I don’t care if this is looked into or not…im just interested in the rationale that people have to believe a discussion about 25-4 is tantamount to sedition?
That’s not politically motivated.
Cuz I’m not seeing it. It was a discussion. It went nowhere. Even if it had gone somewhere it was out of their hands of it succeeded or not. If it succeeded, Pence is President, not Pelosi.
UNLIKE, as I pointed out, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, which went far beyond a simple discussion and was completely motivated by politics.
Don’t understand why the “SEDITION” criers don’t want to render a judgement on whether the Radical Republicans were seditious or not.
25th is only small part in overall scheme, but it does show part of their intentions. Between conspiring on 25th to lying on FISA warrants, to spying on Trump to appointment of Mueller. It shows their mindset and their agenda.
It show a pattern does it not? Or are you going to ignore it?
“The SSA reported to Peter Strzok, who was then an Assistant Special Agent
in Charge (ASAC) at WFO.51 Comey and Coleman told us that Strzok was selected to lead the Midyear investigative team because he was one of the most experienced
and highly-regarded counterintelligence investigators within the FBI.”
Still implies he had more power than he did. There were line prosecutors above them making calls. No one had absolute power in the investigation which is why the IG concluded that the investigation was performed by the book.
Lets not pretend the IG report was some glowing endorsement of Strzok or minimization of the damage he did:
From the summary of the report:
“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.”
The damage was limited to giving the appearance of impropriety. It fell light years short of finding any evidence that the FBI behaved in a biased manner. The IG report directly contradicts most of what the conservative media wants us to believe about the midyear investigation.
I’m willing to accept the results of investigations. It would be nice if others could too.
It is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice
And when Inspector General Horowitz testified in response to a question from Senator Durbin on whether he believed Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were using their positions of government authority to achieve a political result:
That’s correct… I can’t think of something more concerning than a law enforcement officer suggesting that they’re going to try and use or may use their powers to effect an election.
Is the “large organization“ you’re referring to the FBI? If so, can you explain how the FBI is not an integral part of the Department of Justice? The FBI is an agency within DoJ; the Director of the FBI reports to the AG. FBI credentials state Department of Justice right on them, both ID and badge.
Commenting on bias and malfeasance of public officials who were leading investigations amounts to defending Trump to damage the country. Too funny.
It is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice
Horowitz could not identify any action that was taken as a result of the supposed bias.
Had anyone else been in his position, the outcome of investigation would have been the same. Which is extremely different than what we have been told by the conservative media.
There was no basis for accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors. They impeached him over policy differences. They would have replaced him with one of their own.
According to your logic in this thread…that’s sedition.
Their reasons were bogus and he did not violate the Tenure of Office Act.
Stanton had been appointed by Lincoln and his protection was limited to a month after a new President took office. Stanton had served long past one month into Jonhson’s term (corrected to get the actual facts correct- I had misremembered the terms of the Tenure of Office Act).
