Cleaning lady

[webfact]

Report rebukes Comey, but says no bias in Clinton email case

By Sarah N. Lynch and Mark Hosenball

 

FILE PHOTO: Former FBI director James Comey speaks about his book during an onstage interview with Axios Executive Editor Mike Allen at George Washington University in Washington, U.S. April 30, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former FBI Director James Comey made a "serious error of judgement" when he announced shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election that he was reopening an investigation into candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, the Justice Department's internal watchdog said on Thursday.

 

But Inspector General Michael Horowitz also concluded in a long-awaited, 500-page report that Comey did not exhibit any political bias or try to influence the election. Horowitz also did not contest the decision not to prosecute Clinton for the email affair.

 

A long-serving law enforcement official, Comey became a controversial figure in the 2016 election, drawing accusations from both Republicans and Democrats that his handling of the probe into Clinton's emails influenced the campaign.

 

Comey later headed a separate investigation into alleged ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. Trump fired him as head of the FBI in 2017 and has frequently criticized him since.

 

Both sides of the partisan divide in U.S. politics are expected to use the Horowitz report to press their cases against Comey, who defended his actions in an op-ed published in the New York Times after the report was released.

 

"In 2016, my team faced an extraordinary situation — something I thought of as a 500-year flood — offering no good choices and presenting some of the hardest decisions I ever had to make," Comey wrote.

 

The inspector general's inquiry focussed on public statements made by Comey about Democrat Clinton's use of a private email server, instead of a State Department server, while she was secretary of state.

 

In October 2016, less than two weeks before Election Day, Comey sent members of Congress a letter disclosing that a probe into Clinton's emails was being reopened after new emails were found. Two days before the Nov. 8 election, Comey said the FBI found no additional evidence in the new emails, but Clinton contends the letter contributed to her defeat by Trump.

 

John Podesta, who ran the Clinton campaign, said "the report demonstrates beyond doubt" that Comey was unfair to Clinton by announcing developments of the email investigation during the campaign while not revealing the presence of the separate probe beginning in July 2016 into the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

"This report confirms what we have known for a long time - that the FBI inappropriately applied a double standard to the Clinton and Trump investigations which hurt her and helped elect him," Podesta told Reuters.

 

Trump's allies have signalled they will use the Horowitz report to press their argument that Comey did not act properly while overseeing the Russia probe.

 

VIOLATING POLICIES

The report sharply criticized Comey for violating Justice Department policies and accused him of usurping the authority of then Attorney General Loretta Lynch when in July 2016 he held a news conference to announce there would be no charges against Clinton for her email use as secretary of state.

 

Comey chastised Clinton for being "extremely careless" but said there was insufficient evidence to charge her with a federal crime. That upset Republicans who said Comey's statement could have helped Clinton's election campaign.

 

Comey said Lynch forced his hand when she did not recuse herself from the Clinton probe, even after a June 2016 meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard her plane raised concerns she was conflicted.

 

Thursday’s report found that while Lynch did not discuss the email investigation with Bill Clinton, she failed "to recognise the appearance problem" created by the meeting.

 

Trump and his allies have accused a clique of FBI and Justice Department officials of working against Trump.

 

The Horowitz report was highly critical of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two FBI staff members who exchanged highly charged political messages, finding their texts cast a cloud over the FBI and created the appearance of bias.

 

In one newly released email from August 2016, Page wrote to Strzok asking “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right!”

 

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

 

Although the report found no evidence that bias impacted decisions surrounding the Clinton email probe prior to July 2016, it said there were questions about whether bias could have factored into Strzok’s professional judgements later that fall.

 

In a statement Strzok's lawyer Aitan Goelman said the report, while flawed in some conclusions, found no evidence that his political views had an impact on the Clinton probe.

 

While some of their messages between Strzok and Page were anti-Trump, others took aim at lawmakers such as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Clinton defeated for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

In a written response to Thursday's report, the FBI said it accepts the findings that certain text messages were “inappropriate and created an appearance that political bias might have improperly influenced investigative actions or decisions.”

 

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Mark Hosenball; Writing by Warren Strobel; Editing by John Walcott and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-15

[morrobay]

OK the cows have come home and they are still discussing this subject on Fox News. My question : Is there any criminal liability in any way for any and all named above?  Can and will anyone be criminally charged for anything in this loose conspiracy? 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, morrobay said:

OK the cows have come home and they are still discussing this subject on Fox News. My question : Is there any criminal liability in any way for any and all named above?  Can and will anyone be criminally charged for anything in this loose conspiracy? 

You’re getting ahead of yourself.

 

The first question is ‘have any crimes been comitted?’

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, morrobay said:

OK the cows have come home and they are still discussing this subject on Fox News. My question : Is there any criminal liability in any way for any and all named above?  Can and will anyone be criminally charged for anything in this loose conspiracy? 

Judging from the above, no. No crimes committed and no 'loose conspiracy'.

[alanrchase]

Now it will be time to investigate the investigators who were investigating the investigation.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, morrobay said:

OK the cows have come home and they are still discussing this subject on Fox News. My question : Is there any criminal liability in any way for any and all named above?  Can and will anyone be criminally charged for anything in this loose conspiracy? 

Yup, Mccabe, wants to sing.He has been fired for lying/not telling the truth/ misleading the justice dept,take your pick. Anyway more to come ,there was 500 pages to digest! Two of the top FBI officials Director Comey and  Asst.Director McCabe were fired by Sessions.   Emails and text messages of FBI agent Stroz and Page felt they had to stop Mr.Trump.Knowing Comey's hatred for Mr. Trump, Comey took it upon himself,to personally handle the investigation and kept it away from AG Lynch. Senator Schummer was correct in saying don't get on the wrong side of the Intel,they have six ways too Sunday to get back at you. So much for Career professionals,real scum bags! 

[Tug]

So sorry Donald not much for you to cling to as you go down

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, morrobay said:

OK the cows have come home and they are still discussing this subject on Fox News. My question : Is there any criminal liability in any way for any and all named above?  Can and will anyone be criminally charged for anything in this loose conspiracy? 

 

Anyone who might be charged or who could give insight into who should be charged was granted immunity just for speaking with invesigators from the outset. This is one of the few times where the process of the investigation is at least as much corrupt as the substance of the investigation.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Anyone who might be charged or who could give insight into who should be charged was granted immunity just for speaking with invesigators from the outset. This is one of the few times where the process of the investigation is at least as much corrupt as the substance of the investigation.

You got some evidence for that? I couldn't find any.

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You got some evidence for that? I couldn't find any.

One off the top. 33k emails that were bleached out by HC lawyers after being subpoena by the House sub committee .

[bristolboy]

Just now, riclag said:

One off the top. 33k emails that were bleached out by HC lawyers after being subpoena by the House sub committee .

Are you saying that Clinton bleached out FBI files? What Macedonian source did you get that from?

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are you saying that Clinton bleached out FBI files? What Macedonian source did you get that from?

I didn't say that read it again("Anyone who might be charged or who could give insight into who should be charged was granted immunity just for speaking with invesigators from the outset").

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by riclag

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

I didn't say that read it again

 

I was replying to lannarebirth's claim that witness interviewed by investigators were given immunity at the outset. I asked him for proof of that. What do Clinton's emails have to do with that?

[lannarebirth]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You got some evidence for that? I couldn't find any.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/mills-immunity-228580

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/mills-immunity-228580

But this topic isn' about Hillary's emails and her staff.. It's aboutthe conduct of  agents of the FBI. 

What's more, your argument actually works against you. If Hillary's people were granted immunity for any past crimes, that would free them to testify against FBI agents.In fact, not testifying honestly to FBI investigators would put them in jeopardy of being charged with a crime again,

What's more, your claim is misleading. It wasn't anybody who was granted immunity. Some people were. And they were given only partial immunity.

 

[lannarebirth]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But this topic isn' about Hillary's emails and her staff.. It's aboutthe conduct of  agents of the FBI. 

What's more, your argument actually works against you. If Hillary's people were granted immunity for any past crimes, that would free them to testify against FBI agents.In fact, not testifying honestly to FBI investigators would put them in jeopardy of being charged with a crime again,

What's more, your claim is misleading. It wasn't anybody who was granted immunity. Some people were. And they were given only partial immunity.

 

Immunity is a "get out of jail free card",  it not only protects one from prosecution it also allows for one to lie, unfettered, if all others who could implicate you for your lying are also granted immunity, as was the case in this investigation. The question you should be asking yourself is why would any any of these people need to be be granted immunity at all?

Edited June 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Immunity is a "get out of jail free card",  it not only protects one from prosecution it also allows for one to lie, unfettered, if all others who could implicate you for your lying are also granted immunity, as was the case in this investigation. The question you should be asking yourself is why would any any of these people need to be be granted immunity at all?

The question that needs to be asked first is why you are bringing up something entirely irrelevant to the subject. This is about an investigation of the FBI. Not about Clinton.

And you are dead, dead, dead wrong about immunity. In fact, if you had been following the debate about the pros and cons of Trump giving people immunity, you would have seen that a big con is that potential witnesses will now have pressure on them to testify truthfully since they can no longer claim the 5th. To repeat, immunity does not give you the right to lie.

[lannarebirth]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The question that needs to be asked first is why you are bringing up something entirely irrelevant to the subject. This is about an investigation of the FBI. Not about Clinton.

And you are dead, dead, dead wrong about immunity. In fact, if you had been following the debate about the pros and cons of Trump giving people immunity, you would have seen that a big con is that potential witnesses will now have pressure on them to testify truthfully since they can no longer claim the 5th. To repeat, immunity does not give you the right to lie.

 

 You said " this topic isn' about Hillary's emails and her staff". Maybe you should check the Topic once again, which is " Report rebukes Comey, but says no bias in Clinton email case."

Edited June 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Maybe you should check the Topic once again.

It's about the conduct of the FBI in investigation  of Clinton's emails. Not about Hillary Clinton. Nowhere did I read that the IG criticized Comey or othe agents for granting granting partial immunity to potential witnesses. And once again, your invocation of the FBI's granting immunity to potential witnesses only vitiates the case you make. But congratulations once again on indulging your predilection for bringing Hillary Clinton into the conversation.

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's about the conduct of the FBI in investigation  of Clinton's emails. Not about Hillary Clinton. Nowhere did I read that the IG criticized Comey or othe agents for granting granting partial immunity to potential witnesses. And once again, your invocation of the FBI's granting immunity to potential witnesses only vitiates the case you make. But congratulations once again on indulging your predilection for bringing Hillary Clinton into the conversation.

You read 568 pages,already!

[Chomper Higgot]

I understand Trump supporters being disappointed, Trump wound them up about some FBI plot and built expectations that there was some ‘deep state’ coup underway that would be blown appart by this report.

 

The report comes out and clearly indicates Comey making (and trying to hide) biased decisions against Clinton.

 

Trump once again lead you down the garden path and you once again followed him.

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I understand Trump supporters being disappointed, Trump wound them up about some FBI plot and built expectations that there was some ‘deep state’ coup underway that would be blown appart by this report.

 

The report comes out and clearly indicates Comey making (and trying to hide) biased decisions against Clinton.

 

Trump once again lead you down the garden path and you once again followed him.

This isn't about PT or Mr. Trump or supporters, it's about FBI officials who weren't acting accordingly to DOJ norms.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

You read 568 pages,already!

I trust you’re not hanging your hopes on there being some statement hidden in the corner of those 568 pages that nobody on the planet has spotted yet?!

 

The report is another Trump misfire.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

You read 568 pages,already!

If anything in the report had turned up to support some anti-Clinton position, I imagine Fox would have come up with it by now. Come to think of it, even if the report hadn't said anything like that, Fox could have come up with it by now.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I trust you’re not hanging your hopes on there being some statement hidden in the corner of those 568 pages that nobody on the planet has spotted yet?!

 

The report is another Trump misfire.

That's because the Macedonians haven't had time to publish their version of it.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

This isn't about PT or Mr. Trump or supporters, it's about FBI officials who weren't acting accordingly to DOJ norms.

Right!

 

As in ‘Yeh Right’!

Edited June 15, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[riclag]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I trust you’re not hanging your hopes on there being some statement hidden in the corner of those 568 pages that nobody on the planet has spotted yet?!

 

The report is another Trump misfire.

I have  no hope that America can ever believe in the FBI again

[bristolboy]

Just now, riclag said:

I have  no hope that America can ever believe in the FBI again

And who appointed you to speak for America?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

I have  no hope that America can ever believe in the FBI again

Trump shares your hope.

 

He and his shrills are working overtime to discredit the FBI, the DOJ and the security services in an attempt to undermine the criminal charges headed Trump’s way.

 

 

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If anything in the report had turned up to support some anti-Clinton position, I imagine Fox would have come up with it by now. Come to think of it, even if the report hadn't said anything like that, Fox could have come up with it by now.

Hey, you said you read  the IG report,  "Nowhere did I read that the IG criticized".