Dirty Devin Nunes and the FBI Leakers

Those are quotes from the IG report.

FAIL on your part

 

Are you going to be clear about what is fact and what is opinion in your own posts?

 

Links are something your replies are sorely lacking. I haven't seen anything, in any of Horowitz reports, or in his testimony that references Guiliani or Nunes at all, and you haven't provided anything that proves otherwise.

 

The Executive Summary of the report contradicts the overall content of the report. It should be obvious that the summary was softened after 2 or 3 weeks of top DoJ people reading it. Horowitz testimony shed some light as well that there is a softening of findings.

It's obvious that there is an attempt to prevent a huge backlash against the government, by the American PEOPLE.

But the American PEOPLE will have the last word in Nov. AGAIN. Make no mistake, game OVER for dems, and anyone else advocating big government.

Steve

 

Huh?

So now you know better than the IG?

He was interpreting the data you saw and more...and that was his summary.

How do you come to a different conclusion? You have more information than he?

 

Do you need links to the Executive Summary?

They have already been provided but they can be provided again if you beed the scorn

 

Unfortunately for YOU and many other dems, you won't know what I was talking about above until election day. My ENTIRE post is a complete thought.

SURPRISE! again.

Steve

 

That was some rather unimpressive babble

 

That's quite the opposite. Your response cutting out everything except one sentence makes YOUR RESPONSE NONSENSICAL, as usual when you cut parts of posts. Or maybe you just don't know reading comprehension.

Steve

 

You could just cite the post #'s that include the links.

 

I'm sure Principleinvestment can speak for himself, but nothing you said refuted his quote that you were wishing to refute.

 

Which quote are YOU talking about?

You might have noticed your buddy is all over the map

 

"The IG report made public last week reveals that several FBI counterintelligence officials, not only Strzok, showed clear signs of political bias in their communications," was the quote that was not refuted. In fact the attempt to refute actually affirmed the quote.

 

And the executive summary looked at their actions and reports and found that even though they held partisan OPINIONS...their actions and investigations were not affected by those opinions.

 

..... which is precisely what the quote says, "showed clear signs of political bias in their communications." I suggest you read posts before trying to refute them.

 

Again...the IG found that even though they held partisan opinions...their actions did not reflect those opinions.

The "point" was pointless...unless we are talking about "thought police"

 

Though Horowitz stated under oath that the IG had not yet determined to what extent the agents bias affected the way they hanled the investigations. Horowitz testified that the OIG investigation was ongoing ... Horowitz report brought no resolution, and Horowitz didn't contend otherwise while testifying. You've seized on one phrase out of hundreds of pages, and it's a phrase that can't be reconciled with Horowitz subsequent testimony. Why was Strzok stripped of his clearance and escorted out? Strzok had already been disciplined by the FBI ... he was demoted remember?

 

From his opening statement in that testimony

With regard to the decision to close the investigation without prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations, including political bias, but rather were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.

 

Do you have a problem distinguishing between prosecutors and investigators? Prosecutors decisions were based on the evidence submitted by the biased investigators. Horowitz is investigating whether bias led investigators to withhold evidence, or otherwise mislead prosecutors. Strzok was demoted months ago, but physically removed, stripped of his clearance and has been issued a congressional subpoena. Wray disciplined Strzok twice for the same misconduct? And that misconduct was expressing an opinion -vs- inappropriate conduct? You'd think Strzok would would appeal Wray's decision. Protected speech?

 

In direct opposition to what the IG said.

 

I read what you posted ... "conclusions by prosecutors". Comey is not a prosecutor. McCabe, Strzok, also not prosecutors. In fact, none are are assigned to the DOJ, who prosecutes crimes the FBI investigates. These are the simplest terms I can think of to relate the obvious distinction between prosecutors and investigators. It's almost as if you are making a conscious effort to appear obtuse.

 

I suspect your complaint would be best heard by the IG.

Oh wait. It's nonsense

 

What complaint? And I did relate that Horowitz was questioned directly about FBI bias, Horowitz testified the OIG's investigation was working to determine to what extent FBI bias influenced the decisions made by investigators. I'm perfectly satisfied with Horowitz, and congress progress and continued efforts to resolve the issue.

 

So you're satisfied with the IG Report that said there was no political bias.

Great

 

Poster misspelled his name it's DEVIL Nunes!!!