IG Report Thread

#451
#451
midnight orange said:
Well the FBI is corrupt gov organization so they lie and cover. This is nothing new and has been the case since it's founding. My understanding is that when they want to have a "conversation" with you, your attorney can't speak and you're not allowed to record the interview. They don't take notes and record their impression of the interview on a 302 after the interview. If their impression is that you were inconsistent, the report is considered accurate and you're guilty of a crime. Thus, it is a crime to lie to the FBI because lying is a privilege that is reserved for the FBI.
Click to expand...

Agree. Best thing to do is to never talk to the FBI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#453
#453
AM64 said:
It's an amazing policy. Maybe the only defense is not to speak at all; then you would just guilty of lying by omission. I'm convinced that if you repeatedly ask an honest person the same thing multiple ways that you can trap him in a "lie". Of course, they could also always conclude that someone's nervousness in being in a closed room with someone who holds his freedom captive could be considered if not outright guilt then dishonesty.
Click to expand...

They simply ask you something and get your reply then ask someone else and get their reply. If the replies differ, then they can say you lied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#454
#454
lawgator1 said:
I'm hearing the Republicans are unhappy with the conclusion that political bias played no role in the outcome of the Clinton email investigation and want an investigation of that.

So that will be an investigation of the investigation of the investigation. I don't know, I guess they figure it's a way to keep going on Fox and generating campaign $.
Click to expand...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIVzua11qYc[/youtube]
 
#458
#458
evillawyer said:
Let's investigate the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the investigation ... until we get an answer that we agree with.
Click to expand...

Your schitck has been exposed with this response. Its also shows close minded, pure ignorance. You do represent your liberal ways well.
 
#460
#460
BigOrangeTrain said:
No he cannot and he knows it.
Click to expand...

Plenty of inferences drawn by Gowdy are not supported by evidence. Just one example. You cannot infer anything in terms of misconduct by Strozk in the Russia investigation from the tweet "we will stop it." Clearly, neither he nor anyone else in the FBI did the most obvious thing that would have railroaded the Trump campaign--a simple leak of it's existence to the press. Gowdy, in his his questioning, inferred that Strzok had already decided that the Russia investigation would be used to stop Trump. Got any hard evidence to support that howler?

Ultimately, you need to look at what decisions and actions were being made by strzok and determine if bias infused those decisions in any critical way. That's what I've yet to see.
 
Last edited:
#461
#461
evillawyer said:
Plenty of inferences drawn by Gowdy are not supported by evidence. Just one example. You cannot infer anything in terms of misconduct by Strozk in the Russia investigation from the tweet "we will stop it." Clearly, neither he nor anyone else in the FBI did the most obvious thing that would have railroaded the Trump campaign--a simple leak of it's existence to the press. Gowdy, in his his questioning, inferred that Strzok had already decided that the Russia investigation would be used to stop Trump. Got any hard evidence to support that howler?

Ultimately, you need to look at what decisions and actions were being made by strzok and determine if bias infused those decisions in any critical way. That's what I've yet to see.
Click to expand...

Lisa Page was leaking to the press directly from Andrew McCabe.

What would be the purpose of those leaks?
 
#462
#462
evillawyer said:
Plenty of inferences drawn by Gowdy are not supported by evidence. Just one example. You cannot infer anything in terms of misconduct by Strozk in the Russia investigation from the tweet "we will stop it." Clearly, neither he nor anyone else in the FBI did the most obvious thing that would have railroaded the Trump campaign--a simple leak of it's existence to the press. Gowdy, in his his questioning, inferred that Strzok had already decided that the Russia investigation would be used to stop Trump. Got any hard evidence to support that howler?

Ultimately, you need to look at what decisions and actions were being made by strzok and determine if bias infused those decisions in any critical way. That's what I've yet to see.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind this report is about actions taken in the HC investigation; not actions taken in the Russia investigation (still to come).

Further, when this report does touch on the Russia investigation it concludes that Strzok was biased in his behavior to deprioritize the HC investigation in favor of the Russian one.

So in fact the report did find misconduct vis a vis the Russia investigation resulting from bias - this in just the limited focus on Russia. Not unreasonable at all to think the forthcoming report on the Russia investigation will find more such misconduct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#463
#463
volinbham said:
Keep in mind this report is about actions taken in the HC investigation; not actions taken in the Russia investigation (still to come).

Further, when this report does touch on the Russia investigation it concludes that Strzok was biased in his behavior to deprioritize the HC investigation in favor of the Russian one.

So in fact the report did find misconduct vis a vis the Russia investigation resulting from bias - this in just the limited focus on Russia. Not unreasonable at all to think the forthcoming report on the Russia investigation will find more such misconduct.
Click to expand...

Strzok was right to deprioritize the laptop in favor of a real investigation. It turns out there was nothing on the laptop that FBI investigators were not already aware. Or is there something else?
 
#464
#464
Mick said:
Strzok was right to deprioritize the laptop in favor of a real investigation. It turns out there was nothing on the laptop that FBI investigators were not already aware. Or is there something else?
Click to expand...

The IG report finds otherwise (about him being "right to").

Also you are suggesting he's clairvoyant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#466
#466
Mick said:
You're suggesting malice intent on his part, Clinton, and Humma.
Click to expand...

I'm saying what the IG concluded - the decision appears to be rooted in Strzok's own political bias and the decision was wrong given FBI procedure.

If you want to apply your standard (he was right because it turned out there was nothing new) then you have to say Trump was right to fire Comey since it turns out he was insubordinate in addition to numerous other findings of misconduct.
 
#467
#467
volinbham said:
I'm saying what the IG concluded - the decision appears to be rooted in Strzok's own political bias and the decision was wrong given FBI procedure.

If you want to apply your standard (he was right because it turned out there was nothing new) then you have to say Trump was right to fire Comey since it turns out he was insubordinate in addition to numerous other findings of misconduct.
Click to expand...

There was not an open investigation into the Clinton emails at that time. Since McCabe knew about them then it may be his biases that lead to the untimely review.
 
#469
#469
An oldie but goodie...

[twitter]1011070670363652097[/twitter]

Comey has turned a once-proud institution known for its independence into one that bows to election pressure, hands out political immunity to candidates and effectively pardons their co-conspirators. He’s turned the FBI into the Federal Bureau of Immunity and lost the trust and respect of not only his agents but the country at large. He ought to step down.
 
#470
#470
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#471
#471
volinbham said:
Interesting

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/393857-what-did-peter-strzok-do
Click to expand...

I’d argue it points to conspiracy to obstruct!

Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice Act - 42 USC Section 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
Click to expand...

He won’t be President will he?

No we will stop it.
 
#472
#472
Why did the FBI ignore these explosive revelations in the Hillary email case?

The FBI DELIBERATELY IGNORED ‘Golden Emails,’ Crucial Abedin Messages And More | The Daily Caller

The Weiner laptop almost certainly contains the answers to the public’s questions about all things Clinton — her scandals, the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, obstruction of justice and also possible espionage act violations...


Justice requires both a full investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s multiple potential crimes and of the efforts of agents of the FBI and the Department of Justice to cover it all up.

Multiple high-ranking officials including Barack Obama were emailing Mrs. Clinton directly or through Huma Abedin. The Weiner laptop and iCloud account had it all. It was the full archive they were supposedly searching for.

Who else among the high-powered elite are the FBI and DOJ protecting by their cover-up?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top