Man. Read the full report and then come back here and try again. One of the biggest takeaways from the report was the confirmation that the FBI acted appropriately in not charging Clinton based on existing law, precedent, and multiple other cases that were of equivalent nature to Clinton.
I don’t like it much either, because for years I thought she should have been charged and prosecuted. But it looks like I was wrong. I accept that. After you read the report, will you? Or are you too far down the rabbit hole?
AGAIN, the IG says that they found the FBI had good and legal reason to believe as they did; that he could not find evidence that they either ignored laws or deliberately made conclusion that were counter to their interpretation.
The IG DOES NOT say that the FBI was CORRECT to rule as they did. That is NOT the job of the IG, just as it was NOT Comey’s job to make that decision, either.
The IG knows that there are extremely credible AGs and former AGs that disagree with the FBI’s assessment at that time and that it was a matter of interpretation - NOT that there is ANY ONE CORRECT analysis.
All the IG is saying essentially is “I found no evidence that Comey and his top guys subverted the law as they saw the law.”
That is NOT the same thing as saying, “Clinton was innocent of any crime”. That is NOT his determination to make and he is not trying to make it.
The report concluded that they could find no documentary evidence that political bias was the determining factor; that the top FBI guys had good reason to decide what they did.
No.
That’s where you go off the rails.
If the IG wanted to say, "I agree with their conclusions. Hillary Clinton was not guilty " he would have SAID THAT. He didn’t say that because he is NOT supposed to make that determination. He knows that for every guy at the FBI who concluded that she should not be charged there are just as many - if not far more - people who have been in the position to make that determination who says she SHOULD HAVE been charged.
The report makes NO determination on the guilt or innocence of Clinton. That is NOT the purpose of the report. It simply says that he could NOT find documentary evidence that the Clinton case was determined by bias; that they had reasons that were credible to rule as they did.
BUT, he also says the evidence of political bias at the FBI - especially at the upper echelons - was CLEAR. That’s why he made FIVE additional referrals today, too.
I understand that it’s not the IG’s place to determine whether or not Clinton was guilty. It’s his job to determine that nothing untoward occurred - which is exactly what he found.
The report also cites precedent for why Clinton was not charged, and breaks down the elements of the law, and explains why they didn’t apply in Clinton’s case.
From the perspective of the IG, if Comey didn’t do anything wrong, then he what he did was right. That’s how the system works.
No, he didn’t find that nothing untoward occurred. He found great bias that stains the credibility of their conclusions. He just didn’t find documentary evidence that their bias directly affected their conclusions:
“There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions…,” the report read. “Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.”
AGAIN…."Cast a cloud over…the investigation’s credibility"
The report cites those to show that the FBI had legal reasons to conclude what they did - NOT to say their conclusions were correct. There are ALSO legal reason to conclude she should have been charged and the IG KNOWS that.
You’re trying to back-handedly say the IG ENDORSES their decision. He does not and cannot. He is just saying that they could show a legal reason to do what they did. I don’t disagree, but I also know there are LEGAL reasons to charge her, as well that others could show.
He ALSO said there was CLEAR evidence of political bias at that level of the FBI and that it was pervasive enough to taint the conclusions of the case.
Oh, the report EXCORIATES Comey . It just says they could find no documentary evidence that he decided the Clinton case based on political bias.
FBI investigations aren’t done by the seat of their pants. Everything was written down. Every step of the investigation is documented, in full. The report examined each and every one of those steps, and determined that there was no evidence to suggest that bias had affected any official decision.
In fact, the report notes that in meetings, Strozk and Page were harsher on Clinton than other team members.
You’re totally make that up. You have NO IDEA what was and wasn’t documented or EVEN if the IG has seen everything there is to see, even now.
What we HAVE SEEN is CLEAR PROOF of political bias of the harshest kind. The IG just has no one going on record as using their bias to make a decision.
Just a lot of messages that describe what needs to happen, as in they do not want to go hard on Clinton, as they believe she will be the next president; as in they need to stop Trump; as in they need insurance policies, should he actually win.
The report does not say and cannot say, “we know we have everything there is to see” In fact, we know that Peter Strzok went outside the normal channels when he tried to keep the Huma computer from being investigated as soon as he became aware of it. When ELSE did he go outside the normal channels?
We now also know that Comey was using personal email during this time, too, for some of his work. This nonsense that everything was precisely documented as it should have been and therefore we have it all has NOT been substantiated by the IG.
We DO NOT KNOW that we have everything or that the IG has seen everything and the IG makes no such claim. All he can do is report on what he has seen.
