Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Inspector General Report on Hillary Email Investigation

DOJ Inspector General Report on Hillary Email Investigation

Yet the details show that at every procedural step of the way Hillary and her team were treated leniently and given the procedural benefit of the doubt by people, many of whom were pro-Hillary and anti-Trump.

The Department of Justice Inspector General has issued his report (pdf.) into the FBI/DOJ investigation of Hillary’s email server and decision not to prosecute.

Bottom line: Democrats got the narrative they wanted, that the FBI was not motivated by politics in exonerating Hillary, and that Comey made serious errors of judgment in his October 2016 disclosure to Congress. Yet the details show strong anti-Trump bias pervaded the FBI people involved.

The details also show that at every procedural step of the way Hillary and her team were treated leniently and given the procedural benefit of the doubt. While individually the IG does not attribute this leniency to bad motive, collectively it shows that Hillary received unusually favorable treatment. The IG report fails to see the forest for the trees.

I’ll add more details later, as updates. Here is the portion of the Executive Summary devoted to the issue of political bias:

In undertaking our analysis, our task was made significantly more difficult because of text and instant messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by five FBI employees involved in the Midyear investigation. These messages reflected political opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and against her then political opponent, Donald Trump. Some of these text messages and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the Midyear investigation, and raised concerns that political bias may have impacted investigative decisions.

In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views. As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve of our report.


Here are some of the key conclusions, which mostly skewer Comey (emphasis added):

First, we found that several FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages—some of which related directly to the Midyear investigation—that created the appearance of bias and thereby raised questions about the objectivity and thoroughness of the Midyear investigation. 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. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

Second, in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decisionmaking. In so doing, we found that Comey largely based his decisions on what he believed was in the FBI’s institutional interests and would enable him to continue to effectively lead the FBI as its Director. While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice.

* * *

Moreover, these decisions usurped the authority of the Attorney General and upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions and the accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United States.

As we further outline in this report, there was a troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication between Comey and then Attorney General Lynch in advance of both Comey’s July 5 press conference and his October 28 letter to Congress. With regard to the July 5 events, Comey affirmatively concealed his intentions from Lynch…. We found it extraordinary that, in advance of two such consequential decisions, the FBI Director decided that the best course of conduct was to not speak directly and substantively with the Attorney General about how best to navigate these decisions and mitigate the resulting harms, and that Comey’s decision resulted in the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General concluding that it would be counterproductive to speak directly with the FBI


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | June 14, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Dare I say that this sort of thing is why we have a 2nd Amendment?

The swamp lives to fight another day. Doesn’t really matter how damning the report actually is (once people have had the time t9 read through it). The democrats and it’s propaganda arm in the media have got the talking points they wanted/needed.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to mailman. | June 14, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    Not if President Trump puts down his ginger ale and picks up a pool cue and starts playing whack a rat. If he does it, I’m betting on the blond guy.

    Petrushka in reply to mailman. | June 14, 2018 at 5:59 pm

    I can see a tweet:

    “The fake news won’t tell you what is in the OIG Report, so I will”

Bottom line: Democrats got the narrative they wanted

Yes, and so did a lot of Repubs who told us what a sterling character Horowitz is. Now, all they’ll tell us how “troubled and concerned” they are, as they minimize this blatant attempted coup.

    MattMusson in reply to moonmoth. | June 14, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    If it was not politically motivated then why did he do it?

    Are we saying Comey did not do it because he wanted Hillary to win. Instead, he did it because he was afraid she would win?

    So, it’s not political?

      maxmillion in reply to MattMusson. | June 14, 2018 at 8:00 pm

      The answer to that lies in the fact that they all believed Hillary was going to win all on her own, so they, or at least Comey anyway, wasn’t doing it to help her win. Rather, he was doing it to curry favor with her, since she was going win, he wanted his career to continue into her administration.

        Arminius in reply to maxmillion. | June 15, 2018 at 1:00 am

        That in itself constitutes a political bias. A) he wanted Clinton to win because B) that would be the best thing for his career and C) and it would have been the best thing for his personal life as he has admitted on TV that his wife and daughters loved Hillary and couldn’t stand Trump. They actually attended the anti-Trump Women’s March to protest his inauguration, p***y hats and all.

        The whole Hillary Clinton email abortion is galling to anyone who ever had a security clearance of any kind. Because no one would get away with the BS she got away with.

        1. The email server is the smoking gun because it demonstrates intent. All Foreign Government Information (FGI) is classified at at least the confidential level unless they specifically tell us otherwise. They can request that it be classified at a higher level such a secret, and we have to abide by their wishes as it’s their information. They own it; they’re just sharing it with us. Clinton couldn’t do her job without handling classified information and she built her home-brew, unclas, unprotected server anyway. If that’s not malice aforethought I don’t know what it.

        2. She told investigators that she wasn’t aware of the significance of paragraph classification markings. That is simply unbelievable. We have nineteen and twenty year old high school graduates in the armed forces with GENSER secret clearances who know what those markings mean. Moreover, playing dumb does not work in the court room if you are getting prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act. Someone like me simply provides the training records, my copy of the NDA, and the training log, and the judge looks at the jury and says, “This individual was trained to professionally handle classified material. Ignore her statements that she didn’t know.”

        3. Apparently there are no records to show she received her required annual briefings. She just got her in brief (without which she couldn’t have been allowed access to classified). That is not a mitigating factor. It’s an aggravating factor as the only way she could have avoided getting her annual training is if she deliberately threw her weight around and refused to take it, possibly accompanied by threats to fire her SSO (I don’t know if they use the term “Special Security Officer” at DoS but they’d have an equivalent) if he or she pushed the issue. So it could only mean she was attempting to alibi herself by refusing the training, then using the fact she didn’t get the training as an excuse for mishandling classified.

        4. She claimed that the information that was marked with the C that she wasn’t aware of the significance couldn’t possibly be classified because she had seen it in the press. This is idiotic on so many different levels. There are procedures for declassifying information. Some traitor leaking classified information to the press is not an approved procedure for declassifying information. Everybody with a clearance gets it pounded into their heads that if they see classified information in the press, you can’t comment on it and consequently confirm if it’s true. It’s still classified and has to be treated as such. Again, we have teenagers with high school degrees in the service who understand this. And you want me to believe that this concept is beyond Clinton?

        5. She told a subordinate to strip off page and paragraph classification markings and send the document to her via unclas means since sending the document via classified system was taking too long. She used the BS excuse that she was must trying to turn the document into a “non paper.” I happen to know what a “non paper” is and there are some absolute FOOLS who comment here who don’t. Or they’re partisan leftists who are willing to aid and abet Clinton’s lies. Because just stripping off the markings while leaving all the classified information in the document is not how you do it. Basically a “non paper” consists of unclas talking points. That isn’t what she asked her subordinate for, and moreover her subordinate wouldn’t have been qualified to produce a “non paper” of an intelligence product.

        She lied through her teeth. Comey lied through his teeth to protect her. Now the IG is lying through his teeth when he says the outcome of the Clinton investigation wasn’t due to partisan political biases. But then to be fair the IG specifically said he had “No documentary or testimonial evidence of partisan political motive.” Now I disagree; Lisa Page’s texts demonstrate plenty of partisan intent. She asks a colleague to go easy on Clinton, and then begs her boyfriend to assure her Trump would never be President. In one of her texts she told her boyfriend that he was exactly in the right place to protect the country from the Trump “menace.”

        But he seems to be saying that senior people like Comey and McCabe were smart enough not to put their political bias in writing. Or admit to it when they were being interviewed. That’s a pretty low bar. Disgustingly low.

          Well stated. With respect to Number 5, this is clearly the best example that shows intent, and at the same time, ties Hillary directly and personally to the criminal act, rather than conduct of a subordinate.

          I just don’t understand the FBI’s conclusion on this one.

        Arminius in reply to maxmillion. | June 15, 2018 at 1:41 am

        Maxmillion said:

        “… Rather, he was doing it to curry favor with her, since she was going win, he wanted his career to continue into her administration.”

        Even if you don’t agree with my interpretation that is in fact an expression of political bias, congratulations, you just described another improper consideration that led Comey to sabotage the investigation.

        “.Analytical Construct
        As noted above, the OIG undertook this review to determine, among other things, whether ‘certain investigative decisions [taken in connection with the Midyear investigation] were based on improper considerations,’ including political bias or concerns for personal gain…”

        Personal gain. The IG wasn’t just looking for political bias, or just personal gain. He was looking into all improper considerations that could have affected the investigation. It is my considered opinion that Comey is two for two. And since we’re talking about improper considerations “including” those two motives, they’re not limited to that. So Comey may have let other improper considerations affect how he handled the investigation. Like being a hero to his wife and daughters. Which I also consider political. Not purely political, but in part anyway.

Too many people all over the internet are commenting on what could only be called “soundbites” if found in an all day lecture. The report is about 500 pages long. No one has read the entire thing with comprehension in such a short time.

People are freaking out over tidbits of info taken out of context from the overall picture.

It’s akin to saying ‘Moby Dick’ is just a story about a guy and a giant fish.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to RedEchos. | June 14, 2018 at 5:54 pm

    So True.

    Who said “God is in the Details?”

    CincyJan in reply to RedEchos. | June 16, 2018 at 5:17 pm

    Whales are mammals, not fish. A 500 page report is a whale. Too big to digest except in small bits & pieces. This does notghing to reassure Americans that the DOJ is fair. How many people are losing faith in their own government’s justice system (DOJ & FBI)? How far can this go before serious consequences set in? And what would those consequences be?

Anyone who expected anything meaningful from the IG’s report is a damned fool. The rats take care of themselves FIRST.

JohnSmith100 | June 14, 2018 at 3:18 pm

No evidence? Hillary clearly broke numerous laws, and she made it easy for enemies of America to access classified material. As bad as that is, her giving Islamists access via her aid is worse. What would have happened to Hillary if she did this during or after WW2? I bet she would have ended up in front a a firing squad.

This is the IG, repeating that the players involved were “reckless but no prosecutor would take the case.” The IG just pulled a Comey. We got punked again.

Comey apparently testified to the IG that he didn’t know Huma and Anthony Weiner were married. And the IG just accepted it as if it were plausible.


    JohnSmith100 in reply to Matt_SE. | June 14, 2018 at 3:30 pm

    How in hell did Huma get security clearances? It seems like there should be some scalps taken over that.

Breaking news:


who knew that whitewash actually smells like bull5hit?


regulus arcturus | June 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm

Looks like a big whitewash. Disgraceful and disgusting.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Hiding the “we will stop him” text from all previous document releases PROVES that there has been a MAJOR CONSPIRACY to cover up the whole thing !
Gee, they seem to think nothing will happen to them.
I wonder why they think that ???

My2centshere | June 14, 2018 at 3:43 pm

Gosh it looks as though the report was wiped, like with a cloth. I really feel stupid for hoping for an honest report.

Connivin Caniff | June 14, 2018 at 3:47 pm

Now is the time for the President to get serious and become the adult in charge of the Justice Department. No, it will not be inappropriate for the President to intervene: without doubt, the Attorney General is a subordinate officer serving the President, and consequently so are all the treacherous minions under the Attorney General. As to precedent for the President being in charge, as far back as the Jefferson Administration, at least, the President was recognized as fully authorized, in the exercise of his Presidential duties, to involve himself directly into the administration of specific legal matters. Never has the need been greater. Mr. President, please do whatever necessary to eradicate these sinister creatures, whose greed for power is rotting our government from the inside. You are the last hope and the last chance.

I don’t know why people thought that there would be bombshells and smoking guns in this report.

No matter what any reports or investigations say … no matter what conclusions they reach—and what gyrations they go through to avoid reaching … it’s all just talk—mere noise—until somebody goes to jail.

So, I’m reading that the classified info handling at State was so bad, so horrible, that “Prosecutor 4” in the report reasoned that they would have had to charge 150 people, so they could not determine that this or that specific individual had specific criminal intent differing from the general horrifically bad practices.

Well, one, this was headed by a woman who nearly became President. Two, if I know what an unindicted co-conspirator is, Prosecutor 4 does, too. Three, behold, America, what has become of the concept of responsibility for the people under your leadership.

Just to say it here, and once, I’m viewing this report like I viewed Comey’s speech about Hillary a couple of years ago: exonerating the FBI and DoJ in the worst, most horrible, most damning way humanly possible. But that’s because this is ultimately a political problem. When people expect better, then we can talk.

    If they have to charge 150 people with criminal incompetence at handling classified information, then charge them, prosecute them, and jail them. We can always hire 150 replacements in the State Department, and they will do a better job.

    Pour encourager les autres

Not being capable of learning from experience, the conservative media will now begin to concentrate on those other investigations that have been assigned to DOJ/IG, expecting, without reason, a different result.

“No, No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions

“No, No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

inspectorudy | June 14, 2018 at 4:25 pm

With comments like “We will stop him (Trump)” and “He won’t become the president” how can the IG conclude that politics played no part in their actions? How can he look at the way hillary was treated in her “Investigation” and the way Gen. Flynn was treated and say there was no political bias? If the Repubs do not demand the original manuscripts of this IG report then they are truly the swamp people! We can all see that this is a whitewash and Comey’s idiotic statement of “No reasonable prosecutor would proceed with this case” will become the DoJ’s operative phrase.

    I’m hearing talk that the IG had little control over the executive summary and that this was massaged by the FBI and DoJ’s careerists. I’m not worried about that detail. I stand by what I said a little earlier: this is a horrible exoneration. Why, I’m even hearing that FBI agents up and down the chain of command were getting documented freebies from the media, like tickets to sporting events, and somehow this is tolerated. Imagine if the tickets were given by Exxon or BP, what people would say?

Going back to first principles…

Did anybody here NOT get that the Holder/Lynch DOJ was the most corrupt in history?

Now, consider that career people who are as fine and upright as you are TRYING to…

1. finish out their life’s work, WHILE…

2. walking the tight-rope of the DOJ culture under Barracula

I know…I know…YOU would have been so much better…

Maybe you would. And maybe you’re just being self-deceptive.

    I get what you are saying here. I think all of Comey’s actions (prior to his firing) should be viewed in the prism of a human and flawed man afraid to make a decision detrimental to a candidate for President who would shortly become his boss. Comey’s press conference in July was a masterful effort walking the tight rope with his future career in the balance, knowing in his heart that Hillary’s behavior utilizing a private server and destroying documents under subpoena was quite provably criminal. Comey, however, was no Soloman and his desire to split the baby only served to destroy his career.

    Rags will excuse any corruption to get Trump.

(((Boogs))) | June 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm

Halfway through report. The thing to bear in mind: John Huber’s parallel investigation. Since Huber’s appointment last summer, he and Horowitz have been sharing information, mostly one way—Horowitz to Huber.

Lots of potential criminal activity identified in IG report that Huber May shortly act upon. No new special counsel needed. Huber is that man.

    fishstick in reply to (((Boogs))). | June 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm


    if there was any there there, the media would be throwing stink all over it to try to undermine Huber’s investigation

    the fact there hasn’t been a single story or even leak trying to counter IT, that investigation is a dud non-starter

    it is far easier to believe (because it is so blatantly obvious to anyone now) Sessions is part of the problem and is the key figure enabling all this BS to continue as long as it has

POTUS has the power to declassify everything here.

I’m for that. Investigate all the things. Prosecute as warranted.

what makes this IG report even worse is that nearly every bit of info in it could have been found through various Google’d stories about what the report will entail from the past 3 days alone

I think the only info that wasn’t in it was one of Strzok’s text messages

ONE friggen text message?

it is almost like the Inspector General wasn’t even trying to find a crime or even culpability – because **hint**, he wasn’t trying to

this read like a complete whitewash of the DoJ and FBI behavior of their clear bias in the Hillary email server investigation as written from someone by the New York Post

THIS is beyond infuriating at this point because we had to wait over a YEAR for THIS?

what the F was in this report that warranted the security measures that it was given?

I mean they had THIS on lockdown for over 3 months for review?

it just reeks of bullshit

if our Waldo AG lets this report pass without even questioning the integrity of it – Trump needs to fire his ass on national television for being the inept moron he is

I think I may have located the single line that guarantees President Trump is going to cruise to victory in 2020.

IG REPORT: TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE..”all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing.” #Deplorable #MAGA #Trump2020 @realDonaldTrump

    Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 14, 2018 at 5:49 pm


    You think that one person’s bigoted opinion will assure a T-rumpian victory in 2020? That’s pretty bizarre.

    In fact, it’s sort of bigoted itself.

      Anger is a powerful motivator, and there are many who have come to admire and respect our President, even if you have not.

      So, yes, that line from the IG report puts a fire in the belly of all of us who plainly see our country is much better off now than we were before November 8, 2016….and I foresee success in the upcoming November election.

      There is nothing bigoted about it. It is only logical.

      I will pray that you develop a bit more circumspection before posting false assessments of others comments.

        Valerie in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 14, 2018 at 7:28 pm

        I think you’re on to something, Leslie. Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” line was a turning point in the campaign. Now, we not only have somebody repeating the gist of that line, but the Director of the FBI giving a speech that sounds like something out of Animal House.

          JohnSmith100 in reply to Valerie. | June 15, 2018 at 8:56 am

          Hillary may not have realized at the time that she was describing her followers, who are a bunch of deplorables.

          Look at Comey as one example.

        Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 14, 2018 at 11:42 pm

        Yah, no, Leslie.

        You were going to vote T=rump on any circumstances. But I can’t see any thinking American deciding their vote on the crazy you suggest.

        But keep up that pom-pom waving…!!!

        Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 14, 2018 at 11:49 pm

        Naturally, Leslie, you invert the “bigot” in my comment to make it apply to you.

        Such dishonesty! My comment was about the bigot you referenced. And, really, who gives a good shit about that person’s opinion?

        Would any thinking American base their vote on what some idiot said in an email?

        I guess your position is that they WOULD…!!!

          regulus arcturus in reply to Ragspierre. | June 15, 2018 at 2:26 am

          Self-marginalization seems to be your forte.

          CKYoung in reply to Ragspierre. | June 15, 2018 at 12:15 pm

          According to you and your fellow travelers, russian bots/trolls on facebook talked millions of hillary voters out of voting for her, swaying the election in President Donald J. Trump’s favor. So which is it, electronic communication/s can sway an election, or can not? Oh, I forgot. libs can have it both ways at all times, or any way they want at all times, facts and reality be damned.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 15, 2018 at 12:23 pm

          Another liar joins the “talking-out-your-ass” choir.

          I’ve never taken any such position.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Ragspierre. | June 14, 2018 at 7:20 pm

      That ‘one person’ seems to be the overarching theme of MANY PEOPLE who are supposed to be conducting an objective investigation giving no signs of bias lest it come across as a tainted judicial system. But you seem to want to give it a pass. [smh]

      regulus arcturus in reply to Ragspierre. | June 14, 2018 at 7:25 pm

      “Culture of corruption”

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm

    Leslie is Right.

    I’ve heard there are even Harvard-graduated profressors on the Trump Train………..

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 14, 2018 at 5:50 pm

I can hear Professor Jacobson laughing and crying as he reads the report.

The report is totally incredulous!

    No. YOU are “incredulous”, pretty much always. What you meant was the report was “incredible”.

      And with the Rags seal of approval, the corruption is acceptable.

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | June 14, 2018 at 11:57 pm

        As usual, your comment and bullshit is incoherent.

        I’ve excused nobody. You will excuse anything that the Great Goad Cheeto has done, does today, or will tomorrow. You have proven that.

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | June 15, 2018 at 12:50 pm

        Anyone here with a brain will note three things…

        1. I’ve addressed comments, not personally attacked the commenters, and

        2. I’m being personally attacked, AND

        3. this is yet ANOTHER instance where I merely comment, but the turd-swirl becomes a major distraction from the debate.

        Not that I really give a good shit, but if we’re being consistent…or honest…

          Anyone here with a brain will note the following: you are still picking fights, you are trying to paint yourself as both martyr and victim, and you delight in attacking other people, including LI authors, for no apparent reason.

          Here, for example, you clearly try to pick a fight with our Leslie.

          You explicitly state that the OP quote is bigoted, but you then very clearly indicate that you believe Leslie to be bigoted with “In fact, it’s sort of bigoted itself.”

          When she (quite rightly) calls you to task for this, you deny saying what you said . . . and that is right there, on the same page.

          Naturally, Leslie, you invert the “bigot” in my comment to make it apply to you.

          Such dishonesty! My comment was about the bigot you referenced. And, really, who gives a good shit about that person’s opinion?

          Um, you wrote, very clearly, that Leslie’s viewpoint is “bigoted” according to your estimation.

          You wrote:


          You think that one person’s bigoted opinion will assure a T-rumpian victory in 2020? That’s pretty bizarre.

          In fact, it’s sort of bigoted itself.

          Following standard grammar and usage rules, you state that Leslie’s opinion that the quoted material will affect 2020 outcomes is “sort of bigoted itself.” Then you deny that you said this. But it’s right there, we can all see it. That you have the audacity to pretend that you are not the instigator is . . . surreal.

          As if that’s not enough, you go on to provide a rude, unsolicited, and unnecessary comment about another LI reader’s word choice.

          Acting as the visiting Grammar Nazi, you wrote:

          No. YOU are “incredulous”, pretty much always. What you meant was the report was “incredible”.

          Why point this out? You know as well as I do and everyone else does what he meant and apparently didn’t even consider that his device changed the word. You just had to sneer and snark and strut your (imagined) superiority. Do you want me to apply the same editorial standard to your comments? It will take up a lot of my time because your comments, like everyone else’s because we are humans, are riddled with errors. Funny how no one but you is so rude and itching for a fight that they have to pick every available nit.

          As to your continued erroneous proclamations of victimhood . . . /eye roll. You know what you are doing, Rags(pierre) . . . and so do I. And so does everyone here.

          Are you incapable of interacting with others on a civil footing?l Or do you just feel compelled to attack other LI readers (and authors)? Everyone else is being fine, but you . . . nope, not Rags(pierre). We will, you demand, address you as you wish and we will bow to your bullying and unprovoked nastiness because you then post that everyone else is a liar and dishonest. What I can’t figure out is why we should do that. In this interaction with Leslie, it is clearly you who is dishonest, not Leslie. She’s too fine a person to point this out; I am not.

          (and no, I’m not 12-years-old and don’t insist that you call me “Fuzzy Slippers”; “Fuzzy” is just fine, and for my besties, “Fuzi” or “Fuzz” also works. “Ms. Slippers” makes me laugh, though, so avoid that at all costs; the last thing you appear to want is any humor or joy in your world.)

          Carl in reply to Ragspierre. | June 17, 2018 at 8:07 am

          Thank you Fuzzy, for calling out the jerk for what he is. Except for the predictably irrelevant comments of the jerk, this series of analyses of the IG Report has been the best on the subject I have seen.

Someone said the good news is, that there really is a deep state, but they are all morons.

First of all, there are apparently two “reports” here. One is the 530 page investigative report and the other is the much shorter Executive Summary. We will actually have to read the entire report to determine what the investigators found and how it matches up with the Executive Summary.

Almost all of the media reports concerning this report are being taken from the ES, not the body of the report itself. So, we do not know how accurate these conclusions are.

However, if the report decides that Comey had NO political reasons for exonerating Clinton, especially after laying out a prima facia case which should have allowed a first year attorney in the USAO gain an indictment, then they had better have come up with another solid motivation for the action which he took.

    snopercod in reply to Mac45. | June 14, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    Yes. Conservative Treehouse has warned that “Read, but don’t focus on, the “executive summary” or “conclusions”; those two sections were written by political administrators in FBI and DOJ leadership. Focus on the substance of the documented facts within the IG report. You’ll note the specific facts don’t support the “summary/conclusion”.”

      Lewfarge in reply to snopercod. | June 14, 2018 at 6:53 pm

      The details really are harsh, from what I have been able to read so far.
      It would be really NICE TO KNOW who produced the Whitewashed Exec. Summary !

    “However, if the report decides that Comey had NO political reasons for exonerating Clinton…”

    Incorrect assumption right there. The report claims Comey was not *influenced* by his political views, and therefore the decisions he made as FBI director were just peachy keen.

    And unicorns.

      Mac45 in reply to georgfelis. | June 14, 2018 at 8:52 pm

      You left out the second half of my sentence, which read: “… especially after laying out a prima facia case which should have allowed a first year attorney in the USAO gain an indictment, then they had better have come up with another solid motivation for the action which he took.” This is important.

      Comey’s announcement was not an accident. It was a conscious decision and some motive existed for Comey taking that action. In view of all of the evidence of political bias in both the Clinton and Trump investigations, if the IG wishes to claim that no political bias existed, then they have to detail what the actual motivation was. It could have been many things, other than political bias. But, based upon Comey’s years as a federal prosecutor and as the head of the FBI, it is nearly impossible to believe that he would not realize what an incredibly indictable case he had against Clinton. We may still hear the incompetent boob defense from Comey. Those are always interesting.

        randian in reply to Mac45. | June 14, 2018 at 11:15 pm

        “it is nearly impossible to believe that he would not realize what an incredibly indictable case he had against Clinton”

        After DoJ gave every Clinton aide either immunity (which apparently didn’t include a requirement for evidence against Hillary) or attorney-client privilege (even if they weren’t actually attorneys), and allowed the destruction of their blackberries and the server disks rather than seize them, I’m not sure he had any case at all. All the physical evidence was allowed to be destroyed and all the players were immunized from having to testify against Clinton.

          Mac45 in reply to randian. | June 15, 2018 at 10:37 am

          Actually, immunizing witnesses usually gains evidence, as the witness can no longer hide behind the 5th Amendment and not testify against the defendant. As for a lack of physical evidence, the FBI did have copies of some of the emails as well as testimony that HRC had classified material transferred to her unclassified server. What HRC presented was the classic incompetent boob defense. She didn’t know that what she was doing was illegal, even though she had received her initial training in handling classified information.

Can we have a post on the current FBI director’s press conference after the IG’s report was released, please?

I was struck that it summarized into “The report shows the FBI did nothing wrong, and we will have extensive training among all agents both current and new hires to make sure it never happens again.”

    fishstick in reply to georgfelis. | June 14, 2018 at 7:38 pm

    that is pretty much the gist of it

    basically a grandstanding effort into saying – believe what I “say” not as they “did” or “do”

    the fact Wray does not question the integrity of the Inspector General report as nothing really improper happened as it pertains to the Hillary email scandal – despite a mountain of hard evidence the crone had said illegal server in a friggen bathroom – shows Wray is not cut out to be the FBI head

    he just proved himself to be another Sessions, a gutless Republican too afraid to stand up to the department he is in charge of

Conservative Treehouse is at the best incompetent. They actually proclaim that Sessions is a “White hat”” as is Rosenstein. How incredibly is that!!!!

I wouldn’t quote anything they say.. anything.

We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing…

Who, on earth believes this nonsense?


    We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing…

    Who, on earth believes this nonsense?

    All the members of Team Anti-Trump…

The executive summary itself is pretty damning of the FBI as a whole. The only conclusion I can come to from it is that *it is a matter of FBI policy* that persons of be held to a different set of standards that the rest of us.

“Comey affirmatively concealed his intentions from Lynch”

He concealed his intention to follow orders and let Hillary off the hook? This report seems to come out of Bizarro World!

Dr. Jacobson:
Again, my many thanks.
But, aside of the report itself, I am more interested in hearing your opinion of what should, or may be the out-come of it.
The obvious criticism I have is… why bother with an investigation if nothing ever comes of it but a few strong words?
We Citizens are fully capable of strong words without the dubious honor of having to pay for them.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to snowshooze. | June 15, 2018 at 12:49 am

    They bother with the charade of an investigation because it gives the false impression that there is a rule of law. Once the idea gets out that there is no law, just the use of force to impose will; the powers that be start counting heads and realizing that they are on the short end of the count and not as well armed.

#DrapesDontMatchTheCurtains it’s a thing at the OIG

This report is even more damning than I thought.

Ch. V 86-87
“B. Limits of Consent Agreements

The SSA told us that the terms of the consent agreements were primarily created through negotiations between the two line NSD prosecutors, on one side, and the attorneys for Clinton and other witnesses, on the other. For the most part,
the consent agreements were limited such that the FBI was able to search only for emails sent or received by Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State and for evidence of intrusion. These were generally the same limitations that were
included in the subpoenas, search warrants, and 2703(d) orders obtained during the course of the investigation.

An FBI analyst told us that limiting the search time period
to Clinton’s tenure as Secretary was not controversial. The
analyst explained, “[T]he reason it was scoped to the tenure is because…that is of course when she would have had access
to the classified information.” We questioned both Department
and FBI witnesses as to whether emails from after Clinton’s tenure could have shed light on whether Clinton instructed her staff to delete emails for an improper purpose. They told us
that any relevant emails following Clinton’s tenure mostly would consist of communications with her attorneys regarding the sort process, and such communications would be protected by attorney-client privilege.”

I’ve been involved in national security investigations. The investigators would never simply make such generous assumptions about what your or my post tenure communications would “mostly would consist of.” Any thorough investigation would require the investigators to investigate for themselves. And check out these footnotes on the bottom of pages 86-87.

“73 As noted in footnote 64 of this report, the 30,490 emails provided by Clinton’s attorneys to the State Department contained no emails sent or received by Clinton during the first two months of her tenure, and Midyear officials believed these missing emails could contain important evidence regarding Clinton’s intent in setting up a private email server.

74 For example, one analyst told us that within the Blackberry back-ups on the Cooper laptop, the FBI team found an email from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Clinton on January 23, 2009, in which Powell warned Clinton that if it became ‘public’ that she used a Blackberry to ‘do business,’ her emails could become ‘official record[s] and subject to the law.’ In the email, Powell further warned Clinton, ‘Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.'”

More bad advice from former Gen. Powell of the “pottery barn rule” that cost thousands of lives and a decade of fruitless nation building.

What is very clear is that this investigation was a whitewash. These types of investigations always provide leads to other crimes. Such as obstruction of justice. But it’s clear that the FBI didn’t want to find evidence of obstruction of justice, otherwise they wouldn’t have artificially limited the email search to just emails within her tenure at State. They didn’t even take her word that she didn’t delete emails for improper purposes. They just made a wildly generous assumption that any post-tenure emails “mostly would consist of” privileged information.

Again, if it were you or I investigators would have investigated for themselves as it’s very common that people that improperly send, receive, and store classified information as Hillary Clinton did will try to cover their tracks. It’s difficult to do that automated information systems. So the investigators chose to simply look the other way, or rather not look at all.

And one of my questions has been why wasn’t Hillary Clinton charged with violating the Federal Records Act? As I said Powell gives bad advice; her emails wouldn’t become federal records merely if becomes “public” she was using her private devices. They’re federal records whether it becomes public or remains a secret.

And Powell even explains how he evaded the law. All of Hillary Clinton’s work related emails were federal records. It’s another slam dunk case.

No political bias affecting investigatory decisions, huh? The investigation was designed from the start with political bias. It was designed from the start with political bias. The FBI was going to artificially limit the scope of the investigation by not following leads to crimes that they knew she committed and were easily proved. That never happens for anyone else. Again, if it were you or I they would have vigorously pursued those leads. And then they pretended they couldn’t prove another crime that was easily proved; she violated 18 USC 793.

The fact that the FBI conducted a fraudulent investigation is all in this IG report, if you read it carefully.

We do not know what 30,000 emails contained but it is very likely that “foreign actors ” do because she used a private server and it is impossible that there was only “one” secret message.