IG report about FBI conduct ahead of the 2016 presidential election date set

Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced the date for a hearing on the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) report about Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials’ conduct ahead of the 2016 presidential election, including the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Originally scheduled for Tuesday, the hearing will now take place at 2 p.m. on June 11 and is open to the public.


Interesting. I take it that IG report will be ready for viewing before then.

The Blatant difference in the treatment of Hillary vs Trump = rigged system.

1 Like

Please, discuss the different treatment between these two prior to the election.

There’s a good chance that’s exactly what the IG report will say - but not in the way you mean.

1 Like

Hillary bought the DNC, and Trump didn’t buy the RNC.

Not sure why Obama didn’t protect Hillary’s DNC server if they knew the Russians were phishing.

Not sure why they didn’t send informants in to Hillary’s campaign to "protect " her…

.Is that what you mean?

1 Like

Not quite. I don’t know what “buying the DNC” or Obama has to do with the way the FBI treated the Clinton campaign.

How did “spying” on the Trump campaign affect the election?

Is that the only difference you noticed in the way the FBI treated these campaigns?

The FBI obviously was not concerned with ties between the Clinton Campaign and the Russians.

  1. John and Tony Podesta were right in the middle of dealings with Russians
  2. The Clinton campaign had no problem buying a dossier composed by the Russians for Christopher Steele
  3. Uranium One
  4. Oleg Deripaska
    …there’s much more


1 Like


You know better then that…that’s different. Only libs are allowed to have Russian ties.

Day before the NK summit.


Russia Scandal Befalls Two Brothers: John and Tony Podesta

Was Christopher Steele Paid by Russian Oligarch and Putin Ally Oleg Deripaska? New information casts the dossier he allegedly authored in a new light By Lee Smith


References con’t:
The media is ignoring ties between the Clinton campaign and Russians

Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle

…but the FBI says that the Trump Campaign needed the “protection” :wink:


Uranium One and the Steele dossier have no evidence of illegalities to prompt an investigation. Podesta’s lobbying has nothing to do with the election. The Russian government was not trying to destroy the Clinton campaign, not help it.

It’d be good if you brought up actual evidence instead of right wing mythos.

1 Like

Uranium One – Have you ever heard of ITAR?

Steele Dossier – The FBI is not interested in investigating. But the Dems sure are in a hurry to try to vett the report. Dan Jones and his company Penn Quarter Group received $50 Million to try to find facts to back the Russian fiction.

Neither did Paul Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine.
Neither did Carter Page


…so please explain what this Russian spy was trying to do:

FBI watched, then acted as Russian spy moved closer to Hillary Clinton


And what’s this all about?

The Russians Colluded Massively — with Democrats


Once again you’re wasting your time with forum libs. They have been in total denial.

But thanks for information thou. I’ve already read em but it’s good to re-post it for others to see and read.

If there were evidence of wrong doing in Uranium One, now would be a good time to post it.

The FBI is investigating the Steele dossier. That’s one of the ways we got to the Mueller investigation. Maybe you should be more specific about what you suggest they investigate and why.

Manafort was not the reason to start the investigating into the Trump campaign. He got scooped up in it. Page, on the the other hand, was meeting with Russian government officials and coordinating at least in part with Trump campaign during the campaign. It’s simply not accurate to say he had nothing to do with the campaign. Certainly Page wasn’t billing himself as such.

Oh conan, you talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, you run away rather than make an argument with facts.