IG report on FBI handling of HRC email

Uh...not sure the point she is trying to make. Bias in the "investigatory decisions" was the nuclear bomb if it existed. We already knew the opininions of some of the players. The question is whether their bias influenced the investigation. To that the IG said there was no evidence outside of maybe the delay in analyzing Weiners computer which turned up nothing.

 

That's the bombshell? I can absolutely see Stzrok delaying that but it ultimately backfired in a massive way, if so. Send Strozk to the guillotine knowing that without that delay Trump probably isn't POTUS.

 

How about this one. MYE = mid year exam or Clinton investigation

 

Proof that FBI spies on Trump:

 

Nothing shows up, mchammer.

 

Funniest comment I've seen yet:

"Let me sum up this report for everyone who doesn't want to wade through 500 plus pages:

"Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias. Political bias.

We found no evidence that political bias influenced anything."

 

This reminds me of an ol alibi used by guilty people.
Something about
Who are you going to believe? ME or your lyin.eyes?

 

There is a joke there but I'll just stay quiet for the moment.

 

That's correct but you have a few too many Political bias. Before the release it was "wait for the IG's report" now its "Focus only on texts, not on the actual conclusion of the report. Why? Per usual, y'all had made up your minds before any evidence and simply don't like the outcome. You're the juror that says "I can tell someone is guilty just by looking at them."

 

Government lawyers argue against their own political beliefs often. Saying that they can't do it well is poor logic. Criminal defense attorneys do it often. They frequently know their client is guilty but have a duty to provide a vigorous defense.

What I take from this about the Deep State is that they're not very effective.

 

Fixed

 

Fixed.

 

Anybody who believes a personally biased prosecutor or police officer is not a problem, simply is trying to justify the corruptness of their party. In this case, I think those defending it are simply hypocrites as they would never support that position if the roles were reversed.

Equating a prosecutor or police officer ignoring bias to a defense attorney defending a client is silly.

In the end, this report proves the Obama administration, especially the justice department, were the most corrupt in history. I can only hope someone prosecutes this rather than let it go. Hell, Strozk is still an FBI employee.

 

I once started a presentation to an SVP by saying "I'm presenting XXX as unbiased as possible." He immediately cut me off and said "Then you've failed because bias is always there. The key is for you to tell me what your bias is so I can understand the filter that has been applied."

This SVP was right. We all have a bias we carry. It's important to acknowledge that bias to ensure they don't cloud our decision. What the IG showed is that the political bias wasn't apparent in the decisions that were made. In fact, in some cases the decisions were in direct contradiction to the biases.

 

As mchammer showed even the IG recognizes there's a chance bias affected this case. No matter how much you try to BS or spin the facts you're wrong. Before criticizing others' political biases why don't you try to fix your own?

 

He said there was a chance for a specific decision (Weiner's laptop) to be impacted. The attempt to take that point and peanut butter it across all decisions is the spin (BS?). It's a transparent attempt to leverage a single decision amidst 600 pages and many decisions to discredit all the decisions which the report specifically pointed out were not impacted.

 

"We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision [to prioritize the Russia investigation over the email investigation] was free from bias.” This part as well. How many other ones are there that haven't been pointed out to us yet? Once again your single-minded arrogance and political bias are proven to be wrong. If it doesn't fit the MSM narrative it can't be true. LOL! Luckily, Horowitz will be testifying within the next week or two so we'll get a better handle on this.

 

Lordy, I hope there are tapes...

 

Again, comparing a business presentation or decision to a officer of the law who openly states he will "get him" after saying he will "prevent him" from being the most powerful elected position in the world is totally different. The IG is simply stating they have no direct evidence (text messages about decision made), but also leave open the fact that it could have occurred. Nobody is that naïve. Only liberals want it to fit their narrative.

 

Exactly. it's so simple only a lib could screw it up.

 

Uh...that's the same decision I just referenced on multiple posts. That was a notation specifically tied to Stzrok's claim that he prioritized the Russia investigation over the analysis of Weiner's computer which went untouched for 30 days. Are you trying to prove my point for me? If so, I appreciate the assist.

Notice that in your post you grab the one example and use it across the investigation (e.g. how many others...) despite repeated statements in the report by the IG that there was no evidence political bias influenced the decision.

Please feel free to continue to tell me how biased and arrogant I am while actually holding up a mirror for yourself.

 

When I find out I'm wrong on something I move on. You don't. Arrogance and bias are your issues and you don't even know it. Theiioftx is 100% correct. He picked your silly argument to pieces like a vulture and you're still trying to cling to the MSM narrative even more. The IG did not rule out bias, he just feels that he couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

My story was to show that bias exists everywhere, even in law enforcement. Simply handing a person a badge does not remove their bias nor does it illegal to have a political opinion. This is why that Kentucky clerk that denied a marriage license to the gay couple didn't cross the bounds of legality until she leveraged her role in government to proffer her bias on others, despite the law.

This is a critical point that some are failing to understand. Stzrok (or any FBI agent) sharing their political opinion with a co-worker wasn't the problem. The medium was (i.e. Corporate assets). If an agents actions on a case are made on the basis of their political views that is a problem. Horowitz said in his report on multiple occasions that there is no evidence that that occurred. Some don't like that conclusion so have chosen to disregard it. This has become typical in our heated political environment where people want an outcome regardless of the evidence.

 

Picked what to pieces? Please point me to where my facts were incorrect? While I'm waiting please also show me where you've admitted you were wrong....

The IG has been quoted ad nausea in this thread. You clearly want to read into the IG statement and apply it to the entire investigation but facts have always been inconvenient for you to advance to a predetermined outcome. I've never said there isn't evidence that these individuals have a bias. In fact, I've said they had bias...you have bias...I have bias. The IG repeatedly said that he could find no evidence that the bias affected the investigation except potentially with Weiner's laptop. The IG made the the determination that they didn't believe Stzrok's "Russia investigation prioritization" claim. You got a bone. It's when you try to take that bone and call it a bone factory that I'm claiming BS. If I were you, I'd go back to finding more facts or at least wait until Horowitz testimony which you've also conveniently already said would show more examples. When you have to wish and hope for more information you might want to stand back and evaluate your previous assumptions rather than trodging ahead. On the other hand, you may simply want to "move on" as you suggested you do which again there is no evidence of. Wait...I'm detecting a theme...claims not supported by evidence....over and over and over. Rinse and repeat.

 

LOL! Man, just keep lying to yourself. Time will prove you wrong just like it has on nearly everything else you've said.

 

No bias here:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...hile-investigating-her-texted-screw-you-trump


Sent from my iPhone

 

We're being told that all that we've seen over the last two days(including Strzok) had absolutely no effect on the investigation. Think about that for a moment.

 

He did not say, “I hope the democrats win” rather that he would prevent a specific candidate from winning on his own. BIG difference - but I know you have to spin the democratic narrative.

Let’s answer a few questions:

1) which party rigged its own primary?
2) who paid for the Steele dossier that was presented to the FISA court?