Yep. It would have been better to release his report and kept his opinion to himself.
This is the part with which I agree. The FBI is a political player. But it always was. Law enforcement agency right down to sheriffs often are. Those who call the bias of aw enforcement agency an attach on law enforcement are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
However the conclusions I draw are different. If the FBI is so very bias and political then why wasn’t it’s bias called into question during the election campaign. Clearly Mr Comey acted out of turn and inproperly. He should have been fired in November of 2016 but the right would have lost its ever loving mind.
The IG report is what it is. There is bias. No evidence that the bias seeped through. The conclusions are left to be drawn by us and partisanship driving those conclusions.
This isn’t rational, this is pure emotion.
That’s interesting legal theory, but wrong. Violating an agency policy is not breaking the law. The statute requires that the agency sets up a policy. The policy was set up. The requirements of the statute are met. That’s the extent of the statute.
We are a fact based society (well, excluding the Trump cult) and especially so in our Law Enforcement institutions. No evidence equals no proof. Without proof, we cannot say bias affected the outcome of the investigation. Ergo, bias did not affect the outcome of the investigation. Pretty straight forward stuff really.
“If prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins is not evidence of outcome determinative bias, for the life of me, I don’t know what would be,” Gowdy said.
The “outcome of an investigation before it ends,” was the investigation in Hillary’s unsecure server."
The “outcome of an investigation before it begins” is the Russia/Trump campaign investigation.
Prejudging the outcome, is “textbook bias,” Gowdy said.
Fox news is right.
I wonder if Horowitz could find proof of bias in your post.
You realize this isn’t over yet, right?
There were hearings? The headlines were, all of a sudden, about Republicans torturing children…sort of like that had been held in reserve until needed.
That’s actually beyond funny.
Where in the statute does it say an individual violating an agency policy is illegal? What’s the punishment?
Why does recusal exist?
Additionally, what’s the purpose of the statute? In what way did Comey’s actions even go counter to the spirit of the statute?
Hit the nail right on the head. Great point!
He’s deflecting. You should just ignore him.
You’re absolutely right.
Your OP is excellent by the way.