.....
Claiming his bias didn't impact what he did is a lie. There is a reason a judge, lawyer, etc cannot be on a case which they have shown bias towards on side or another. It's impossible not be prejudice. People in charge of applying rules to others, should not be running a case, or applying rules where they have shown an obvious bias towards. That's a fact. Denying it is simply lying and proving me right.
So my words are not used against me, I'm talking about this instance only.
Were they soliciting contributions? This would be the first time I've heard that. Much depends on what was expected from that meeting, why it was arranged, and what actually transpired. Those are the questions the FBI is supposed to answer.
Edit: I'll say it again. If Trump committed the crimes many of you think he did, I hope he's impeached and imprisoned. But I need more than hearsay to conclude guilt. There has to be proof of a crime, for impeachment, I'll accept intent to commit a crime. So far, we don't have that. We have hearsay, rumor, wishful thinking and wild speculation. None of those things are actionable.
The AG said he showed no bias ok can we drop that? Or you don't believe that either?
Also and again if he wanted to sink trump he could of, how many times must this be said
I'll repeat that, if he wanted to sink trump he could of, how many times must this be said
3rd time?
Even more seriously, text messages between Strzok and Page pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation
The AG believed there was misconduct/bias from Strzok but that it did not impact/bias the decisions of the federal prosecutors. Do you think this is a no harm, no foul scenario? Do you think he should just keep working at the FBI?
Here is the quote from the AG report.
Uhmmm, you might want to read the next two sentences in your own quote. It says that there is no evidence that it affected the investigative actions from chapter 5, and chapter 5 is about the entire investigation, including Strzok’s actions within it.
The IG report unambiguously says that there is no evidence of any biased official actions by Strzok or anyone else. The report condemns him for making statements that imply bad official acts, it does not condemn him for any actual bad official acts because it found no evidence of them.
The AG believed there was misconduct/bias from Strzok but that it did not impact/bias the decisions of the federal prosecutors. Do you think this is a no harm, no foul scenario? Do you think he should just keep working at the FBI?
Here is the quote from the AG report.
I just quoted where the AG clearly stated there was bias. You are trying to make the case that Strzok wasn't biased because future actions of the FBI weren't impacted by the bias. Just because the FBI didn't act upon Strzok's bias doesn't mean that Strzok wasn't biased.
The AG believed there was misconduct/bias from Strzok but that it did not impact/bias the decisions of the federal prosecutors. Do you think this is a no harm, no foul scenario? Do you think he should just keep working at the FBI?
Here is the quote from the AG report.
I just quoted where the AG clearly stated there was bias. You are trying to make the case that Strzok wasn't biased because future actions of the FBI weren't impacted by the bias. Just because the FBI didn't act upon Strzok's bias doesn't mean that Strzok wasn't biased.
I just quoted where the AG clearly stated there was bias. You are trying to make the case that Strzok wasn't biased because future actions of the FBI weren't impacted by the bias. Just because the FBI didn't act upon Strzok's bias doesn't mean that Strzok wasn't biased.
And yet his personal bias did not manifest itself in the investigation per your quote.
You also quoted where the IG clearly said no biased actions were taken.
There is no prohibition on holding biased opinions about someone in any federal or FBI regulation that exists. This is the case for two primary reasons - 1) that requirement would be unconstitutional and 2) they would have to disband the FBI if agent’s weren’t allowed to have opinions about those they investigated.
What IS prohibited is improper official actions that might stem from such bias. The IG report, as you quoted, said there was no evidence of any improper actions during the conduct of the investigation. This would include all official acts by Strzok.
As I’ve said earlier in this thread take politics out of it for a second and look at it objectively. To use a pop culture example are you saying that the FBI agents in the Sopranos should have all been fired because they made repeated statements about their personal dislike of Tony Soprano? If not, why is this different? The president gets no special exemptions here.
And yet his personal bias did not manifest itself in the investigation per your quote.
Correct, so does this becomes a No Harm, no Foul situation? My original question was to ask, should Strzok keep his job because he failed to succeed in his nefarious plan?
It is possible that Strzok is the Angel that he says he his but the tone of the AG is that what Strzok did violated the integrity of the FBI. That is a pretty serious accusation.
It is possible that Strzok is the Angel that he says he his but the tone of the AG is that what Strzok did violated the integrity of the FBI. That is a pretty serious accusation.
I don’t care if he’s an angel or not. It doesn’t change the fact that the IG found no evidence of any improper official actions by him. I frankly don’t care what he thinks or what he says to his mistresses.
If we are going to investigate the FBI at all I would be interested into an investigation of the pro-Trump bias in the NYC FBI office. Comey has said that he released his statement in part because he was afraid that information from Wiener’s laptop would leak. Ie: the director of the FBI acted because he thought professional misconduct would occur if he did not.
It is possible that Strzok is the Angel that he says he his but the tone of the AG is that what Strzok did violated the integrity of the FBI. That is a pretty serious accusation.
Gowdy tried to badger Strzok to make that point and failed. The fact is that he had to leave because his texts might cause the very thing Reps did which is to seize on his texts and fixate on the personal to discredit him, Mueller and indeed the FBI for their own biases as representatives.
Gowdy tried to badger Strzok to make that point and failed. The fact is that he had to leave because his texts might cause the very thing Reps did which is to seize on his texts and fixate on the personal to discredit him, Mueller and indeed the FBI for their own biases as representatives.
What nefarious plan?Correct, so does this becomes a No Harm, no Foul situation? My original question was to ask, should Strzok keep his job because he failed to succeed in his nefarious plan?
Does anyone really think
That's not necessarily collusion. Collusion is two or more parties working together to commit a crime. Meeting with Russians for dirt on Hillary doesn't make the grade. What they did (or intended to do) with that information could be. So the next question is, what information did the Trumpets (love that name) receive, and what did they do with it? I don't know the answer to that.