Strzok was removed from the investigation the moment Mueller was made aware of the texts from the IG. Isn't that an example of the system working?
Joe Walsh weighs in. I don't agree with much of what he tweets (never listened to his show) but he and I agree on this topic. This sums up many of the pro-Trump supporters here.
WTF? LOL! Walsh is nearly as nutty as Alex Jones. You need another example. "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket. You in?"- Joe Walsh
What did he touch when he was on the team? Once tainted, always tainted. Have tried to remove taint? Hard to do. There was an article in today’s paper about a gov study in collaboration with alcohol industry about benefits or harms of low alcohol consumption. It was cancelled after some of the study team was found to be too close to the alcohol sponsors. If that was the right call then, what about Mueller?
How does the IG report support it was right to not indict Hillary? If the rules were followed, Lynch should have made the call. In either direction, the decision would have hurt Hillary but it would have been proper.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/health/alcohol-nih-drinking.html Apparently it was easy to spot bias here. Read the subheadline. It’s all about that TAINT!
You don't think Mueller could reevaluate anything Stzrok was involved with? Surely you think him a fool if the only move Mueller made was to remove Stzrok. Of course, we won't know because the Mueller team hasn't been leaking. We found out about Stzrok's removal months after it occurred. What about any evidence that Mueller's team acquired since Strozk's removal? That's all "tainted" too? Keep in mind, Stzrok was only on the team for a few months after Mueller was appointed before he was removed.
The IG report calls out that Lynch should have made the call but the outcome (no HRC charges) was consistent with previous security breaches (e.g. Alberto Gonzalez '08). Comey making the decision sans Lynch I assume would fall into the "Comey made mistakes" category.
How do you know Lynch would have made that decision? It would have been seen as overt political and probably helped Trump even more.
Not sure what relation this has to the HRC investigation. I'll assume it's not for now. As for Mueller, are the Democrats funding the investigation? Was the Dossier the only evidence used to start the investigation? We know the answer is "no" to both so not sure your analogy is applicable. In fact, the public statements by Comey and Wray are that parts of the dossier were corroborated.
Is the failure to indict a prior offense relevant? People in power are let off the hook far too often. The law is the law and the charge should follow from there. Somebody has to say, we're going to do our job.
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Lynch would have purposely gone against prior DOJ decisions just to appear apolitical?
You’re in lala land. The start of the trump investigation will be shown as tainted too. It’s all tainted.
Hey...on that we agree. I've said often that there are rules for leaders in our government and then others for the peons. This is why Patreus gets no jail-time and an NCO gets years in prison. That's not a left-right problem though but rather a people in power protecting people in power problem. As Trump has shown, he may be exacerbating the problem.
The relation is to the IG report and the ongoing Mueller investigation. In this report, bias was found, taint identified, and the study was shutdown.
OK. So, you are in the camp of Joe Walsh's Republican friend. Evidence doesn't matter because you've already made up your mind. Please don't take offense when I say that I sincerely hope you are never on a jury.
Comey went against protocol and procedures...not prior assessments of when to indite. Big difference!
No, Mchammer and I didn't make up our mind beforehand. However, when you have an investigation and find a shitload of bias and then tell us that bias had no affect on the investigation, free-thinking people are not going to buy into it.
So we have long line of TAINT connected to individuals that were are the start of the Trump spying to the start of the Muller probe. We are nowhere close to knowing when the TAINT started and when it ended. Have you seen the other conflicts of interest on the Mueller team as well as within the IC when Brennan started spying on Trump? It’s TAINT from beginning to end. Have you tried to contain TAINT? Impossible.
That's your prerogative I guess. Of course, the IG actually states the actions that were taken on multiple occasions. Most of those actions would be considered counter to those biases which is likely why Horowitz said there was no evidence that the bias effected the investigations except regarding the Weiner laptop.
mchammer...you've clearly taken the Red Pill. Respectfully, I'd point out your bias even framing the conversation. "Spying"..."taint"...etc. You've made up your mind based on one-sided statements. Even when Republicans (Gowdy and Ryan) have stated there was not "spying" you continue to use the terms. Evidence be damned, apparently.
