If anyone tells you they've read it, they are lying - it's 500 pages long. Nonetheless, I'm looking through the Executive Summary here https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
So far, it criticizes Comey for his public announcement of the decision to not charge HRC but concludes of that decision was justified (as almost all legal professionals have):
We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined
that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice. p. vii
It criticizes a number of FBI agents for making comments in their e-mails that were politically inadvisable but:
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. p.iii
Don't have time right now to go further (dart league night) but as far as I can tell this looks like another nothingburger in the grand scale of things.
Originally posted by @no1marauderNot to argue for the sake of arguing but Comey's decision not to pursue charges against Hillary--by his own admission--were based on what he thought her INTENT was. As we all know, when it comes to sharing classified information, it's a felony regardless of intent. Besides, that means he is a mind reader. He doesn't know her intent. This is clear bias.
If anyone tells you they've read it, they are lying - it's 500 pages long. Nonetheless, I'm looking through the Executive Summary here https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
So far, it criticizes Comey for his public announcement of the decision to not charge HRC but concludes of that decision was ju ...[text shortened]... ht) but as far as I can tell this looks like another nothingburger in the grand scale of things.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou don't know what you are talking about; the actor's intent was an element of the specific charge (as it is in most cases of the Criminal Law).
Not to argue for the sake of arguing but Comey's decision not to pursue charges against Hillary--by his own admission--were based on what he thought her INTENT was. As we all know, when it comes to sharing classified information, it's a felony regardless of intent. Besides, that means he is a mind reader. He doesn't know her intent. This is clear bias.
EDIT: The legal issues are exhaustively covered here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/no-indictment.169323
My post on page 5 is a summary:
From Comey's statement:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
no1: Nor is "carelessness" even "extreme carelessness" equal to "gross negligence". Criminal gross negligence has the requirement that the disregard be "willful" and also that there be a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. There is no evidence of "willfulness" and prior Secretaries of State also used private e-mail accounts.
Unbiased legal experts have said for months that this was not a case that was going to lead to any criminal charges.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
Originally posted by @no1marauderNot to mention the hypocrisy of Trump revealing classified information to the Russians, in the Oval Office, the very next day after firing James Comey.
You don't know what you are talking about; the actor's intent was an element of the specific charge (as it is in most cases of the Criminal Law).
One couldn't make this shyt up! The filthy odor will ooze from the Office of the Presidency for years to come.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
Originally posted by @no1marauderYou are reading the executive summary. That was not written by by the same IG officials who wrote the body of the investigative findings. You have the >spin< version.
If anyone tells you they've read it, they are lying - it's 500 pages long. Nonetheless, I'm looking through the Executive Summary here https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
So far, it criticizes Comey for his public announcement of the decision to not charge HRC but concludes of that decision was ju ...[text shortened]... ht) but as far as I can tell this looks like another nothingburger in the grand scale of things.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleYes it was.
You are reading the executive summary. That was not written by by the same IG officials who wrote the body of the investigative findings. You have the >spin< version.
I'll read the whole thing when I get a chance, but the Executive Summary is just what it says; its conclusions do not deviate from the main body of the report.
Originally posted by @no1marauderDoes it have pictures? Hoople wants to read it.
Yes it was.
I'll read the whole thing when I get a chance, but the Executive Summary is just what it says; its conclusions do not deviate from the main body of the report.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleYes, we know Mott. Anything that tells you something you don't want to hear is the "spin version" 😴
You are reading the executive summary. That was not written by by the same IG officials who wrote the body of the investigative findings. You have the >spin< version.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyApparently not.
This is clear bias.
...We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias ...
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
Originally posted by @wolfgang59https://canadafreepress.com/article/media-headlines-say-ig-report-found-no-evidence-of-bias-in-hillary-investig
Apparently not.
...We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias ...
Originally posted by @Tom WolseyYou snipped 4 of my words out of several sentences, none of which had anything to do with the IG report.
This is clear bias.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Apparently not...We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias ...
Note that the IG report says they found no DOCUMENTED evidence of bias, but they spent 500 pages describing biased actions.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHardly:
You snipped 4 of my words out of several sentences, none of which had anything to do with the IG report.
Note that the IG report says they found no DOCUMENTED evidence of bias, but they spent 500 pages describing biased actions.
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.
page iii