matter, in his opinion) hold all the power cards.

  6. What’s the running “over/under” on indictments, perp-walks & orange jumpsuits “never happening” to anyone with a D after their name?

  7. I am also amazed that the IG–after cataloging all the myriad of contrary to procedure, improper, and illegal things that were done by people at the DOJ and FBI–then goes on to say that he found in these texts, these actions not taken, and these actions taken, “no signs of political bias.”

    This is the very same MO that Comey used, when he listed all of the improper and illegal actions of Hillary and her associates and then said, she really didn’t have any “intent” to commit crimes, therefore, we are not going to prosecute her.

    Horowitz must think U.S. citizens are really, really dumb.

  8. Snow on Pine:

    I think he actually said he found no signs of political bias to have affected their actions in the investigation.

  9. We have been assured, over and over again, that Horowitz is a man above reproach, a “straight shooter” (of course, that was what, once upon a time, we were also assured about James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein).

    Yet, what can one conclude from Horowitz’ finding that there was no “political bias” driving all of the improper, contrary to procedure, and illegal actions he chronicled, but that Horowitz’ own sense of right and wrong, his own sense of justice has been corrupted.

    For I believe that any ordinary citizen, looking at all that went on, would seen one thing and one thing only at work, and that would be nothing but “political bias” that did, indeed, dictate and direct what steps would be taken, what investigations were to be carried out, and how they were to be conducted–who would be given exceptional deference and a pass, and who would be given no mercy, no consideration, and come down on like a ton of bricks.

  10. When these civil servants have risen high in the government they began to think of themselves as civil masters. They are in control and don’t work for us. This is why we need to reduce the size and power of the government.

  11. There is a corrosive/subversive force alive inside the Beltway that changes people and, gradually, they come to view themselves as somehow “enlightened,” in possession of special knowledge and superior virtue, as people better than those unwashed “bumpkins” outside the Beltway, so that it becomes “them against us”; those inside the Beltway–sophisticated, cultured, knowledgeable, accomplished, and unbiased people with their own evolved standards vs. those outside the Beltway–the uneducated, ignorant, prejudiced, stupid, and out of touch people who cling to their ignorant, biased superstitions, standards, and unenlightened ways of thinking.

  12. The alphabet soup of DC and 90% of the capitol steps crowd think we peasants are deplorable? Shocked, shocked I am. Never in a million years would I have imagined the Federal Bureau of Intimidation was biased and above the law. Especially after their pure as the driven snow actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

  13. I suppose one COULD argue that since there’s really no bias to speak of—or at least, no bias that would (heaven forfend) affect the professionalism and behavior (and actions) of the FBI—then hey there’s no reason to redact anything any more.

    There’s nothing to hide. (Right?)

    Let it all see the light of day.

    And then see if “The People” are as stupid as they are believed to be….

  14. Barry Meislin Says:
    June 15th, 2018 at 1:14 am
    I suppose one COULD argue that since there’s really no bias to speak of–or at least, no bias that would (heaven forfend) affect the professionalism and behavior (and actions) of the FBI–then hey there’s no reason to redact anything any more.

    There’s nothing to hide. (Right?)

    Let it all see the light of day.

    And then see if “The People” are as stupid as they are believed to be….
    * * *
    Heh.
    On Wray-as-exemplar-of-the-elite: This is how you get more Trump.

  15. Round-Up Time (pun intended)

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/14/blast-thread-on-oig-report-briefings-and-releases-chaff-and-countermeasures/comment-page-3/#comment-5509857

    “Dr.Jay says:
    June 14, 2018 at 4:22 pm
    As was already noted a few days ago, several people here had notices that lines appeared to be missing (many more than just this one), including times where Lisa is answering a question that is not in the released set. Mind that set includes both the first set given to congress and the second which seems to be a less redacted IG version. But missing lines like the above are in neither set.
    So missing in both sets in that PDF that was published by Congress/Senate committee’s. Indeed clear intent. At least one of the committee had noticed and has already asked for more complete release. Not just less redaction but also more pointing out apparently missing lines.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-ig-claims-fbi-software-failed-to-recover-explosive-strzok-text/

    “According to the report, that response message was not provided to the IG by the FBI with the initial batch of thousands of text messages. The message was later recovered by the IG in May as part of a broader effort to recover texts that the FBI lost due to a technical glitch.*

    “Although we received Page’s August 8 text message to Strzok from the FBI as part of its production of text messages in 2017, Strzok’s response to Page was not among those preserved by the FBI’s text message preservation software, and therefore was not produced to us,” reads a footnote to the IG’s report released Thursday. “The OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office recovered this text message, along with others, in May 2018 through forensic analysis of a folder found on Page’s and Strzok’s Samsung S5 devices.”

    Department of Justice spokeswoman Sarah Flores confirmed that the department did not receive Strzok’s response message when the IG furnished the initial batch of messages that were to be turned over to Congress. Rather, the messages were turned over to the Deparment in May after they were finally recovered by the IG.

    The initial failure to recover Strzok’s response message explains why it was absent from the batch of messages turned over to Congress last year, according to Flores.

    The IG is “preparing a separate report on its text message recovery efforts and findings,” according to the report.”

    *This is that oh-so-convenient “glitch” that “lost” months of the Strzok-Page emails right up to the day Mueller was appointed.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/21/whoops-fbi-loses-five-months-worth-texts-fbi-agents-peter-strzok-lisa-page/

    “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost about five months of text messages between two top officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who openly disparaged then-candidate Donald Trump while working on the Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe investigation, according to a top Republican senator.
    The officials in question are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – the two senior FBI officials who had texted each other hundreds of text messages in which they shared how much they loathed Trump and spoke of an “insurance policy” in the case of Trump’s election.

    Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed in a January 20, 2018, letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray that the FBI said their technical system failed to preserve texts exchanged between Strzok and Page between December 14, 2016, though May 17, 2017.

    “The loss of records from this period is concerning because it is apparent from other records that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page communicated frequently about the investigation,” Johnson said in his letter.”

  16. So many interesting things in the IG report, few of them any surprise, really.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/foreign-actors-accessed-hillary-clinton-emails-documents-show.html

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/375710.php

    “Foreign Actors Had At Least One Hillary Email Marked “Secret;” Nevertheless, The Exoneration Speech Was Edited to Change The Wording That It Was “Likely” Foreign Actors Had Secret Emails to Merely “Possible”
    And they shouldn’t have even have said “likely” — they knew of at least one.

    Knowing that a foreign actor has a secret email is not a “likely” thing; it’s a fact.

    The article says the email is “assessed” to have been gotten from one of the people Hillary emailed.

    But the *&*$% emails should never have been on a nonsecure system in the first place.”

  19. A good summary of the highlights (or lowlights?) —

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/seven-highlights-from-bombshell-ig-report-on-doj-fbi-clinton-email-probe.html

    They weren’t just using their work phones because they couldn’t handle multiple devices …

    “Horowitz also published additional texts between the lovers that he called “notable,” including one in which Page admits the two used their FBI phones to conceal their extramarital affair from their spouses.”

    Everybody here remembers the solemn assurances that Mr. Cohen’s seized property would be assessed by a filter team to separate items relevant to Mueller’s probe from private matters …

    “The watchdog identified five other unnamed individuals, including two agents and one FBI attorney who worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe until earlier this year, who made “statements of hostility toward then-candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton,” and improperly mixed “political opinions” with case-related discussions.

    “Instant messages exchanged between Agent 1, who was one of the four Midyear case agents, and Agent 5, who was a member of the filter team,” as well as “instant messages sent by FBI Attorney 2, who was assigned to the Midyear investigation,” are specifically flagged in the IG report.

    The filter team was assigned to review documents for potential privilege issues, such as attorney-client matters.”

    If there was nothing wrong, why did he need an alias?
    And didn’t he ever know anything before he read it in the news? I never thought that was an encouraging trait in a President.

    “In a footnote, the IG notes that “FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account.”

    The information would suggest that Obama may have known about Clinton’s private server, despite his claim in 2015 that he learned about it “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

    Obama’s press secretary at the time quickly clarified that the president was unaware of Clinton’s use of a private server for official business, even as he acknowledged that the two did exchange emails and that Obama was aware of Clinton’s email address.

    But the IG report revealed that intelligence analysts questioned whether Obama’s correspondence with Clinton on her private server contained classified information, before a formal classification review determined that the emails did not. Obama used a fake name for the communications.”

  20. (continued)
    (because we’re all having so much fun here)

    Really, this is enough on its own to shut down the entire Department. No wonder Clinton shrugged off any suggestions that her server was a no-no.

    “Separately, the IG asked investigators why they made no effort to obtain the personal devices that Clinton’s senior aides were using at the State Department, since those devices were “potential sources of Clinton’s … classified emails” or places where unauthorized classified emails were being stored.

    In response, officials on the probe claimed that “the culture of mishandling classified information at the State Department” was so pervasive that it “made the quantity of potential sources of evidence particularly vast” — a rationale that the IG implied was unconvincing, because investigators could simply have obtained personal devices for a handful of key Clinton aides.”

    Have these people no shame?

    “Kadzik exercised “poor judgment” by failing to immediately recuse himself as the Clinton probe unfolded, even after he sought employment for his son at her campaign, the watchdog wrote.

    Additionally, Kadzik’s decision to provide Clinton campaign chair John Podesta the schedule for a court-ordered release of some of Clinton’s emails “raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties” — even though it later became clear the information was public.

    Horowitz also noted that Kadzik didn’t fully honor his supposed recusal in November 2016.

    “Though Kadzik said he told his deputies … that he was recused, emails show that Kadzik subsequently sent and received emails about Clinton-related matters,” Horowitz wrote.”

    This was news to me.. but not a surprise.
    “The ex-FBI director made a similarly “serious error in judgment” by sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Clinton probe just days before the 2016 presidential election, according to the report.
    “We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same.”

    The rebuke was a particularly scathing one for Comey, who has cultivated his image as a responsible and strong leader since leaving office.”

    Understatement of the year.

    “Additionally, the IG notes that it was “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy”for the FBI to allow former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson to sit in on the Clinton interview.

    “We questioned why the Department and FBI allowed Mills and Samuelson, two percipient witnesses (one of whom, Mills, herself had classified information transit through her unclassified personal email account) attend Clinton’s interview, even if they had also both served as lawyers for Clinton after they left the State Department,” the IG wrote.

    While the report does not definitively find that political bias motivated the decision to allow Mills and Samuelson in the interview, “it recommends improvements to the DOJ and FBI’s handling of similar situations in the future.”

    “[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’s interview,” the IG notes.”

    Gee, ya think??

  21. And now for something completely different.
    NOT.
    But, hey, nobody acted in a biased manner.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/fbi-employees-received-improper-gifts-from-reporters-routinely-leaked-to-media-without-authorization-ig-report.html

    “Numerous FBI employees accepted inappropriate gifts from reporters and routinely spoke to media outlets without authorization during the Hillary Clinton email probe, the Justice Department’s watchdog revealed in Thursday’s long-awaited accountability report.

    The shocking revelation came just a week after the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee — who was in charge of maintaining all classified information from the Executive Office to the panel — was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to FBI agents looking into possible leaks to reporters.
    …
    Along with the FBI’s cozy relationship with the media, Horowitz’s report charges that officials in the bureau at “all levels of the organization” leaked information to reporters without authorization.

    The FBI’s strict media relations policy, which explains specifically who can disclose information to the media, was “widely ignored” during the Clinton email probe and afterwards, the IG report said.
    ..
    In a chart attached to the report, the IG identified dozens of FBI officials who spoke to reporters without permission, including several special agents, special agents in charge, secretaries management and program analysts, attorneys, an “FBI executive,” a deputy assistant director and an assistant director.

    Remarkably, at least two unauthorized phone calls to reporters came from an “unattributed FBI HQ phone number,” the IG report says — suggesting that some employees at the bureau were brazenly leaking information from phones in the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.”

    Ace is on the Case, but the chart didn’t copy:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/375706.php

    Sean Davis
    ✔
    @seanmdav
    This chart of FBI leaks to media put together by the inspector general is something else (pg. 563). Amazing that none of them has been charged. The FBI will spy on Congress and its staff, but can’t manage to investigate itself. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download … pic.twitter.com/erUGD1eft6

    1:40 PM – Jun 14, 2018
    View image on Twitter

    Fox explains lack of charges thusly:
    But because the inappropriate gifts were outside the scope of the IG’s look at the Clinton email investigation, Horowitz added that the DOJ watchdog “will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded.”

  22. But this is my favorite one.
    Comey really is an idiot.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/375705.php

    “Comey claims that he was not alert to the importance of the emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop because he “doesn’t know that he knew” that Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton’s Gal Friday Through Thursday Huma Abedin:”

    I like the way Comey himself said it, because it’s so totally twerpy.

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/392310-doj-watchdog-criticizes-comey-over-handling-of-clinton-probe

    “Horowitz also lays some of the responsibility for the delay in reviewing the emails found on Weiner’s laptop on Comey. The former FBI director told investigators that when he was initially alerted that there were additional emails, the information “didn’t index” with him, in part because of how the information was presented to him ….”

    And a total lie — or else he really deserved to be fired for being an abysmally incompetent intelligence agent.
    Nobody living in DC (or Podunk USA for that matter) the last decade didn’t know those two were married.

  23. Don’t overlook this by VDH on the futility of IG reports under Obama — but will there be any action taken on this one either?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-stonewalled-inspectors-general/

    “Impartial watchdogs are useless if the government stonewalls them and ignores their findings of wrongdoing.
    …
    Obama himself recently concluded of his eight-year tenure, “I didn’t have scandals.”
    …
    For nearly eight years, the Obama administration sought to cover up serial wrongdoing by waging a veritable war against the watchdog inspectors general of various federal agencies.

    In 2014, 47 of the nation’s 73 inspectors general signed a letter alleging that Obama had stonewalled their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”

    The frustrated nonpartisan auditors cited systematic Obama-administration refusals to turn over incriminating documents that were central to their investigations.
    …

    [there follows a long list of the non-scandals that we’ve all read about here, but somehow didn’t get a lot of traction in the MSM]
    …
    Despite the campaign against these independent federal auditors, a number of inspectors general still managed to issue damning indictments of unethical behavior.
    …
    Still, Obama was right in a way: A scandal does not become a scandal if no one acts on findings of improper behavior.

    Under former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the findings of dozens of IGs were snubbed. That raises the question: What good are inspectors general if a president ignores any illegality and impropriety that they have uncovered?

    Answer: not much good at all – unless an incoming administration is of a different political party than the outgoing administration. Once that happens in our politicized system, there is a rare interest in not covering up or ignoring a damning IG report, but in acting on it.
    …
    At some point, the idea of toothless inspectors general needs to be revisited. Something is terribly wrong when dozens of IGs found wrongdoing, only to object that their efforts were being thwarted by an Obama administration that had appointed most of them – and claimed to be scandal-free.

    Finding government abuse and doing nothing about it is worse than not finding any at all.”

  24. Wray’s statements yesterday were disturbing given the numerous, shocking text messages that have already been found in this 500+ page report.

    The bias is obvious, but it’s even worse when one considers that this is the FBI leadership team. ‘The fish rots from the head down,’ as the saying goes, and their bias/bias-motivated leadership decisions almost certainly affected performance across the agency (e.g., Pulse shooting happened as this Hillary/Russia stuff was going on). I can’t imagine ethical/hard-working FBI agents would have been promoted (nor even have wanted to move up to HQ) given how toxically biased this bunch were – are there any left, or have all the competent ones moved on (as happens at any organization where the leadership team is that bad)?

    Wray can’t fix this with ethics training, and I hope that the real solution is firings and indictments.

  25. Wray apparently sees a few little problems that are apparently easily solved with a few lower level agents disciplined, a few changes in procedures, and some retraining.

    I see the exposure of a major, systemic problem that has poisoned and damaged the FBI in a fundamental way that may just be un-fixable, absent a major purge of those involved, and perhaps, may not even be fixable then.

    This may, in fact, be a deathblow to the reputation and standing of the FBI with the public–one that cannot be fixed without decades of repair work, but Wray sees a little nick that just requires a bandaid.

    Bottom line; they didn’t really do anything that was major or all that wrong, only the ignorant believe that.

  26. when reporting is this way, it attracts the kind of sociopaths that take duping delight in fouling up people!!! just that alone is enough!!!!!

    David Leonhardt: The Report’s Real Message: Trump Is Lying

    As a result, some of the initial news coverage – which has to cram all of the big findings into a few paragraphs – can be a little difficult to follow

    [so i am gonna tell you what to think, this is the ny slimes and as the advertising with the woman that says something to the effect i read the times to know what to think (and you should be concerned you think wrong if you dont)]

    If you’re trying to do so, I recommend keeping your focus on the big picture.

    [because as always the devil is in the details and i can make him look like an angel IF you dont pay too close attention]

    The report addresses one question that’s more important than any other: Did the Justice Department and F.B.I. use their power, as Trump has repeatedly claimed, to help Clinton’s campaign and hurt his?

    [ok, first thing. i am TELLING you what to think and what is the most important thing. i am not going to give you a selection or a distraction of a small list, or even declare “in my opinion” i will assert then argue wiht myself, wrestling myself to the ground to stand up full of sweat and declare “i win” (as taught by feminist dialecticals)]

    did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?”

    And the report’s answer is clear: No.

    [case closed.. go drink your coffee, have sex with your dog, see how large you can stuff your ear with olilves… the world is ok again]

    Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

    [one sec… a bit of cut and paste… a bit of playing the people who trust you for fools duping them… oh is it going to be so sweet as tehy destroy themselves… and the best part is that this way of writing i dont actually have to be held to any standard higher than inciting riot with lies that legally are fun to make and promote… ]

    The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

    [violate department policy can be in that paragraph as the average person, even thinking ones, dont pay much attention… really they dont… they think they do, but htey dont… learn magic, see how asleep they are… ]

    Now that the report has been released, Trump and his allies are trying to confuse people about what it actually said. The White House and loyal media organizations like Fox News are mixing the report’s subjects to make it sound much better for Trump than it really is. And more serious news coverage often struggles to find clear enough language to explain the bait and switch, without seeming to lose its objectivity.

    [so far nothing has been said in this piece to substantiate anything that has been said in this piece!!!! and why should i. i am ordering rubes around who have been acclimated to being ordered as a form of literature imperative… but for a sociopath, its an apperiative]

    For starters, Team Trump is using the report’s criticism of Comey (which I think is justified) to suggest Comey can’t be trusted on other matters – like the Russia investigation. But the report doesn’t question Comey’s honesty, ethical standards or motives. It questions his judgment in publicly discussing a different matter.

    [they are so stupid they dont know that ethics, motives and honesty is what creates the output of judgment… ah, i will win a pullitzer… and when the revolution comes they will not see me as the traitor i am, but the hero of the people!!!]

    Even more, Trump’s allies are focusing on the report’s criticism of two F.B.I. agents who were involved in both the Clinton email and Trump/Russia investigations. The text messages between the two, who were in a romantic relationship, suggest that they were deeply, and inappropriately, biased against Trump. But they did not have the authority to make major decisions about the Clinton investigation. And the one who was still involved in the Russia investigation was removed from the case once his supervisor learned of his attitude.

    [flies… too small… they represent nothing but themselves… and no small nothing could do a thing… defend our peoples heinious attitudes and personal choices to act in a way or even commisserate over what is basically TREASON… oh, not the kind that gets you killed, but the kind that means you should have never gotten clearance… EVER]

    A banner headline on the Fox News website, not surprisingly, has a good example of Trumpworld’s effort at confusion: “DOJ IG report reveals FBI agent’s ‘stop’-Trump text, calls Comey ‘insubordinate.’ ” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, offered another example on Thursday afternoon: “It reaffirmed the president’s suspicions about Comey’s conduct and the political bias among some of the members of the F.B.I.”

    [ah. how do you turn a valid point into an invalid one without actually doing anythi9ng other than stating it? CNN says it too not just fox: Comey’s actions ‘extraordinary and insubordinate,’ report says // would this kind of quote change the above paragraph? “Horowitz said that Comey was “extraordinary and insubordinate,” and did not agree with any of his reasons for deviating from “well-established Department policies.”]

    The real story of the report is quite different. It finds that Trump’s claims of a “rigged system” to protect Clinton are outright fabrications.

    [it did no such thing… but in an article so vacuous of substancve, its philosophical… it looks big and solid as cotton candy always does, but bite into it and its air… nothing there but cloying sweetness… ]

    And the report finds no reason to lose confidence in Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

    That investigation appears to be rigorous, fair and nonpartisan – which is precisely why it scares Trump and his enablers so much.

    lies would scare them too given the #meeeeetooo movement

  27. LEGENDARY PROJECTION IN THE LAST STATEMENT!

    10:43:46, FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.”
    10:43:47, FBI Employee: “haha”
    10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.”
    10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.”
    10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”
    10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”
    11:00:03, FBI Employee: “That is not so.”
    11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”

    ==-=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=-=-=-

    isnt that the marxists socialist idea? NOT the conservative work to earn and so on ideal?

    as i said, paint exit on the entrance and entrance on the exit and they will fight to establish what they are preventing like a football player confused running for the wrong end zone!!!!!!!!

    its a touch down, goal or failed state if they score…

  28. I have always been of the belief that Comey took a dive for Clinton in July, feeling sure that she was going to win, then in October, when it seemed that Trump was building momentum, issued the letter “reopening” the Clinton investigation, to cover his ass, so he could say he was objective and keep his job. I don’t know how many Trump voters saw the July performance — although America’s military does come from the heartland and a lot of people there know about handling classified information — but between that and Loretta’s little chat with Bill about golf and grandchildren, I believe that did cost Clinton some votes. Around the same time, the DOJ was putting a sailor in jail for taking pictures of his workstation (15 year-old technology!), and for those in the know, the contrast was telling.

    I haven’t read the IG report and probably won’t, but according to Fox, it didn’t say there was no political bias; it said there was no documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias. I hate to be lawyerly, but that’s not the same thing as there was no political bias.

  29. Neo,

    It’s not possible to have a staff of entirely unpolitical people in these jobs; most people (and certainly most lawyers) have political opinions and biases.

    I have a concern about this line of thinking, and it goes as follows:

    1. You are here referencing a kind of virtue, or at least habit-of-mind, in which a person in authority (e.g. law enforcement) conducts his job with a scrupulous effort to avoid bias, and thus winds up “unpolitical.”

    2. Virtues of that kind require strong moral allegiance to their underlying principles, and strong support from underlying cultural mores, to sustain them in the face of peer pressure.

    3. The principles that sustain “unbiased, unpolitical” execution of policing, and the culture that sees such execution as noble (or its abandonment as damnable) are strongly associated with the Classical Liberal traditions of the United States.

    BUT,

    4. The Classical Liberal traditions of the United States are now almost entirely repudiated and derided by left-leaning persons in this country. They have little affinity with, let alone loyalty to, those traditions.

    That culture and those principles are almost entirely the province of American conservatives now. (One little-understood aspect of American life is the way that American “conservatives” are the political strain which fights to conserve classical liberalism, whereas the “liberals,” more accurately called “progressives” or simply “leftists,” are the group which seeks to abandon and disparage the liberal experiment.)

    THEREFORE,

    5. When anyone asks for persons in law enforcement to be unpolitical and unbiased in the execution of their jobs, they are heard in the following two ways:

    by conservatives: Live up to your own noble code, according to the best virtues of the traditions you revere!

    by left-progressives: Bend over backwards to act in a way foreign to your own inclinations, which will make you a pariah amongst your own allies, in a way which imitates the cant of the political enemies whom you despise as moral reprobates.

    RESULT:

    It is easy to see that the first group will be more inclined to follow this programme, than the second!

    This, I think, happens in the tenure committees of universities, and in the FBI’s hiring practices for senior leadership, and in the FBI’s handling of the investigations affecting Clinton and Trump.

    Conservatives are not, of course, sinless (in this area, or any other).

    But over time, and in spite of frequent hypocrisy, conservatives will more-often give their political enemies the benefit of the doubt in the execution of their jobs, than leftists will. Thus the leftist personnel will gradually, then increasingly, outnumber the left-leaning ones. And, the left-leaning bias in job-execution will become increasingly egregious over time.

    It’s not because there’s anything about conservatism that makes its believers less prone to hypocrisy or “dirty pool.”

    It’s rather because leftists, in deriding the traditions and habits-of-mind they associate with conservatives, thereby deride the very definitions of the vices and virtues which make politically-slanted hiring and prosecution “wrong” in conservatives’ eyes.

    And having redefined such things as “right,” they go on to do them, enthusiastically.

    That is what we see in the Strzok/Page correspondences, the Agent 1/Agent 5 correspondences, and elsewhere.

    In fact, we can now reduce it to game theory:

    When conservatives obey their own code, they are now engaging in unilateral disarmament.

    When leftists disobey that conservative code, they manage to conquer institutions, which pays long-term dividends in controlling the culture and the regulatory/law-enforcement agencies of government.

    By asking leftists to start obeying it, we are asking them to join us in disarming. Their response is logical: “Why should we? We’re winning!”

  30. this is all a product of leftism and its biggest army is the women..

    from a teacher using her class kids to do antifa protests, and violence

    Yvette Felarca
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&v=avii2gCDovQ

    to preschool teacher calling to kill people…

    the people above, where the product of a school system that changed
    when the people above grow up, they will be the next thing you guys will discuss and wonder where they came from!!!

    they are being made right now because you cant say anything to the teachers who are women about what they are doing and what is right, and so on…

    UMich revises speech policies after rebuke from DOJ

    University of Chicago Will No Longer Require Standardized Test Scores

    A growing number, including DePaul University, have opted to stop requiring the SAT and ACT in their admissions process, saying the tests place an unfair cost and burden on low-income and minority students, and ultimately hinder efforts to broaden diversity on campus. But the trend has escaped the nation’s most selective universities.

    “Comparing students based on widely different sources of information with no common metric increases the subjectivity of admissions decisions.”

    and Boas and his group (remember the trop that made women into liberated sex toys?) is still going strong too:
    University of California, Santa Barbara Website Advocates Small Children Watching Porn, Having Sex

    The website SexInfo Online is maintained via the school’s sociology website by students “who have studied advanced topics in human sexuality,” according to the site. …

    The website states that, for young children, sexual “play” and self-stimulation are “completely normal.” The authors of the website encourage parents to permit such behavior. …

    “Children might display affection to their friends by hugging and kissing, or touching each other’s genitals, which is perfectly normal. Parents should not react in a negative way because children are just exploring,” the website states.

    and this is by companies setting the future too
    didnt anyone of you relize that by doing this through school, social, even nicklodeon, they were making a society that would WANT to sabotage itself while at the same time making women WANT to be domesticated to the state

    On behalf of Zevin Asset Management, a self-described “socially responsible” investment firm, Google employees presented a proposal that requested Alphabet Inc. [Google’s parent company] consider “integrating sustainability performance metrics – including metrics regarding diversity and inclusion – among other factors evaluated in awarding executive pay … to help drive sustainability performance and improve senior executive accountability on race and gender-based inclusion during

    “, employee pay would be determined in part by the same factor that gets employees hired in the first place these days: not being a member of the core population that built America.”

    which is why where i work yale and harvard reserve jobs others work hard for not knowing tghey are being used to fund these guys while people are led (and the disabled are taken advantage of)… as they ruin lives and nothing tgo do as they pick the winners and losers even if that means a family is extgermated before they realize it..

    these people are making new horrors for you to discuse
    as you discuss the horrors created two clicks before these newbies

  31. These people were willingly sharing their political opinions with each other. This is prima facie evidence that the investigative teams in both instances were deliberately selected because they had those political opinions. If there were an honest explanation for this, the biases on the two investigations would have been polar opposites- i.e. you have Clinton haters on the e-mail investigation and Trump haters on the Russian investigation, or vice versa. That it was Trump haters on both is the tell.

  32. Snow on Pine Says:
    June 15th, 2018 at 9:08 am
    Wray apparently sees a few little problems that are apparently easily solved with a few lower level agents disciplined, a few changes in procedures, and some retraining.
    * * *
    Which was soooo successful at the VA and IRS….

  33. R.C.:

    Excellent points.

    That’s why someone like Dershowitz on the liberal side, who holds to objectivity as a goal and often achieves it, is increasingly rare.

  34. The IGs Report is even worse than it appears to be, because it betrays not only a Department of Justice, and FBI, but also an IG that have lost their ethical moorings; organizations and high officials that have been so immersed in and marinated by the corrosive/subversive inside the Beltway mentality, become so used to the lawyerly pettifoggery and slight of hand, the deliberate distraction, and the sly and cynical manipulation of words and meanings, so used to form and not substance, appearance not reality–that they cannot see that what went on here was a betrayal of our Constitution, and the moral and Legal order and structure of laws, due process, and procedures it created here in the U.S. to protect each and every on of us.

    They are the morally color blind, and that is a huge and very dangerous problem for all of us, and the country.

    For, if they think that nothing really untoward–certainly nothing prosecutable–was done by a cabal of high officials, what else will they look at and say, “there’s no violation here?”

    What violations of rights–1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc.–guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights will they also see as no violation at all?

  35. Barry Meislin Says:
    June 14th, 2018 at 5:28 pm
    Bias? Oh c’mon. What bias?…
    https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/ig-report-fbi-agent-said-trump-voters-poor-uneducated-lazy-pos/

    * *
    Snow on Pine Says:
    June 15th, 2018 at 4:18 pm
    …They are the morally color blind, and that is a huge and very dangerous problem for all of us, and the country.

    For, if they think that nothing really untoward–certainly nothing prosecutable–was done by a cabal of high officials, what else will they look at and say, “there’s no violation here?”
    * * *
    Found an on-point graphic among the comments at PJM – some people are not happy about the lawlessness of the law agencies, among others.

    https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/ig-report-fbi-agent-said-trump-voters-poor-uneducated-lazy-pos/#comment-3944929526

  36. Neo:

    Excellent points.

    That’s why someone like Dershowitz on the liberal side, who holds to objectivity as a goal and often achieves it, is increasingly rare.

    Exactly. You’ll notice that Dershowitz, and the few other people like him, are (as they say) “no spring chickens.” They are the aging contingent of liberals who still saw the Democratic party as a plausible expression of their political ideals and civic virtue. Folk like Sam Nunn and Ed Koch before them, in different ways and to different degrees, carried the institutional memory of Classical Liberalism for the American Left.

    But those guys are dying out; most of them are dead. And that institutional memory is now so dim that no decisions, large or small, are made on the basis of the Classical Liberal ideals by any decision-makers in Democratic party politics.

    Find me a young Democrat that’s a rising star, and I’ll show you someone who drank the SJW kool-aid in college, carries an oikophobic, anticolonialist, neo-Marxist map of the world in his head, thinks of all pre-21st-century statesmen and thinkers as morally deficient Cro-Magnon brutes. (They take the same view of any contemporary person who doesn’t prominently display the tribal markings they associate with persons of their own worldview.)

    Or, in some cases, I’ll show you someone who is venal and disinterested in ideology per se, but who has identified leftism as ascendant and the best long-term bet for those seeking power. They respond by catering entirely to persons matching the above description, and personifying the political goals of the left. They can thus achieve those goals all the more effectively for not really giving a damn. Diane Feinstein is probably one of that sort; I’ve sometimes wondered whether Obama was.

    At any rate, a left-leaning Classical Liberal like Dave Rubin once was, or like Dershowitz still is, is a legacy appendage in the modern Democratic party. If a 25-year-old Dershowitz were to show up, with his history of public opinions, asking for an internship with a left-leaning policy group today, he’d never get past the phone interview.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑