The IG’s report and the Trump-hating FBI agents
Another aspect of the IG report released today concerns the behavior of the FBI—in particular, certain agents—in dealing with the Clinton email investigation:
The bureau also said it accepts findings “that certain text messages, instant messages and statements, along with a failure to consistently apply DoJ and FBI interview policies, were inappropriate and created an appearance that political bias might have improperly influenced investigative actions or decisions.”
It certainly does create that appearance, big time. But as I wrote in my previous post today on the subject of the IG report, what could a smoking gun possibly look like? If there’s the appearance of bias, and that bias cannot be explained in any other way, can we not conclude that bias caused the strange behavior? Well, not as a matter of law. We can conclude it in our minds, but it doesn’t carry the force of law. Without that, it’s just an inference we draw—although IMHO a very logical one that is highly likely to be true.
Here is a particularly troubling piece of evidence:
…[I]nvestigators found that Peter Strzok, who served as a lead investigator on both the Trump-Russia and Clinton email investigations, vowed he would “stop” Trump from becoming president in an August 2016 text message to his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page wrote to Strzok.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.
Strzok said the message “was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation,” according to the report.
So, did the IG believe Strzok’s self-serving and absurd description of what he wrote? Do people usually write “we’ll stop it” when they actually mean “it will just happen of its own accord?” No, they do not. But apparently the IG report was not able to tie that message of Strzok’s into any act of his in his official capacity. In other words, the political bias is crystal clear, but unless there’s something that ties it directly and unequivocally into an official act, there’s nothing the IG will do about it.
And here’s an excellent, excellent question:
How is it that Lisa Page's question ("Trump's not going to become president, right?") was leaked, but Peter Strzok's response ("No, we'll stop it") was not until now? And how is that not a massive deal?
My mind is boggled.
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 14, 2018
I think we know the answer.
Also, my guess—and it’s just a guess—is that if Strzok and/or Page actually did do something to stop Trump from becoming president, they were careful enough to cover their tracks, even though they left record of their intent in these emails, which they never never expected to see the light of day. They were careless, but not that careless, and they’re not stupid people. If there really was some conspiracy, either between the two of them or among a larger group as well, I doubt very much we will ever find hard evidence of it.
artfldgr Says:
June 14th, 2018 at 3:09 pm
http://www.neoneocon.com/2018/06/13/developments-in-the-michael-cohen-case/#comment-2389339
We’ll stop it’: Justice Department inspector general says texting FBI lovers talked about keeping Trump from becoming president — yet insists there was no ‘political bias’ in Hillary Clinton email probe…………………..
“… there’s nothing the IG will do about it.”
As I understand it, the IG has no power to do anything significant beyond its reports. It would be incumbent on the DOJ …, you know, Jeff Sessions’ DOJ run by Rod Rosenstein, to actually do something.
TommyJay:
Yes, I didn’t mean the IG himself. I meant that he’s not even recommending anything be done about it, as far as I can tell so far.
“Also, my guess…”
I think it’s a lot simpler than that.
If you “reveal” something previously redacted—previously hidden—then you have finally proven, publicly, your “transparency”. (Even though you’re still covering up—a “meta-cover-up”?)
You’ve shown you’ve decided to “play ball”; you’ve decided that truth and transparency are really the only way (though you’re still covering up like crazy).
You think you’ve thrown your pursuers off the scent. You think you can breathe a bit easier…
The NYT is really fantastic at this. (Not just the NYT…)
Several conclusions:
1. It’s just one cover-up after another. A veritable house of mirrors (of cover-ups)—and for over nine years (and counting).
2. Still can’t believe a thing that these guys spew. Not a single thing.
3. It’s going to get very, very ugly very, very quickly (Yes, I realize it’s already quite ugly…)
4. And finally: I guess “transparency” doesn’t mean what the Obama-ites and the MSM “think” (heh) it means…
The Inspector general’s report on the FBI and Justice Department’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s private email server found that several G-men – including former director James Comey – used “personal email accounts for official government business,” a violation of bureau protocol.
followed by this article right after…
Comey: Nothing in IG report ‘makes me think we did the wrong thing’
Former FBI Director James Comey responded to a critical inspector general’s report from the Department of Justice looking into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe, saying the conclusions were “reasonable” but that nothing in the report “makes me think we did the wrong thing.” “I respect the DOJ IG office, which is why I urged them to do this review. The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some,” Comey tweeted, minutes after the report was released. “People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently. I pray no Director faces it again…………….
But never, ever forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHrrBIZix1E
With regard to Strzok’s comment (“We’ll stop it”) Sundance is reporting that the comment was not “included but redacted,” in the text messages the FBI released. Rather, the message was only found by the IG using forensic methods (I assume, upon the memory chip in one of the cell phones). IOW, someone in the FBI intentionally falsified materials provided to the IG. If that person was Strzok, or someone acting at his direction, would that not be an act which directly proves bias?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/14/blast-thread-on-oig-report-briefings-and-releases-chaff-and-countermeasures/#more-150572
“No, we’ll stop it.”
Gosh, if one can’t(!) call Strzok “biased” can one at least call him “amazingly incompetent”?
(Moreover, he lied to his lover. Really let her down. Does the FBI ever fire anyone for that level of incompetence? Or for lying so insensitively to one’s amorous co-conspirator?)
And who is this mysterious “we” being referred to?
There is enough circumstantial to conclude bias – all of the circumstantial evidence leads to that one conclusion. There are enough instances of name calling of Trump voters to understand there was political bias. The fact that the IG could not find a smoking gun when some one said “I’ll never let a republican get elected” or “as a democrat, I can’t let this happen” does not mean that there was no political bias. I suspect that the “could not find direct evidence of bias” was added at the instance of the FBI/DOJ during the review process.
When you can conclude racial bias by the percentages of minorities hired, gender discrimination by the relative wages ignoring difference in choices, or any other of the favorite liberal bias tropes, you an conclude bias by the party donations and the favors sought by these people.
This is the equivalent of the Clinton e-mail report. Comey described the crimes in detail and then concluded that there was no intent by Hillary to commit a crime. Thus, she was free as a bird.
Now the IG describes detailed instances of anti-Trump bias and actions threatened to destroy his candidacy and later, his Presidency. However, the IG could find no “hard evidence” of political bias, just “bad judgement.” The intent is that the bad boys/girls in the FBI will be free as birds also.
Hoo boy, maybe the MSM can sell this narrative to the progs, but I’m betting that the mid terms are going to be less than a blue tide. If you’re not hot to vote for Trump supporters in the mid-terms, you don’t understand the issues. The only solution to this corruption is to provide such majorities to the GOP that they really can clean up the swamp.
“The only solution to this corruption is to provide such majorities to the GOP that they really can clean up the swamp.” –J.J.
I admire your optimism.
Rick Vogel Says:
June 14th, 2018 at 8:10 pm
There is enough circumstantial to conclude bias — all of the circumstantial evidence leads to that one conclusion. …
When you can conclude racial bias by the percentages of minorities hired, gender discrimination by the relative wages ignoring difference in choices, or any other of the favorite liberal bias tropes, you an conclude bias by the party donations and the favors sought by these people.
* * *
You can, and I can, but no Democrat can —
“…but no Democrat can…”
To be fair, that’s not an accurate assessment.
Some, not liking what they’ve been seeing (and/or smelling) already have switched.
More will follow.
The question is, of course, how many?
Indeed, there are many who will simply NOT see it (and the MSM is certainly doing its very best, spinning furiously 24/7, to ensure that any “untoward” news does NOT get out).
But others—how many, though?—are thoroughly sick of what they never were able to see (or never wanted to see) between 2009 and 2016.
Once again, the question is, just how many?….
This smells so much like Comey’s non-indictment report in Oct. 2016. It lists numerous instances of misconduct, but recommends no action be taken against anybody.
Welcome to the age of un-accountability. When you engage in government corruption, a very long, embarrassing report will be written about you, then you can go along on your merry way, claiming your innocence.
Everyone is allowed to have opinions on religion, politics and other potentially controversial topics.
What’s completely out of line here is the excessive communication on company time and equipment; particularly by employees whose jobs offer them the power to take life-altering actions against other people because of those opinions; most particularly by people whose paychecks and company equipment are being paid for by all taxpaying citizens. We are paying for these people to spend work time insulting us, and plotting against the elected officials we elected, and we are paying for the computers, servers and mobile devices they are using to communicate these vitriolic and hateful private opinions and plot what are, essentially, extralegal if not actually treasonous actions.
My company would haul me before HR, if not fire me outright, for using company time and equipment in this way, and in my job, I have nothing to do with legal investigations which I can either squash or invent from nothing depending on whether or not I like the politics of the target of the investigation.
To defend the activity described – even if it is not technically “illegal” – is simply not possible in a lawful nation.
I agree that if there were a real conspiracy they would not be acting this way. Conspiracy is not the right word. One does not have to teach a cat to catch mice.
Yet even if “we” only means “we, the good people of this nation” it is still a terrible thing.