IG re Strzok: relentless biased comments, no proof of bias
| Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | provocative azn center | 06/15/18 | | Deranged gaping | 06/15/18 | | Autistic swashbuckling headpube coldplay fan | 06/15/18 | | diverse circlehead depressive | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Hyperactive wine shrine indirect expression | 06/15/18 | | Ultramarine Dog Poop | 06/15/18 | | copper bawdyhouse private investor | 06/15/18 | | French Brunch Weed Whacker | 06/16/18 | | razzle bistre parlor | 06/19/18 | | provocative azn center | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | citrine fanboi | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | provocative azn center | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | provocative azn center | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | godawful range | 06/15/18 | | apoplectic travel guidebook police squad | 06/16/18 | | Gay Trip Tank | 06/15/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/15/18 | | Cowardly Tan Resort | 06/15/18 | | Bat shit crazy area mad-dog skullcap | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | Cowardly Tan Resort | 06/15/18 | | Maroon racy home | 06/15/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/15/18 | | jade indian lodge old irish cottage | 06/16/18 | | razzle bistre parlor | 06/19/18 | | Talented violent stain university | 06/15/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | Cerebral at-the-ready tanning salon telephone | 06/16/18 | | Autistic swashbuckling headpube coldplay fan | 06/15/18 | | Awkward vermilion party of the first part | 06/15/18 | | Ultramarine Dog Poop | 06/15/18 | | twisted amber trailer park | 06/15/18 | | Maroon racy home | 06/15/18 | | godawful range | 06/15/18 | | Autistic swashbuckling headpube coldplay fan | 06/15/18 | | Cowardly Tan Resort | 06/15/18 | | Maroon racy home | 06/15/18 | | Deranged gaping | 06/15/18 | | Gaped Aromatic Business Firm | 06/15/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/15/18 | | glassy appetizing abode mood | 06/15/18 | | citrine fanboi | 06/15/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/16/18 | | Deranged gaping | 06/16/18 | | bright abnormal wagecucks senate | 06/16/18 | | godawful range | 06/16/18 | | glassy appetizing abode mood | 06/16/18 | | Deranged gaping | 06/16/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/15/18 | | Cordovan startling knife feces | 06/15/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/19/18 | | Chrome fighting elastic band | 06/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 15th, 2018 11:52 AM Author: Gaped Aromatic Business Firm
At least this is out there and people are talking about it, and reading between the lines.
Its hard to prove that bias results in some action. But the bias is clear and the actions are clear, and the connection between them is not really provable without an admission (although libs seem to believe in other situations that they can easily tell that bias causes actions with minimal evidence, so....)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251002) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2018 11:54 AM Author: Chrome fighting elastic band
"although libs seem to believe in other situations that they can easily tell that bias causes actions with minimal evidence, so...."
agreed completely. but it's also an issue for all of us. when you see direct proof of passionate bias against someone, you naturally conclude it affects behavior -- except for jihadists and anti-Trumpers, apparently.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251022) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2018 12:34 PM Author: provocative azn center
It wasn't ultimately Strozk's call, it was Comey's. Comey said he needed intentional or willful conduct to prosecute and had no evidence of that. It doesn't actually matter to his conclusion whether you call it careless or negligent because his read of the law, including past prosecutions, was that negligence isn't enough. And DOJ prosecutors weren't bound to follow Comey's recommendation.
Isn't this ultimately a legal disagreement about whether negligence can or should be indictable under this particular statute?
Couldn't Trump's DOJ indict Hillary anyway?
At some point this becomes insane deep state conspiracy mongering.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251306) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2018 1:05 PM Author: Gaped Aromatic Business Firm
CNN could be wrong about the distinction being of legal consequence. Would you happen to have anything in support of your argument I could read?
It might be Comey's ultimate call, but we're talking about actions by Strzok that stink of coming from biased and not objective analysis.
Per the article above: The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251537) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2018 1:39 PM Author: godawful range
Then that is an absurdly dumb fucking reading of the law. DOJ *constantly* argues for extensions and/or application of the law to fit new fact patterns. True, no case had ever addressed the intentional hiding of a fucking server full of classified information in a bathroom closet.
In what universe would DOJ not prosecute a low level employee for doing this? They would take the case 100/100 times. The fact that every single element may not be a guaranteed slam dunk has never precluded them from aggressively going after people. She should have been prosecuted precisely because she was SOS. She obviously new better, and should be held to the strictest standard as a leader. Instead, a double standard was applied.
Trump's DOJ cannot prosecute Hillary because the OIG just white-washed the entire investigation. They aren't going to revisit it, nor should they at this point. It's over.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251786) |
Date: June 15th, 2018 12:50 PM Author: godawful range
Imagine you are a prosecutor, or even a civil shittigator, and you have to prove an element of "bias." Then you come across the Strozk/Page texts, including the "we'll stop him" and "insurance policy" texts. On top of it, you see all of the FBI/DOJ working along side Strozk on the investigation are saying they fucking hate Trump, and his supporters are "retards."
I'd be parading those texts around the office celebrating how I just won the case. Outside of a literal admission, there will never be clearer or stronger evidence of bias.
Horowitz did a great disservice to this country by intentionally narrowing the inquiry to bias that could be tied to an individual investigative decision. That is a made up standard designed to white-wash. The issue is whether the people running behind the radar with great power are doing things fairly, professionally, and with some semblance of neutrality. Clearly not here.
Hell, even Mueller agreed. Three people have now been kicked off his team for this shit. How the fuck is DOJ able to reconcile that? They may think that this white-washing puts them back on the path towards repairing their credibility, but it does the opposite.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251429) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2018 2:33 PM Author: citrine fanboi
"Horowitz did a great disservice to this country by intentionally narrowing the inquiry to bias that could be tied to an individual investigative decision. That is a made up standard designed to white-wash."
No. It's addressing a typical argument raised by defense attorneys to win over juries and attack a prosecutor or cop's motivations. Maybe a cop used racist language sometime in his career. Maybe he was a racist and even had it in for the defendant. But, if there is no evidence that the investigation was improper, or that the evidence showing the defendant to be guilty of the crime was manufactured, then intelligent, objective people should conclude that the personal feelings of the investigator do not have bearing on the merits of the case. Mark Furman may have been a piece of shit, but I don't have any doubt that OJ did it.
Horowitz wasn't afraid to point out the improper behavior of agents and the lack of adherence to protocol in certain situations. But to say that invalidates all of the decisions that went into investigations is ridiculous. Our criminal justice system wouldn't survive such a standard.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36252237) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2018 12:18 PM Author: godawful range
Horrowitz was not addressing a "typical" argument made by defense attorneys about historical bias. Strozk et al were making these comments WHILE they were investigating both political parties. You see the difference? This isn't an issue of "dat cop is racist" because he said the n-word in 1979. They were talking about the actual targets of the investigations.
We have an FBI agent that is leading both investigations saying "we're going to stop Trump." By tying the bias issue to a *particular* "investigative decision," the IG created a standard that will never be met. Under this standard, Strozk would have to literally say something like "we're going to stop Trump, therefore I'm going to now subpoena the Trump organization to carry out this plan."
This is laughibly stupid. Compare what actually happened in the two investigations.
In one case, we have a person that was involved in potential criminal conduct (Hillary), because she built a fucking server in her house to store classified data. I.e., the evidence is real and was created as a result of Hillary's own doing. In the other case, the only evidence we have looks to be almost entirely concocted or manipulated by the government's "counter-intelligence" operation, and/or the DNC itself. So then we look at the sum total of Strozk and companies acts: at almost every opportunity they took the most narrow and lenient investigative path with Hillary, but did the opposite with Trump. And of course, these are all people working under an administration that is the same side as Hillary.
So yes, Horrowitz did a great disservice to the country. No one believes that these were fair and unbiased investigations. If the "standard" allows for a different outcome when it is so plainly obvious, then it is a dumb fucking standard.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36256118)
|
|
|