Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2191
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by cassowary » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:05 pm

Milo wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:36 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:36 am
Wall Street Journal: The Disgrace of Comey's FBI
The long-awaited Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation makes for depressing reading for anyone who cares about American democracy. Self-government depends on public trust in its institutions, especially law enforcement. The IG’s 568-page report makes clear that the FBI under former director James Comey betrayed that public trust in a way not seen since J. Edgar Hoover.

We use the Hoover analogy advisedly, realizing that the problem in this case was not rampant illegal spying. Though IG Michael Horowitz’s conclusions are measured, his facts are damning. They show that Mr. Comey abused his authority, broke with long-established Justice Department norms, and deceived his superiors and the public.

While the IG says Mr. Comey’s decisions were not the result of “political bias,” he presided over an investigating team that included agents who clearly were biased against Donald Trump. The damage to the bureau’s reputation—and to thousands of honest agents—will take years to repair.

The issue of political bias is almost beside the point. The IG scores Mr. Comey for “ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views.” Like Hoover, Mr. Comey believed that he alone could protect the public trust. And like Hoover, this hubris led him to make egregious mistakes of judgment that the IG says “negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.”

***
The report scores Mr. Comey in particular for his “conscious decision not to tell [Justice] Department leadership about his plans to independently announce” an end to the investigation at his July 5 press conference in which he exonerated but criticized Mrs. Clinton. And the IG also scores his action 11 days before the 2016 presidential election, on October 28, to send a letter to Congress saying the investigation had been reopened.

The decision to prosecute belongs to the Attorney General and Justice, not the FBI. And the FBI does not release derogatory information on someone against whom it is not bringing charges. Regarding the October letter informing Congress that the FBI was renewing the investigation, FBI policy is not to announce investigations. “We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation,” deadpans the IG.

“We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same,” says the report.

“Comey waited until the morning of his press conference to inform [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch and [Deputy Attorney General Sally ] Yates of his plans to hold one without them, and did so only after first notifying the press. As a result, Lynch’s office learned about Comey’s plans via press inquiries rather than from Comey. Moreover, when Comey spoke with Lynch he did not tell her what he intended to say in his statement.”

All of this underscores the case that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made when he advised President Trump in May 2017 that he should fire Mr. Comey. The President’s mistake was not firing Mr. Comey immediately upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, as some of us advised at the time.

As for political bias, the IG devotes a chapter to the highly partisan texts exchanged over FBI phones between FBI personnel. The IG says he found no evidence that political bias affected investigative decisions, but the details will be fodder for those who think otherwise.

For one thing, the political opinions ran in only one direction—against Mr. Trump. Then there is the case of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his decision to prioritize the Russian investigation over following up on Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The IG concludes that Mr. Strzok’s “text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

The specific Strzok message the IG cites is one in which he responded to a text from his paramour, Lisa Page, asking for reassurance that Mr. Trump was “not ever going to become president, right?” Mr. Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Senator Ron Johnson’s office reports that his committee had received the first part of this exchange— Ms. Page’s question—from Justice. But somehow Mr. Strzok’s astonishing reply wasn’t included. If this was deliberate, the official who ordered this exclusion should be publicly identified and fired.

The report also chronicles a long list of other questionable judgments by the FBI and Justice. These include waiting until late October to announce that the FBI was seeking a search warrant for Anthony Weiner’s laptop, though “virtually every fact that was cited” to justify the move had been known a month before.


And the report criticizes the decision to let Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, attend the FBI’s interview with Mrs. Clinton when they were potential witnesses to her possible offenses. This was “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment,” the IG says.

***
The unavoidable conclusion is that Mr. Comey’s FBI became a law unto itself, accountable to no one but the former director’s self-righteous conscience. His refusal to follow proper guidelines interfered with a presidential election campaign in a way that has caused millions of Americans in both parties to justifiably cry foul.

This should never happen in a democracy, and steps must be taken so that it never does again. Mr. Horowitz deserves credit for an investigation that was thorough, informative and unplagued by leaks. But it is not the final word. Next week he will be testifying before Congress to flesh out and clarify his findings. Congress should also call FBI agents as witnesses.
If the IG concluded that the focus on Russia may not free of political bias, then the entire Mueller investigation is undermined. It was intended to sidetrack the investigation away from the Clinton emails to help her win because Strzok swore to his lover Lisa Page that he will make sure Trump loses.
However, the IG report concluded the opposite.
No it didn’t. Go read the underlined part of the article I posted.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by Milo » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:21 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:36 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:36 am
Wall Street Journal: The Disgrace of Comey's FBI
The long-awaited Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation makes for depressing reading for anyone who cares about American democracy. Self-government depends on public trust in its institutions, especially law enforcement. The IG’s 568-page report makes clear that the FBI under former director James Comey betrayed that public trust in a way not seen since J. Edgar Hoover.

We use the Hoover analogy advisedly, realizing that the problem in this case was not rampant illegal spying. Though IG Michael Horowitz’s conclusions are measured, his facts are damning. They show that Mr. Comey abused his authority, broke with long-established Justice Department norms, and deceived his superiors and the public.

While the IG says Mr. Comey’s decisions were not the result of “political bias,” he presided over an investigating team that included agents who clearly were biased against Donald Trump. The damage to the bureau’s reputation—and to thousands of honest agents—will take years to repair.

The issue of political bias is almost beside the point. The IG scores Mr. Comey for “ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views.” Like Hoover, Mr. Comey believed that he alone could protect the public trust. And like Hoover, this hubris led him to make egregious mistakes of judgment that the IG says “negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.”

***
The report scores Mr. Comey in particular for his “conscious decision not to tell [Justice] Department leadership about his plans to independently announce” an end to the investigation at his July 5 press conference in which he exonerated but criticized Mrs. Clinton. And the IG also scores his action 11 days before the 2016 presidential election, on October 28, to send a letter to Congress saying the investigation had been reopened.

The decision to prosecute belongs to the Attorney General and Justice, not the FBI. And the FBI does not release derogatory information on someone against whom it is not bringing charges. Regarding the October letter informing Congress that the FBI was renewing the investigation, FBI policy is not to announce investigations. “We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation,” deadpans the IG.

“We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same,” says the report.

“Comey waited until the morning of his press conference to inform [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch and [Deputy Attorney General Sally ] Yates of his plans to hold one without them, and did so only after first notifying the press. As a result, Lynch’s office learned about Comey’s plans via press inquiries rather than from Comey. Moreover, when Comey spoke with Lynch he did not tell her what he intended to say in his statement.”

All of this underscores the case that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made when he advised President Trump in May 2017 that he should fire Mr. Comey. The President’s mistake was not firing Mr. Comey immediately upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, as some of us advised at the time.

As for political bias, the IG devotes a chapter to the highly partisan texts exchanged over FBI phones between FBI personnel. The IG says he found no evidence that political bias affected investigative decisions, but the details will be fodder for those who think otherwise.

For one thing, the political opinions ran in only one direction—against Mr. Trump. Then there is the case of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his decision to prioritize the Russian investigation over following up on Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The IG concludes that Mr. Strzok’s “text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

The specific Strzok message the IG cites is one in which he responded to a text from his paramour, Lisa Page, asking for reassurance that Mr. Trump was “not ever going to become president, right?” Mr. Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Senator Ron Johnson’s office reports that his committee had received the first part of this exchange— Ms. Page’s question—from Justice. But somehow Mr. Strzok’s astonishing reply wasn’t included. If this was deliberate, the official who ordered this exclusion should be publicly identified and fired.

The report also chronicles a long list of other questionable judgments by the FBI and Justice. These include waiting until late October to announce that the FBI was seeking a search warrant for Anthony Weiner’s laptop, though “virtually every fact that was cited” to justify the move had been known a month before.


And the report criticizes the decision to let Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, attend the FBI’s interview with Mrs. Clinton when they were potential witnesses to her possible offenses. This was “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment,” the IG says.

***
The unavoidable conclusion is that Mr. Comey’s FBI became a law unto itself, accountable to no one but the former director’s self-righteous conscience. His refusal to follow proper guidelines interfered with a presidential election campaign in a way that has caused millions of Americans in both parties to justifiably cry foul.

This should never happen in a democracy, and steps must be taken so that it never does again. Mr. Horowitz deserves credit for an investigation that was thorough, informative and unplagued by leaks. But it is not the final word. Next week he will be testifying before Congress to flesh out and clarify his findings. Congress should also call FBI agents as witnesses.
If the IG concluded that the focus on Russia may not free of political bias, then the entire Mueller investigation is undermined. It was intended to sidetrack the investigation away from the Clinton emails to help her win because Strzok swore to his lover Lisa Page that he will make sure Trump loses.
However, the IG report concluded the opposite.
No it didn’t. Go read the underlined part of the article I posted.
Yes it did. The part you underlined is not about what the report concluded.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2191
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by cassowary » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 pm

The “conclusion” was that the he, the IG, could find no evidence that decisions made that led to the exoneration of Clinton was biased. But he, the IG, went on to say that it did not foreclose the possibly that there was none. See my earlier post giving the relevant excerpt.

Not being able to find evidence of wrongdoing does not mean there was no wrongdoing.

neverfail
Posts: 2363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by neverfail » Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:27 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 pm
The “conclusion” was that the he, the IG, could find no evidence that decisions made that led to the exoneration of Clinton was biased. But he, the IG, went on to say that it did not foreclose the possibly that there was none. See my earlier post giving the relevant excerpt.

Not being able to find evidence of wrongdoing does not mean there was no wrongdoing.
It does not mean that there was any either.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2191
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by cassowary » Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:04 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:27 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 pm
The “conclusion” was that the he, the IG, could find no evidence that decisions made that led to the exoneration of Clinton was biased. But he, the IG, went on to say that it did not foreclose the possibly that there was none. See my earlier post giving the relevant excerpt.

Not being able to find evidence of wrongdoing does not mean there was no wrongdoing.
It does not mean that there was any either.
True. True. It is impossible to read minds and thus difficult to prove bias. We have the following facts from the IG report:

1. Peter Strzok promised his girlfriend Lisa Page that he will see to it that Trump does not win.
2. Senior members of the FBI team calling Trump supporters pieces of sh.t.
3. Unexplained delay in investigating Weiner 's laptop in the midst of the election.
4. Shift of resources from Clinton to Russia investigation. IG said he did not have confidence that no bias was involved in this decision.
5. Strong confidence that Clinton was going to win and be their future boss.

Under these circumstances I would say bias was probable. After all they are human.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2191
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by cassowary » Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:01 am

I forgot to mention:

6. Comey wrote a letter exonerating Clinton before even interviewing her.

Mr. Perfect
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by Mr. Perfect » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:05 pm

What I find hilarious is a report that completely exonerates a department of bias then begins a bias training program in response to that investifagation.

Kafka

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -ig-report
The FBI will conduct political bias training and take several other steps in response to a Justice Department inspector general report that found several examples of bias in the ranks of the agency.

While the IG said it found no evidence that this bias affected the outcome of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, the FBI nonetheless agreed that “the appearance of bias is disconcerting and potentially damaging to the FBI’s ability to perform its mission."
No bias found so let's start bias training. Only a Democrat.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by Milo » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:58 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:04 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:27 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 pm
The “conclusion” was that the he, the IG, could find no evidence that decisions made that led to the exoneration of Clinton was biased. But he, the IG, went on to say that it did not foreclose the possibly that there was none. See my earlier post giving the relevant excerpt.

Not being able to find evidence of wrongdoing does not mean there was no wrongdoing.
It does not mean that there was any either.
True. True. It is impossible to read minds and thus difficult to prove bias. We have the following facts from the IG report:

1. Peter Strzok promised his girlfriend Lisa Page that he will see to it that Trump does not win.
2. Senior members of the FBI team calling Trump supporters pieces of sh.t.
3. Unexplained delay in investigating Weiner 's laptop in the midst of the election.
4. Shift of resources from Clinton to Russia investigation. IG said he did not have confidence that no bias was involved in this decision.
5. Strong confidence that Clinton was going to win and be their future boss.

Under these circumstances I would say bias was probable. After all they are human.
So you think Comey's actions helped Clinton?

Mr. Perfect
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by Mr. Perfect » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:37 pm

I would say yes. She is currently not in jail.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Peter Strzok: We will stop Trump from becoming President

Post by Doc » Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:34 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:05 pm
What I find hilarious is a report that completely exonerates a department of bias then begins a bias training program in response to that investifagation.

Kafka

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -ig-report
The FBI will conduct political bias training and take several other steps in response to a Justice Department inspector general report that found several examples of bias in the ranks of the agency.

While the IG said it found no evidence that this bias affected the outcome of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, the FBI nonetheless agreed that “the appearance of bias is disconcerting and potentially damaging to the FBI’s ability to perform its mission."
No bias found so let's start bias training. Only a Democrat.
Not true. Strzok was accused in the report as being extremely biased. (Page 420) What the report said was that there was no paper trail that the bias influenced the investigation. Think of the IG as the HR dept of the DOJ. Part of the job of any HR dept is to minimize the fall out on the organization from rouge employees. Which is exactly what the report does.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply