Comey and Mueller

Here is their methodology.

Everything should be scrutinized but much of the current noise is politically motivated.

 

No, it's not. There are legitimate concerns on what is going on and for you to dismiss them shows your partisanship.

 

Let me add some emphasis for you...

 

Rand Paul finally calls out the Obama Admin

“You have the Department of Justice, where you have a high-ranking official whose wife works for the group doing opposition research on Trump being paid for by the Democrat National Committee, that sounds like a lot of high-ranking people colluding to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president,”

"We've had this investigation about Russian collusion. Maybe we need an investigation about high ranking Obama officials colluding to try prevent Trump from being President. That's more serious than even Watergate."​

It's almost like I wrote that for him

 

"Barack Obama used classified intelligence leaks for political gain"

Glad to see the Wash Times catch up
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...c&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

".... By the end of Mr. Obama’s second term, according to sources who spoke anonymously with The Washington Times, the practices of leaking, ignoring and twisting intelligence for political gain were ingrained in how the administration conducted national security policy.

Those criticisms have resurfaced in the debate over whether overall intelligence fumbling by the Obama White House in its final months may have amplified the damage wrought by suspected Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election last year.

On repeated occasions during the Obama era, high-level sources and some lawmakers lamented to The Washington Times, the president’s inner circle ignored classified briefings and twisted intelligence to fit political goals. Long before Donald Trump appeared on the White House campaign scene, many pointed to an incident during the 2012 election cycle as the most dramatic evidence of how that approach affected the handling of national security threats....."​

 

The discredited "Steele Dosier" that was published by Buzzfeed may have been given to them by the General Counsel of the FBI, James Baker. He has already been "reassigned" inside the FBI, with no reason given.

The swamp is deep. Tread carefully.

 

McCabe is out

And rumors that James Baker may be under criminal investigation

 

The swamp is being drained.

 

Let's not keep them waiting. Let them in.

 

I am beginning to get the impression Andrew McCarthy comes to the West Mall of Hornfans to get some of his ideas. Board leadership should request attribution or at least a HF shout out.

Here is McCarthy's latest on the Steele dossier and the FBI

" ..... The Obama-era FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele’s dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I’ve come to believe Steele’s claims were used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.

There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele — the campaign and the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they’d be kept under wraps. Just as it had been with the Obama-era’s Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance would remain hidden......

* * * *

At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly before Steele’s reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI, shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects; the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton was given a peremptory interview — right before then–FBI director Comey announced that she would not be charged....."
​

Lots more at the link, and worth the read
Bottom line, as of this moment, it seems certain the truth of all this will come out —> that the FBI’s ‘Insurance Policy’ for the Clinton Campaign was the bogus Steele Dossier.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ation-steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign

 

The key point to the Twitter posts you show is that to Comey faithful service is equal to leaking information to hurt a political opponent.

 

In reading his other nitwit posts he's on that common theme of "integrity" and "a higher calling", which in my experience is only shouted from the rooftops by people lacking those characteristics.

 

Pro-tip -- 8 people in the grand scheme of life is not many people. However, 8 people at the top of DOJ/FBI is a lot.

"Eight high ranking Department of Justice and FBI officials have been removed, reassigned or are rumored to be leaving. They include the top FBI agents who worked on two of the agency’s most high-profile investigations in the past two years: the probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information as secretary of state, and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation."​

https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/25/investigating-the-investigators-at-doj-and-fbi/

"There’s been a great deal of news coverage about allegations of collusion between President Trump and Russia; much of it apparently correct and some of it not.

Less attention has been given to concurrent investigations that seem to be claiming scalps even if indirectly.

The investigations into the investigators include Congressional inquiries and a multi-faceted probe launched by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz surrounding the FBI decision not to prosecute Clinton. Specifically, Horowitz—who was appointed by President Obama—said he’s reviewing:

-- Allegations that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik should have recused themselves.
-- Allegations of improper political contacts by Kadzik.
-- Allegations that Justice Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information and were influenced by improper considerations in releasing certain documents just before the 2016 election.​

The link above goes on to give a synopsis of some of these

 

Rather than just post insert after insert out of context, I would like you it explain how this happened in a liberal biased, anti Trump, pro Clinton FBI as you contend, the following:

How did it happened that a Comey letter was made public that the FBI was looking at some additional Emails, which turned out to dups they had already looked at. This happened 8 or so days before the election. This was from a Pro Clinton FBI? The letter is believed to have swung the election to Trump.

Why did the this Pro Clinton FBI, at the same time they published the Comey letter, have an active FBI investigation into Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government, yet this fact was not leaked or made public by the Pro Clinton FBI, as you allude?

 

Godspeed on getting logic into this conversation. To believe this line of reasoning, Robert Mueller has to be considered a man of little conviction or principles. To me he should have anti trump people investigating him and then Mueller should judge if their bias has an impact. I mean to say, if you ask pro-Trump people to investigate Trump they'll quickly figure out how to swing the investigation into Hillary Clinton, Whitewater, etc. at some point.

 

Just just when I think you can’t get worse, you lower my low expectations of okies. We could throw the bar on the ground and you would find a way to burrow under it. Having biased individuals investigating anyone is exceedingly dumb, as proven by the DOJ and FBI recently. Let’s go with the “justice is blind” standard instead.

 

Mueller is justice. So you're telling me that Ken Starr and his folks were unbiased? LOL.

 

Read it again, dunce.

 

All right f**k nut. I read it again. You'll need to explain it to me then. In my mind, I want a quality control coach who's going to work the hardest to pick apart my offense. To me, the motivations of the staff doing the investigations are irrelevant. The relevant part is the ability for GOP member Robert Mueller to utilize his brain to do things right. This fiction that the FBI is some liberal bastion is laughable.

 

Can I get a definition of the term "f**k nut?"

 

It won't let me type the f word.

 

What's laughable is your insistence that the issue has to be about "liberal and conservative."

What's laughable is that the Democrats who have for so long lambasted the FBI and other arms of U.S. federal law enforcement as jackboots are now lining up to tell us how wonderful, honorable, and pure-as-the-driven-snow the FBI is.

What's laughable is the idea that partisan intent has no bearing in an investigation. I guess you would also argue that if this were a jury trial, stacking it with pro-Hillary campaigners would be just fine because "they're professionals and will put their biases aside to find the truth." Of course, it's easy to argue that when you come in saying "I know the truth, and the partisans are right, so I know they'll get the decision right." You can probably find plenty of defense attorneys who will tell you pretty clearly what happens when a prosecutor decides someone is guilty and then goes out to build a case to prove that theory.

I would expect nothing less from a Barry Switzer fan. Ethics? Morals? Pffft.... just win, baby.

I have my popcorn ready for when the Muller investigation ends and nothing sticks to Trump. We'll see how the attitudes change. (Although that popcorn is probably going to be pretty moldy because he's not wrapping this up anytime soon...)

 

Please find me ever being critical of the FBI. It's the top law enforcement office in the land. You people are the ones making it liberal and conservative. Mueller and the New York AG are the ones doing the work. My prediction is that the real crimes will be state related that the President can't pardon.

 

What's laughable is making a claim that the entire Mueller investigation is biased based on a few texts between members of the investigation team that were removed as soon as this was brought to Mueller's intention. If Mueller was partisan why remove Strzok? Mueller did exactly what you'd expect someone to do if they were trying to avoid politics entering their investigation.

 

And that is a good thing. Huskers defeat trailer trash in understanding the necessity to apply the law equally when you’re in the law enforcement business.

 

Great post. Unfortunately, it will not hit home with any of the MSM zombies that we have here.

 

Is it even remotely possible that the FBI rank and file can be largely considered as "conservative" while the Obama political appointees nearer the top of the agency could justifiably be considered "liberal"?

 

That's reasonable. I don't see it veering the agency into some leftist organization.