Quote:Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The Justice Department's internal watchdog agency unveiled a doorstop-sized report Thursday that provides an inflection point — but no closure — in the never-ending war over the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath.
The nearly 600-page opus by Inspector General Michael Horowitz offers political ammunition for both Republicans and Democrats and resolves a few key questions about what happened behind the scenes during some critical moments of the last presidential election year.
Read the report's executive summary here.
But it also confirmed that this saga has no end in sight. Here's what you need to know about what it said — and what will happen next.
The IG says the Justice Department and the feds did not go easy on Hillary Clinton
Horowitz's report excoriates then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and others for violations of policy, insensitivity toward appearances and other conduct during 2016, but it said none of them acted out of political partisanship.


National Security
Report Condemns FBI Violations In 2016 Clinton Probe But Finds No Political Bias
That's important because charges of "bias" have formed the basis of months of political attacks by President Trump and his Republicans allies against federal law enforcement. Lynch and Comey let Clinton off the hook in the matter of her handling secret information on her personal email server while secretary of state, some in the GOP argue — and, what's more, people inside the Justice Department and the FBI continue working to "frame" Trump.
No, the IG said: "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice."
That will not end the charges of "bias" and abuse of power by the president and his allies, especially since the IG report did uncover new evidence that individual people on the inside at the bureau, at least, were decidedly anti-Trump.

FBI officials talked about wanting to "stop" Trump from being elected ...
Exhibit A in the case about "bias" against Trump is the cache of text messages between an FBI lawyer who has since left the FBI and a senior special agent who is, so far, still employed by the bureau. The frank political opinions in those messages have embarrassed the bureau and there were still more in the report on Thursday.
In the newly-released exchange, attorney Lisa Page asks special agent Peter Strzok: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president right? Right?!" Strzok responds: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."
The IG and congressional investigations have debunked conspiracy theories about a cabal of insiders using their power to unfairly attack Trump — and history records that, in point of fact, Trump was elected in 2016 — but this Page-Strzok exchange shows that there really were people inside the bureau who personally opposed his election.

National Security
Mueller Removed FBI Agent From Russia Probe Over Anti-Trump Messages
Page and Strzok also worked at one time on the unit conducting the investigation into Russia's attack on the 2016 election, and whether anyone on the Trump campaign was involved; they were removed after press reports about their correspondence.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Thursday messages like those revealed in the report vindicated the worries Trump and his allies have expressed about the ability for federal law enforcement to be impartial now or going forward.
That comports precisely with Trump's political strategy of attacking Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller and his team, including the accusation that they are perpetuating a political "witch hunt" against him.
... but Strzok also wondered about the substance of the Russia investigation
An attorney for Strzok defended him on Thursday and cited evidence in the report about how strongly he pushed for aggressive investigative techniques in the Clinton email investigation.
There's also at least one key message that suggests Strzok and Page not only didn't join the Russia investigation with clear evidence in hand of wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign, but, instead, with open skepticism about whether they might discover any wrongdoing.
The two officials texted back and forth about offers to join Mueller's team at the time of his appointment. Although Strzok ultimately went on to join Mueller's unit, here's how he responded to a message from Page that mentioned the prospect that Trump might be impeached:
"you and I both know the odds are nothing," he wrote. "If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
Strzok later told investigators, as the IG report goes on to describe, that "My question [was] about whether or not this represented a large, coordinated conspiracy or not."

(06-15-2018, 11:31 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The DOJ Inspector General's conclusion that agents weren't acting on political bias is a bit puzzling. While agents were labeled as insubordinate, and violating policy, the IG concluded that the agents didn't show any political bias, despite damning test messages between agents. Messages such as the ones between Lisa Page " (Trump's) not ever going to ever become President, right?" and "Right?", and Peter Strzok "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."


I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions, as to weather those communications show any indications of bias or not.


https://www.npr.org/2018/06/15/620135227/the-huge-justice-department-ig-report-is-out-what-comes-next

(06-15-2018, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Every person who has a job in Washington has strong political beliefs one way or the other.  If we claimed that every one of them was biased then there would be no one working anywhere in Washington that was not biased.

It takes actual proof of doing something wrong on the job to prove bias.  But this is an old trick used by both sides.  They take a persons political views and then automatically claim they can no be unbiased even though they have no proof of bias.  It is the biggest tool the Trump administration is using right now.  Even if the Mueller investigation finds something that is 100% correct there is already a large position of the population who will not accept the truth because it comes from a source they claim is biased.

(06-15-2018, 12:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Someone making statements that show a bias does not mean their work was necessarily impacted by that or that decisions made by others around them were affected by it. The texts are evidence that they were biased in what they said to each other, but they are not enough to say that the decisions made by the investigative team were improperly biased.

Quote:Meanwhile, Horowitz’s report released Thursday said: "We identified numerous instances in which Comey used a personal email account to conduct unclassified FBI business. We found that, given the absence of exigent circumstances and the frequency with which the use of personal email occurred, Comey's use of a personal email account for unclassified FBI business to be inconsistent with Department policy."

(06-15-2018, 12:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Okay, so written expression of personal bias among agents is fine, so long as it isn't demonstrated in their work.  In the case of James Comey, I might argue that he showed bias in his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Why?  Because we now know that he, himself was guilty of using personal email for official business.  His charging of HRC may have brought out the revelation of his own guilt, much earlier than yesterday.  

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-takes-james-comey-task-ig-report/story?id=55909157

(06-15-2018, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But is there evidence that bias affected his decision? The IG also concluded that the decision not to prosecute was the correct one. With that determination by the IG it is hard to argue the decision was made due to bias.

FTR: Investigators making biased statements should be removed, as they were when it was discovered, and their work reviewed. Biased statements do not automatically mean their work is biased, but it can and should call it into question. Everyone has bias, but openly expressing it can damage your work even if you don't introduce it into your actions and so it is stupid and grounds for removal from a project.

(06-15-2018, 12:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree with you on that, completely.  I'm pleased that members of Mueller's team have been dismissed, due to expressions of personal bias.  That falls right in line with the opinion that you expressed.  By that same logic, I feel like any projects that Peter Strzok has been involved with, should also be called into question.

The DOJ is supposed to be politically neutral, as in "justice is blind".  It's my opinion that agents that freely express personal bias in communications, and even perhaps are involved in inappropriate relationships, have no place in agencies that claim to hold themselves to the highest of standards.  

(06-15-2018, 12:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:   By that same logic, I feel like any projects that Peter Strzok has been involved with, should also be called into question.


  

(06-15-2018, 12:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's my opinion that agents that freely express personal bias in communications, and even perhaps are involved in inappropriate relationships, have no place in agencies that claim to hold themselves to the highest of standards.    

(06-15-2018, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off the email exchange between the two show the highest level of Lack of Professionalism. I cannot imagine how anyone while serving in their capacity as a government employee could illustrate such personal bias.

Secondly, If their actions have been researched and determined not to be biased in nature then no harm was inflicted.

Finally, I hope the two in the email exchange as ashamed as they should be. not only did they display personal bias, they were wrong as hell.

(06-15-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They were personal e-mails.  Why shouldn't they express their personal opinions?  

(06-15-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They were personal e-mails.  Why shouldn't they express their personal opinions?  

There were multiple Republican elected officials saying worse things about Hillary on TV.  They are government employees.  Why aren't you shocked by what they said?

(06-15-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They were personal e-mails.  Why shouldn't they express their personal opinions?  

There were multiple Republican elected officials saying worse things about Hillary on TV.  They are government employees.  Why aren't you shocked by what they said?

(06-15-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They were personal e-mails.  Why shouldn't they express their personal opinions?  

There were multiple Republican elected officials saying worse things about Hillary on TV.  They are government employees.  Why aren't you shocked by what they said?

(06-15-2018, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell I didn't even know they were in a sexual relationship. Dude was most likely just talking big to get some trim.

Quote:Ad Feedback
FBI Agent Who Questioned Hillary for Email Probe Called Her ‘the President’—4 Months Before Election

By Terence P. Jeffrey | June 15, 2018 | 12:12 PM EDT


James Comey speaking at the White House, flanked by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller and President Barack Obama, on the day Obama announced he was nominating Comey to replace Mueller, June 21, 2013. (Screen Capture)
(CNSNews.com) - One of the four FBI case agents working on the Hillary Clinton email investigation—who was also one of the two FBI agents who interviewed her at the conclusion of that investigation—triumphantly referred to Clinton as “the President” four days after that interview—and four months before the election.

Later, on election day, in an instant message exchange with another FBI agent who had also worked on the Clinton investigation, this FBI agent declared: “screw you trump.”

The other agent said in the same instant-message exchange: “You should know…that I’m…with her.”
These two FBI investigators who were in a “relationship” while they were working on the Clinton email investigation later were married.
The report released yesterday by the inspector general for the Department of Justice referred to these two FBI agents not by their names but as “Agent 1” and “Agent 5.”

The report said of these FBI agents that “we identified two instant message exchanges that appeared to combine a discussion of politics with the Midyear investigation.” (The FBI referred to the Clinton email investigation as “Midyear Exam,” “Midyear,” or “MYE.”)

Ad Feedback
On July 2, the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton about her use of a private email server as secretary of state and the presence of classified information on emails that she sent through this server.

But, according to the IG report, the FBI had already decided not to prosecute Clinton prior to this interview--unless she confessed or lied.
“By the time of Clinton’s interview on July 2, we found that the Midyear agents and prosecutors, along with Comey, had decided that absent a confession or false statements by Clinton, the investigation would be closed without charges,” says the IG report.

Three days later, FBI Director James Comey unilaterally announced that the FBI would not be recommending that charges be brought against Clinton—despite “evidence of potential violations of statutes.”

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” he said.


Ad Feedback
At the same time, Comey thanked FBI personnel for what he called their “remarkable work” on the Clinton case and said that Americans would better understand how “proud” he was of these FBI agents when they had a “better sense” of the work they had done on the Clinton case.

“I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case,” Comey said. “Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.”

Because of information released in the IG report, it is now known that the day after Comey’s announcement FBI “Agent 1”—“one of four agents responsible for the day-to-day activities” of the Clinton investigation—had an instant message exchange with another unidentified “FBI employee” in which he talked about his interview of Clinton four days before—and called her “the President.”

Here is the exchange—verbatim—as presented in the IG report:
On July 6, 2016, the day after Comey’s Midyear declination announcement, Agent 1 and an FBI employee not involved with Midyear exchanged messages about the investigation. During the course of this discussion, Agent 1 described the prior weekend’s activities, which included the interview of Clinton. A portion of this instant message exchange follows. The sender of each message is noted after the timestamp.
15:07:41, Agent 1: “...I’m done interviewing the President – then type the 302. 18 hour day....”
15:13:32, FBI Employee: “you interviewed the president?”
15:17:09, Agent 1: “you know – HRC” [Hillary Rodham Clinton]
15:17:18, Agent 1: “future pres”
15:17:22, Agent 1: “Trump cant win”
15:17:31, Agent 1: “demographics dont line up”
15:17:37, Agent 1: “America has changed”
The IG report then indicates that officials from the IG’s office asked this FBI agent if he thought he had dealt with Clinton differently because he was convinced she would be the next president. Here is how the IG reported the response of “Agent 1”:
“We asked Agent 1 if he thought of Clinton as the next president while conducting the Midyear investigation. Agent 1 stated, ‘I think my impression going into the election in that personal realm is that all of the polls were favoring Hillary Clinton.’ We asked Agent 1 if he treated Clinton differently because of this assumption. Agent 1 stated, ‘Absolutely not. I think the message they said that our leadership told us and our actions were to find whatever was there and whatever, whatever that means is what it means.’”
On August 29 and September 9, 2016, according to the IG report, Agent 1 and the woman he would marry, Agent 5, engaged in an instant message exchange in which they expressed their mutual contempt for Donald Trump. Here verbatim is how the IG report presented that:
On August 29, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant messages as part of a discussion about their jobs. The sender of each message is noted after the timestamp.
10:39:49, Agent 1: “I find anyone who enjoys [this job] an absolute ***** idiot. If you dont think so, ask them one more question. Who are you voting for? I guarantee you it will be Donald Drumpf.”
10:40:13, Agent 5: “i forgot about drumpf…”
10:40:27, Agent 5: “that’s so sad and pathetic if they want to vote for him.”
10:40:43, Agent 5: “someone who can’t answer a question”
10:40:51, Agent 5: “someone who can’t be professional for even a second”
On September 9, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant messages.
08:56:43, Agent 5: “i’m trying to think of a ‘would i rather’ instead of spending time with those people”
08:56:54, Agent 1: “stick your tongue in a fan??”
08:56:58, Agent 5: “i would rather have brunch with trump”
08:57:03, Agent 1: “ha”
08:57:15, Agent 1: “french toast with drumpf”
08:57:19, Agent 5: “i would rather have brunch with trump and a bunch of his supporters like the ones from ohio that are ********”
08:57:23, Agent 5: “:)”
Agent 5 later explained to the IG that she was not attempting to make a specific criticism of people from Ohio in saying this. Here is how the IG reported her explanation:
“Agent 5 told the OIG these instant messages ‘referenced TV programming and commentary that Agent 1 and Agent 5 had recently viewed together.’ Agent 5 continued, ‘The reference was not a general statement about a particular part of the country, rather it was in jest and pertained to individuals’ inability to articulate any reason why they so strongly favored one candidate over another.’”
On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the election, FBI Director Comey informed Congress that the FBI had to re-open the Clinton email investigation because emails from Clinton’s server had been discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the former congressmen who was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Ad Feedback
At this point, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged instant messages expressing their disgust with Trump’s reaction to this news—and also with what Agent 5 called the “Average American public.” Here, verbatim, is how the IG reported the reaction of these two agents who had been among those who carried out the original Clinton email investigation:
Comey sent the first letter to Congress about the Weiner laptop discovery on October 28, 2016. Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged instant messages about the letter and Trump’s reaction to it later that day. The sender of each messages is noted after the timestamp.
13:46:48, Agent 5: “jesus christ… Trump: Glad FBI is fixing ‘horrible mistake’ on clinton emails… for ****’s sake.”
13:47:27, Agent 5: “the ****’s sake part was me, the rest was Trump.”
13:49:07, Agent 1: “Not sure if Trump or the fifth floor is worse…”
13:49:22, Agent 5: “I’m so sick of both…”
13:50:25, Agent 5: “+o( TRUMP”207
13:50:30, Agent 5: “+o( Fifth floor”
13:50:34, Agent 5: “+o( FBI”
13:50:44, Agent 5: “+o( Average American public”
The IG then reported how Agent 1 and Agent 5 responded when asked about this exchange. Agent 1 described it as “some personal comment.” Here, verbatim, is how the IG described their responses:
“We asked both Agent 1 and Agent 5 about these messages. Agent 1 and Agent 5 both stated the reference to ‘fifth floor’ referred to the location of the FBI WFO’s Counterintelligence Division. Agent 1 continued: ‘Again, you know, I think a general, general theme in a lot of this is some personal comment, or, you know, complaining about common topics and leadership and, and venting.’ Agent 5 also described this as general complaining to Agent 1 and also as an example of her being ‘very tired of working’ these types of cases. Agent 5 also noted that she was not involved in the review of the Weiner laptop.”