IG re Strzok: relentless biased comments, no proof of bias
| Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Boyish station | 06/15/18 | | Comical white national security agency church building | 06/15/18 | | motley son of senegal crotch | 06/15/18 | | spruce rigor stage | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Yellow knife parlor | 06/15/18 | | avocado dingle berry | 06/15/18 | | cobalt location | 06/15/18 | | floppy house | 06/16/18 | | burgundy stead | 06/19/18 | | Boyish station | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Black talented kitchen | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Boyish station | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Boyish station | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess | 06/15/18 | | violent thriller address bbw | 06/16/18 | | Emerald locus | 06/15/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/15/18 | | magenta mad-dog skullcap | 06/15/18 | | Fragrant unholy area | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | magenta mad-dog skullcap | 06/15/18 | | Bronze galvanic trailer park | 06/15/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/15/18 | | Slap-happy nursing home | 06/16/18 | | burgundy stead | 06/19/18 | | vivacious hyperactive brunch | 06/15/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | Light Den | 06/16/18 | | motley son of senegal crotch | 06/15/18 | | Aromatic mustard heaven | 06/15/18 | | avocado dingle berry | 06/15/18 | | titillating liquid oxygen | 06/15/18 | | Bronze galvanic trailer park | 06/15/18 | | Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess | 06/15/18 | | motley son of senegal crotch | 06/15/18 | | magenta mad-dog skullcap | 06/15/18 | | Bronze galvanic trailer park | 06/15/18 | | Comical white national security agency church building | 06/15/18 | | Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry | 06/15/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/15/18 | | sepia passionate shrine | 06/15/18 | | Black talented kitchen | 06/15/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/16/18 | | Comical white national security agency church building | 06/16/18 | | Charismatic harsh windowlicker native | 06/16/18 | | Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess | 06/16/18 | | sepia passionate shrine | 06/16/18 | | Comical white national security agency church building | 06/16/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/15/18 | | razzle hateful electric furnace therapy | 06/15/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/19/18 | | Appetizing Sticky Spot | 06/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 15th, 2018 11:52 AM Author: Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry
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: Appetizing Sticky Spot
"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: Boyish station
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: Federal Narrow-minded Cuckoldry
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: Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess
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: Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess
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: Black talented kitchen
"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: Hilarious Learning Disabled Principal's Office Jewess
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)
|
|
|