IG Report: No Political Bias

Where does it say that Strzok had no influence? That would be in diametric opposition to the findings of the IG.

 

"Deep blue NY" has an FBI Field Office that is heavily invested in Trump.

And we agree on Comey. Those FBI leakers made him fear for his "legacy" and that was what was most important to him...so he "trashed" Clinton. That was the word that the IG Report used.

TRASHED

 

The FBI sat on this for over a month ... let that sink in while you ponder if they acted with political bias or not ... then ask yourself who the sockpuppet is.

 

Playing the link game with others ... this was testimony from just yesterday and its all over the news ... why don't you find it yourself.

 

Here's more homework about the political bias in the FBI and DOJ Lesh ... you can do the reading part for yourself.

What's next after asking us to do your homework ... are you going to ask us to start writing your responses too?

 

Let's be clear. The IG report did not say Strzok had no influence...it said his actions showed no basis to claim that his OPINIONS influenced the investigation. And they read his reports and reviewed his actions

 

You made claims you can't support. If you can support it ...do so. Otherwise we can safely ignore your claims

 

Survival ... maintaining his lofty, influential position, and his hefty compensation package ... that's what drove Comey. Comey's totally abandoned any professionalism, integrity, and commitment to serve honorably he may have once had. Try another tactic, because your never going to convince anyone "legacy" is what Horowitz "meant to say."

 

We agree

Survival ... maintaining his lofty, influential position, and his hefty compensation package ... that's what drove Comey...and lead Comey to TRASH Clinton and influence the election to help Trump

 

In other words, the IG report was not in diametric opposition to what I said.

 

No other words needed. You are flat out 180 degrees WRONG

 

Show me.

 

You have been shown and are pretending otherwise.

If you want to do this again fine.

State your claim AGAIN and it will be debunked AGAIN

 

You have not shown anything in the reports that contradicts that. I went back and checked. Zero, Nil, None.

 

And you're being dishonest ... see posts 84, 94, 103, and 105 in this thread.

You asked for these things and now you're ignoring them when posted to you ... noted.

 

Its being posted to him, after he asked for it, and he doesn't care.

You've done your part ... a truly interested person would have stopped posting the endless "show me" comments out of shame and started reading more. There was much information posted to him that he claims he didn't already know. It would take a long time to read up on these things, as most of us know, because we've already done our homework.

I don't believe he didn't know about this stuff ... he just doesn't care.

 

Are you calling me a lair?

Show proof that I am being dishonest

 

You can't even remember what your own claims were?

I'm not surprised...they were nonsense

 

You made claims about the IG report and linked to ...something...but not that...

FAIL

 

I went back to check if you provided any proof. Are you having problems reading? Maybe new glasses?

 

WTF are you babbling about?

YOU made claims that YOU can't support..

Keep up dude...

 

First how dare you allege you are conservative. Second, how dare you allege you are conservative. You voted for Hillary and that proves you are not close to being conservative. I am older than you and at our ages, we do yell at the TV. I used to watch my grandfather yell at the radio when I was a child. Granddad was no conservative.

You did not mention that Mueller hired virtually only Democrats. Where were the Republicans? Is the FBI so berift of Republicans he found none? Democrats have pounded on Trump since he was inaugurated. The way elections work, you don't pound the president the instant he is inaugerated. With no acts at all below his belt, Trump got pounded. The media daily pounds the man.

Imagine it is you being pounded daily. Can you function if a lot of us on the forum pound yu silly day in and day out?

You attacked Republicans so I am defending us. As to Trump he wears man pants and defends himself very well.

 

You said my comments contradicted the IG report. I have repeatedly challenged you to show where I contradicted the IG report. You have failed to do so.

 

I'm calling you dishonest ... you refuse to accept that the information you're requesting has been provided, with links, and you're still claiming that nothing was sent.

See below for a perfect example:

Post #94 is a direct quote from the OIG Report, from the bottom of page 38 to be more specific. That's what you asked for ... something from the report ... and I posted it to you.

Its dishonest to now say that it was not provided ... you know that isn't true.

 

Maybe I misunderstood. What were you claiming in post 94 that was supposedly illegal and why do you suppose the IG found no reason to recommend prosecution and no reason to castigate Comey for not recommending prosecution...