God forbid that he’d recuse him self from Russia investigation knowing well he is biased.
Reason he DID NOT is that he wanted to transfer his bias to the result of investigation.
Typical Leftist’s “End justifies the means” here.
Which is why he’s had pretty well universal support from everyone on the left right up until now.
Even some of the democrats during the hearings finally had to admit his bias was nauseating and should have excluded him from both investigations.
1 Like
You would not be so lacksedesi with that if your ass was at the end of investigation.
That’s why IG should have concluded bias EXISTED and let the jury tell if bias was there or wasn’t and if he should be thrown in jail.
IG instead covered his ass by being vague and non committed.
Senators had to drag it out of him.
You’re desperately trying to take conversation in a different direction…ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …ahem…
He was forced to admit the common sense. Sad.
That’s one way of looking at it.
2 D. By this title, the FBI is required to put policy in place to meet the requirements of the statute, which they did. He violated them.
Violation of policy.
If I’m innocent, I don’t have an issue with someone being biased against me.
By asking why he repeated himself? Please, tell us more.
@conan check it out
Like most bureaucratic institutions, the FBI’s primary loyalty is to its own interests, and when it intervenes in politics, that tends to be in its own service.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/552686/
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.
3 Likes
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.
What’s another?
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.
1 Like
“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.
2 Likes
What is?
10
You’re wrong.
