This Isn’t The First Time The IG
Denied Flagrant Bias At The FBI
Issues & Insights,
by
The Editorial Board
Original Article
Posted By: PageTurner,
12/12/2019 5:55:15 AM
Democrats and the mainstream press – is there any difference between the two these days? – have been clinging to the “no bias” statement by the Justice Department inspector general with all their might.
The IG said that he couldn’t state definitively that political bias motivated officials at the FBI to launch and then sustain an investigation against the Trump campaign based on the Clinton-campaign funded and thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier.
That was enough for press to run headlines such as:
“Bias didn’t taint FBI leaders running Trump-Russia Investigation”
“Report on F.B.I. Debunks Anti-Trump Plot”
“Mistakes, but no political bias in FBI probe of Trump campaign: watchdog”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
John C 12/12/2019 5:59:23 AM (No. 259654)
Headlines are exactly what our local stations proclaimed by their Washington reporters. They
got the message from the party and read it to us locals, as truth.
4 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MattMusson 12/12/2019 6:45:03 AM (No. 259677)
The IG did NOT say there was no bias. He said no one admitted it in his interviews and he found no written confessions to it. By law, he is not supposed to make that judgement without written or testimonial proof.
11 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
edgar 12/12/2019 7:13:09 AM (No. 259699)
2 cases with the basically the same players (Clinton email / Crossfire Hurricane). Horowitz did an IG Investigation on both. Why not ask him to compare and contrast the behavior of the same players in both cases and ask him to draw some conclusions about how those cases were handled and why. Do the sum of the two cases demonstrate a bias by those same players?
7 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Heraclitus 12/12/2019 7:22:39 AM (No. 259708)
Today's cartoon is good, except it's missing one thing: Horowitz needs a clothespin on his nose.
They're all living in the swamp, AND getting quite rich there, and their kids. and their kids' kids. etc and etc and etc
How many are uncorrupted? How many are ever uncorrupted by the power?
Donald Trump arrives from somewhere beyond the swamp.
Trust no one. Pray for POTUS.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
10 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Gordon Freeman 12/12/2019 7:46:23 AM (No. 259721)
Maybe the IG should have his bank records reviewed?
3 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
judy 12/12/2019 8:02:28 AM (No. 259738)
A little hint to Horowitz... you know it's bias .... when they only go after one party, when they only go after one candidate, when they brief everyone but Trump, when they never find or say anything positive about Trump in the texts, emails, or investigations, when you investigate & finds crimes on the people who are doing the investigation. ... but ignore them & continue for years investigate the innocent. No apologies from the IG or JD for bankrupting 35 people, solitary confinement, spying, wasting 35 million $$$ when they were aware from day one the dossier was fake.
14 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 12/12/2019 8:19:22 AM (No. 259760)
What good is an IG if they're not going to report fact and clean house?
About as effective as the Ombudsman at the New York Times reporting on their bias.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Krause 12/12/2019 8:24:47 AM (No. 259769)
What can you say about people, who seem to be interested in this issue, who have read the evidence presented on both sides, and cannot see any bias at all? Mental block? Poor critical thinking skills? Dishonesty? Have the same bias and think it's natural? Have taken part in the coup? Are just cheering for the coup participants?
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Gruntmedic 12/12/2019 8:28:13 AM (No. 259778)
He was appointed by Barry
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
3XALADY 12/12/2019 8:52:37 AM (No. 259810)
Sessions, on Laura's show last night, said IG's were important and necessary. Really??? This one seems to be a dud.
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
FunOne 12/12/2019 9:10:43 AM (No. 259834)
Inspector General is properly depicted in the daily cartoon. He is certainly a swamp creature, looking out for his fellow swamp creature cronies.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Jebediah 12/12/2019 9:25:56 AM (No. 259854)
I well remember that he didn't think Hillary had any devious motives re: her bleach-bit of emails, server in the closet without protection, etc. He seems unwilling to think ill of anyone until pressed, and then he comes out a bit to the obvious conclusions.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Strike3 12/12/2019 9:58:14 AM (No. 259880)
It's naive and foolish to believe that people exist who do not have a political preference in this sharply divided country. Taking a survey of our neighbors results in some of them appreciating and supporting Donald Trump and others hating every day he takes a breath. I have yet to meet someone who says they don't care whether a democrat or a republican is in the White House. The FBI people are allowed to have a preference but they are not allowed to lie, manipulate and create evidence against the one they do not like. As law enforcement they are seriously breaking the law and destroying any respect we might have once held for it.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
bighambone 12/12/2019 10:28:11 AM (No. 259918)
I’m with #2. Common sense will tell you that just because none of the perpetrators interviewed by IG investigators “fessed” up does not mean that there was not political bias supercharged by a “wink and a nod” from the highest office in the Obama White House behind all the malfeasance acts that the DOJ/FBI took to “frame” President Trump and a few members of his campaign. As why else would all those super DOJ/FBI bureaucrats have put their high level positions, professional qualifications, and reputations at risk?
1 person likes this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
qr4j 12/12/2019 11:10:15 AM (No. 259977)
I am wondering something: What exactly is an IG's role? Is it just to determine what the facts are? For example, a fact would be the incompleteness of a FISA court application -- that not all relevant information was present in the application. Or is the IG supposed to try to understand motive as well? Was it up to the IG to determine whether errors were the result of incompetence or malfeasance or both OR just to identify the errors that were made?
If the role of the IG is just to identify THAT errors were made, then the IG should not comment at all -- positively or negatively -- on whether suspected crimes were committed. He should not say that he did not have evidence of any criminal activity. Rather, he should just say that such a determination is not his job.
I do not understand how an IG could detail all the errors and omissions and deviations from norms and then not draw better conclusions about the FBI's handling of the Trump campaign. At the very least, the FBI is incompetent. But even incompetent people don't make so many mistakes of this magnitude. There is more there -- and it is in plain sight to rational people.
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 12/12/2019 11:26:12 AM (No. 260000)
The only way this IG (perhaps any IG) finds bias is if someone says to him, "I was biased" or "I could see that John or Sally were biased", OR by reading a filed official document which says, "We were biased", or "We used bias to do this."
The IG is a paper shuffler, a detail oriented drone who sorts through the official records and the statements of people involved during interviews (taking all that they say at face value, making NO judgements as to their veracity), and writes a report on what was found and THAT IS IT.
His job isn't to make judgements like a prosecutor. He is AN INSPECTOR. He LOOKS AT THINGS.
We have had (me included) unrealistic expectations of his job/work, to one degree or another.
But, the facts that he did uncover are tremendously damning of the FBI leadership. It is the raw materials that Durham can construct a solid case of felonious fraud against the FISA court, MANY times by many individuals.
When Horowitz says "I found no bias" it means he wasn't hit in the face with documentary evidence, not that a reasonable person couldn't infer massive bias from the actions that he documents. He doesn't infer, he doesn't assume, he doesn't attribute. He sorts and lists.
And he clearly stated "“The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this,”.
Horowitz exonerated no one, and uncovered massive "wrongdoing", judging whether that wrongdoing was just harmless error or malicious is up to other people. IMO, it was totally malicious. The left is trying to sell it as clownish incompetence. That is Bull.
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 12/14/2019 2:51:47 AM (No. 261668)
Horowitz and Wray are Deep State mega-stooges, clearly. Our illegitimate government cannot investigate itself and cannot reform itself. Reform must come from outside the government.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "PageTurner"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)