When you say it, it definitely doesn't have the same ring as a virulently chanted "lock her up!"
Of course, the same old "whataboutism" is trotted out, Jesus, people like you are pathetic. So she was careless by using a private email server, it was thoroughly investigated and the carelessness was duly noted. An IG investigation said that nothing the FBI did during said investigation was improper and in fact Comey revealing they had to look into email on Wiener's laptop a week before the election probably cost her the presidency. Not only that, agent Strozk had the equivalent of an atomic bomb in his possession to flat-line any chance Trump had, but chose not to use it, this important fact 100% nullifies any "OMG! he was biased" bullshit.
I don't know that there was any bias in the Hillary email debacle. The possibility exists.
The FBI isn't without it's share of spectacular failures over the years, so I don't expect them to be any more or less dependable as any other government agency.
We're all biased to some degree, it's part of being human, there is nothing imaginary about it.The possibility of basically anything exists, that’s why we look at what has evidence to support it and what does not. The case that there was bias in the Clinton server investigation has been examined thoroughly and there is zero evidence that any biased actions occurred. A reasonable and objective person would conclude from the available evidence that the investigation was not biased.
Since you presumably would prefer to live in a world where the FBI is not a biased, partisan actor against you this should be good news. Why can’t you take yes for an answer? Why keep clinging to this idea of imagined bias?
I don't know that there was any bias in the Hillary email debacle. The possibility exists.
The FBI isn't without it's share of spectacular failures over the years, so I don't expect them to be any more or less dependable as any other government agency.
We're all biased to some degree, it's part of being human, there is nothing imaginary about it.
My only point with the email investigation was that the fellow was a hard core Hillary supporter and shouldn't have been on that case. Just as he shouldn't have been part of the Trump investigation, an opinion born out by his removal from the case.
People aren't robots, our emotions and opinions color our perception, that's why we have the concept of a professional distance. Once you reject that concept, how can there not be some bias?
Reverse it for a moment, if the fellow had professed his undying admiration for Trump, would you want him on the case? Would you accept that he did his level best, that he didn't overlook some minor piece of information that would turn out to have importance? How would that be exposed in a review of the case or the methods used in the investigation? The reality is that we end up with two questions, do we trust the investigator? Is his integrity beyond reproach? That he didn't announce his admiration for Hillary at the outset brings that integrity into question. That he used his FBI provided phone to text the woman he was having an affair with, points to questionable judgement. His actions, though they might very well be absolutely honest and forthright, cast a taint on his integrity, and that is where my bias comes from.
We're all biased to some degree, it's part of being human, there is nothing imaginary about it.
My only point with the email investigation was that the fellow was a hard core Hillary supporter and shouldn't have been on that case. Just as he shouldn't have been part of the Trump investigation, an opinion born out by his removal from the case.
People aren't robots, our emotions and opinions color our perception, that's why we have the concept of a professional distance. Once you reject that concept, how can there not be some bias?
Reverse it for a moment, if the fellow had professed his undying admiration for Trump, would you want him on the case? Would you accept that he did his level best, that he didn't overlook some minor piece of information that would turn out to have importance? How would that be exposed in a review of the case or the methods used in the investigation? The reality is that we end up with two questions, do we trust the investigator? Is his integrity beyond reproach? That he didn't announce his admiration for Hillary at the outset brings that integrity into question. That he used his FBI provided phone to text the woman he was having an affair with, points to questionable judgement. His actions, though they might very well be absolutely honest and forthright, cast a taint on his integrity, and that is where my bias comes from.
We're all biased to some degree, it's part of being human, there is nothing imaginary about it.
My only point with the email investigation was that the fellow was a hard core Hillary supporter and shouldn't have been on that case. Just as he shouldn't have been part of the Trump investigation, an opinion born out by his removal from the case.
People aren't robots, our emotions and opinions color our perception, that's why we have the concept of a professional distance. Once you reject that concept, how can there not be some bias?
Reverse it for a moment, if the fellow had professed his undying admiration for Trump, would you want him on the case? Would you accept that he did his level best, that he didn't overlook some minor piece of information that would turn out to have importance?
How would that be exposed in a review of the case or the methods used in the investigation? The reality is that we end up with two questions, do we trust the investigator? Is his integrity beyond reproach? That he didn't announce his admiration for Hillary at the outset brings that integrity into question.
That he used his FBI provided phone to text the woman he was having an affair with, points to questionable judgement. His actions, though they might very well be absolutely honest and forthright, cast a taint on his integrity, and that is where my bias comes from.
Can you at a minimum admit that there is literally zero evidence of any improper official acts by the FBI? My emphasis is on ZERO. If you want to believe things based on no evidence I guess that’s your business. I doubt you apply this standard to other things in life though.
But it's been examined by the IG in a 505 page report and his conclusion was there was "no bias" in them not filing criminal charges. Shit, he dragged Clinton in front of a grand Jury and made her testify, it's not like anything was swept under the carpet. Everyone has some kind of bias, Strozk was defiantly foolish to use a government issued phone to describe his dislike for Trump but again, the FACT remains he had the ability with one anonymous "leak" to torpedo Trump and never thought of doing so.I don't know that there was any bias in the Hillary email debacle. The possibility exists.
The FBI isn't without it's share of spectacular failures over the years, so I don't expect them to be any more or less dependable as any other government agency.
Seems logical but what you're failing to realize is facts don't matter to some people.But it's been examined by the IG in a 505 page report and his conclusion was there was "no bias" in them not filing criminal charges. Shit, he dragged Clinton in front of a grand Jury and made her testify, it's not like anything was swept under the carpet. Everyone has some kind of bias, Strozk was defiantly foolish to use a government issued phone to describe his dislike for Trump but again, the FACT remains he had the ability with one anonymous "leak" to torpedo Trump and never thought of doing so.
Seems logical but what you're failing to realize is facts don't matter to some people.
That's an outright lie. That you even attempt to sell it as fact is outlandish.The man sent emails to his girlfriend professing his admiration of Hillary and hatred of Trump. That's fact, it's undisputed by the guy that wrote it. It's in the emails retained by the FBI, it's in the IG report, and in the congressional record.The investigation was not biased, however the reasons for going public in October were because comey thought someone in the new York offices were going to leak the information.
Of course we don't hear you demanding an investigation into that now do we?
He was not a hard core Hillary supporter. He was a Republican and he had contempt for a lot of people including Hillary.
Your ignorance and hypocrisy on this subject continues to amaze me.
That's an outright lie. That you even attempt to sell it as fact is outlandish.The man sent emails to his girlfriend professing his admiration of Hillary and hatred of Trump. That's fact, it's undisputed by the guy that wrote it. It's in the emails retained by the FBI, it's in the IG report, and in the congressional record.
Honestly, we have no more reason to interact. You've taken an absurd position that's indefensible, then call me ignorant for not accepting your lies as fact.
And don't forget that he pushed for a more aggressive investigation of buttery males.How did he disrupt the investigation? What exactly did he do, other than send emails and texts to his girlfriend about not liking Trump?
Stop waving your hands and give us some factual information that shows how/where he let his dislike of Trump affect the investigation at large. Either that or maybe it's time to just stop and move on to a 'better' talking point.
That's an outright lie. That you even attempt to sell it as fact is outlandish.The man sent emails to his girlfriend professing his admiration of Hillary and hatred of Trump. That's fact, it's undisputed by the guy that wrote it. It's in the emails retained by the FBI, it's in the IG report, and in the congressional record.
Honestly, we have no more reason to interact. You've taken an absurd position that's indefensible, then call me ignorant for not accepting your lies as fact.
I really hope that they have a few places where they are safely keeping all their evidence. I recall a story that during the Watergate investigation, they started bringing documents and evidence home just u case they all got fired. We know how that turned out. If Mueller were eventually fired and the investigation halted, I would not be surprised to see all their collected data speed across the internet immediately.
That's an outright lie. That you even attempt to sell it as fact is outlandish.The man sent emails to his girlfriend professing his admiration of Hillary and hatred of Trump. That's fact, it's undisputed by the guy that wrote it. It's in the emails retained by the FBI, it's in the IG report, and in the congressional record.
Honestly, we have no more reason to interact. You've taken an absurd position that's indefensible, then call me ignorant for not accepting your lies as fact.
You're talking to someone who is unwilling to accept the findings of the IG report.It is you who is repeatedly lying, he never "professed his admiration of Hillary"
That's an outright lie. That you even attempt to sell it as fact is outlandish.The man sent emails to his girlfriend professing his admiration of Hillary and hatred of Trump. That's fact, it's undisputed by the guy that wrote it. It's in the emails retained by the FBI, it's in the IG report, and in the congressional record.
Honestly, we have no more reason to interact. You've taken an absurd position that's indefensible, then call me ignorant for not accepting your lies as fact.
You're talking to someone who is unwilling to accept the findings of the IG report.
It does seem to be a case of ‘I don’t care what the facts are I know what I know’ at this point.
It’s important to recognize just how dangerous the GOP position is here though. They are saying people who don’t like trump shouldn’t be able to investigate him.
Only the Faithful can investigate the Divine Leader. Everybody knows this.
The most remarkable thing about all of this is people who obviously can't set aside their own bias project that lack of integrity onto the rotw.