IG Report, who's in the crosshairs?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,461
17,873
1,743
#1
Stage set for bombshell IG report on Clinton email case: Who's in the crosshairs?

A slew of FBI and DOJ officials could face a reckoning when Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on Thursday releases a long-awaited report detailing his review of the Hillary Clinton investigation during the 2016 presidential race.

“I think it's going to put a lot of the missing pieces in this giant puzzle together,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., predicted Wednesday on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.”

For more than a year, Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...on-clinton-email-case-whos-in-crosshairs.html


What if we learn that the DOJ and FBI was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign to get her elected?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#3
What if we learn that the DOJ and FBI was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign to get her elected?
This would not be surprising.

I have read that the IG report will say that Comey while using unorthodox, sloppy methods, (including using a personal GMail acct to brief FBI members) didn't show any bias in the handling of the case....So I'm betting what really happen is going to be washed out again
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,461
17,873
1,743
#4
This would not be surprising.

I have read that the IG report will say that Comey while using unorthodox, sloppy methods, (including using a personal GMail acct to brief FBI members) didn't show any bias in the handling of the case....So I'm betting what really happen is going to be washed out again
The deep state won't go easy.

We had people within these departments working to influence national elections..... People need to be fired.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,100
256
1,713
#5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69e96bb3dce3

Inspector general blasts Comey, says others at FBI showed ‘willingness to take official action’ to hurt Trump


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rom-becoming-president-ig-report-reveals.html

FBI agent Strzok reportedly texted 'we'll stop' Trump from becoming president
And in the third paragraph of the WP article:
"Though the inspector general condemned individual FBI officials, the report fell significantly short in supporting the assertion by the president and his allies that the investigation was rigged in favor of Clinton. The inspector general found “no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.”

And stating the obvious further down:
"The report aimed to define once and for all what the FBI and Justice Department did right and what was wrong in the Clinton probe, but partisans are likely to seize on different findings to buttress their long-held views about that investigation."
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#7
Or just read the conclusion

I. Conclusions The Clinton email investigation was one of the highest profile investigations in the FBI’s history; however, it is just one of thousands of investigations handled each year by the approximately 35,000 FBI agents, analysts, and other professionals who dedicate their careers to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. Through the collective efforts of generations of FBI employees, the FBI has developed and earned a reputation as one of the world’s premier law enforcement agencies. The FBI has gained this reputation, in significant part, because of its professionalism, impartiality, non-political enforcement of the law, and adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms. However, as we outline in this report, certain actions during the Midyear investigation were inconsistent with these longstanding policies, practices, and norms. First, we found that several FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages—some of which related directly to the Midyear investigation—that created the appearance of bias and thereby raised questions about the objectivity and thoroughness of the Midyear investigation. Even more seriously, text messages between Strzok and Page pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence. Second, in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decisionmaking. In so doing, we found that Comey largely based his decisions on what he believed was in the FBI’s institutional interests and would enable him to continue to effectively lead the FBI as its Director. While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice. 498 Moreover, these decisions usurped the authority of the Attorney General and upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions and the accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United States. As we further outline in this report, there was a troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication between Comey and then Attorney General Lynch in advance of both Comey’s July 5 press conference and his October 28 letter to Congress. With regard to the July 5 events, Comey affirmatively concealed his intentions from Lynch. When he did finally call her on the morning of July 5—after the FBI first notified the press—he told her that he was going to be speaking about the Midyear investigation but that he would not answer any of her questions, and would not tell her what he planned to say. During that call, Lynch did not instruct Comey to tell her what he intended to say at the press conference. With respect to the October 28 letter, Comey chose not to contact Lynch or then Deputy Attorney General Yates directly; rather, he had FBI Chief of Staff Rybicki advise Yates’s senior advisor (then PADAG Axelrod) that Comey intended to send a letter to Congress and that Comey believed he had an obligation to do so. Given these circumstances, Lynch and Yates concluded it would be counterproductive to speak directly with Comey and that the most effective way to communicate their strong opposition to Comey about his decision was to relay their views to him through Axelrod and Rybicki. We found it extraordinary that, in advance of two such consequential decisions, the FBI Director decided that the best course of conduct was to not speak directly and substantively with the Attorney General about how best to navigate these decisions and mitigate the resulting harms, and that Comey’s decision resulted in the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General concluding that it would be counterproductive to speak directly with the FBI Director. This is not the first time the Department and the FBI have conducted a politically-charged investigation, and it will not be the last. To protect the institutions from allegations of abuse, political interference, and biased enforcement of the law, the Department and the FBI have developed policies and practices to guide their decisions. In the vast majority of cases, they are followed as a matter of routine. But they are most important to follow when the stakes are the highest, and when the pressures to divert from them—often based on well-founded concerns and highly fraught scenarios—are the greatest. No rule, policy, or practice is perfect, but at the same time, neither is any individual’s ability to make judgments under pressure or in what may seem like unique circumstances. It is in these moments—when the rationale for keeping to the ordinary course fades from view and the temptation to make an exception is greatest—that the bedrock principles and time-tested practices of the Department and the FBI can serve their highest purpose. This notion was most effectively summarized for us by DAAG George Toscas, who was the most senior career Department official involved in the daily supervision of the Midyear investigation: One of the things that I tell people all the time, after having been in the Department for almost 24 years now, is I stress to people and people who work at all levels, the institution has principles and there’s 499 always an urge when something important or different pops up to say, we should do it differently or those principles or those protocols you know we should—we might want to deviate because this is so different. But the comfort that we get as people, as lawyers, as representatives, as employees and as an institution, the comfort we get from those institutional policies, protocols, has, is an unbelievable thing through whatever storm, you know whatever storm hits us, when you are within the norm of the way the institution behaves, you can weather any of it because you stand on the principle. And once you deviate, even in a minor way, and you’re always going to want to deviate. It’s always going to be something important and some big deal that makes you think, oh let’s do this a little differently. But once you do that, you have removed yourself from the comfort of saying this institution has a way of doing things and then every decision is another ad hoc decision that may be informed by our policy and our protocol and principles, but it’s never going to be squarely within them. There are many lessons to be learned from the Department’s and FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, but among the most important is the need for Department and FBI leadership to follow its established procedures and policies even in its highest-profile and most challenging investigations. By adhering to these principles and norms, the public will have greater confidence in the outcome of the Department’s and the FBI’s decisions, and Department and FBI leaders will better protect the interests of federal law enforcement and the dedicated professionals who serve these institutions.
 
Sep 6, 2012
1,396
724
743
Edmond
#8
And in the third paragraph of the WP article:
"Though the inspector general condemned individual FBI officials, the report fell significantly short in supporting the assertion by the president and his allies that the investigation was rigged in favor of Clinton. The inspector general found “no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.”

And stating the obvious further down:
"The report aimed to define once and for all what the FBI and Justice Department did right and what was wrong in the Clinton probe, but partisans are likely to seize on different findings to buttress their long-held views about that investigation."
That was WAPO's headline. I am not pointing at anything. I will also not be reading the 500 pages.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,100
256
1,713
#11
That was WAPO's headline. I am not pointing at anything. I will also not be reading the 500 pages.
Apologies, just trying to make sure people aren't only reading headlines (as we love to do). And included the next paragraph as more of a- here comes both sides of the media latching onto little quotes and things that support their side, as they love to do. And we do it too obviously.
 
May 22, 2005
2,769
2,461
1,743
Behind Enemy Lines
#14
This is from the conclusions part of the report. May not be as bad as some might think:
“First, we found that several FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages—some of which related directly to the Midyear investigation—that created the appearance of bias and thereby raised questions about the objectivity and thoroughness of the Midyear investigation. Even more seriously, text messages between Strzok and Page pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.”

The OIG report states that FBI sent political messages that create appearances of bias and raises questions about objectivity. So it is about far more people than just Strzok and Page.

The OIG did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence that that improper considerations, including political bias, ...”, this conclusion specifically states that, “ the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation.” In other words, the FBI and DOJ employees did not give him documents or testimony admitting their bias. Of course they didn’t; those corrupt people were not going to sign their own indictment and admit their crimes.The OIG is not saying there wasn’t bias, because this same paragraph clearly states that he believes their was bias.

If you scroll down to Attachment H, you will see a diagram of a number of high-ranking FBI personnel exchanging phone calls with reporters, including over 20 each between the Director (had to be Comey) and a “special Agent” with a particular reporter.

Hard to see how Comey can avoid prosecution for these crimes. The others have real problems, too.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#16
  • Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio told reporters that his main takeaway is that "Peter Strzok should no longer be employed at the FBI."
  • Rep. Darrell Issa of California said Strzok "clearly had a Democrat bias."
  • Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina said he doesn't see how Strzok could "continue to serve with the confidence" of the FBI and DOJ.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#17
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy just released a statement after having viewed the Inspector General's report.

In the statement, Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said he was "alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed" by the Inspector General's findings and called on both Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray "to take decisive action to restore Americans' confidence in our justice system."
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#18
  • 5:30 p.m. ET: FBI Director Christopher Wray will have a press conference today about the report.
  • Later today: Trump's legal team plans to meet with him at the White House (The team is meeting all day long today to discuss ideas and strategy.)
  • Monday: The Senate Judiciary committee will hold a hearing about the report. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is invited.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#19
The Inspector General found:

Although we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the (Hillary Clinton email) investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting … we also found that Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment."​
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#20
Here's part of the statement from McCabe's lawyer, Michael R. Bromwich:

"Although the OIG report exonerates Mr. McCabe of any charges of bias or improper influence, it erroneously assigns responsibility to him for the delay in pursuing potentially relevant emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in October 2016. In fact, the report itself demonstrates that Mr. McCabe immediately directed relevant officials to take appropriate action on the laptop and that numerous senior FBI executives had far more information about the problems they had in examining the laptop than Mr. McCabe. Ultimately, the FBI’s delay in searching the laptop was a systemic failure, not attributable to any one person.