Itâs really quite amazing what you wonât find if you donât want to look for it.
Looks like there really were some definite election-year shenanigans going on at the FBI that Comey was apparently very sensitive to, just not the kind that Trump has been accusing them of. Seems like that field office needs to be investigated more thoroughly and some of the agents reprimanded/fired as needed for their anti-Clinton bias/activity in the last election.
Someone needs to pin him to the wall on that. WHY didnât he investigate, since the conversation between Comey and Lynch very clearly indicated that they were both aware of deep bias on the part of those NY agents, AND they were concerned that those agents would leak or were leaking information designed to influence the outcome of the election?
Does Horowitz himself have anti-Clinton bias, and did he allow it to influence how he conducted the investigation?
These questions need to be asked, and answered.
And, unlike all of the Trumpian nonsense about two FBI agents exchanging anti-Trump text messages, this field officeâs anti-Clinton activities seem like they may actually have influenced the election in Trumpâs favor.
Horowitz is clearly only interested in answering the questions raised by the Republicans in Congress. The FBI apparently considers Clinton bias to be the norm for all patriotic, good FBI agents.
Why is this story having such a hard time getting traction in the press, and why are Dems so apparently timid about pursuing it (as in the lack of follow-up questions at yesterdayâs hearing)?
Seems like they shouldâve been loud and proud on every Sunday show last weekend: âYou want to talk about FBI bias? A couple of lovestruck texts is all you got? LOL! Letâs talk about the NY Office and the leaks to Nunes that caused Comey to ACTUALLY THROW THE ELECTION TO TRUMPâ.
But her emails!
I donât care about anti-Hillary bias, I care about leaks to the Trump-campaign and Rudy (That could be caused by a Pro-Trump bias). Investigate the leaks from a nominally apolitical FBI !
This is what is so frustrating about law enforcement in the USA - I appreciate the law enforcement agencies and departments when they do their jobs and actually investigate criminal behavior by people, both high and low. But there is always this double standard. Too often people in power get a free ride and too often law enforcement is used to attack âliberalsâ and minorities. In this case it appears that the FBI is ok with agents having an anti-Democrat bias, or at least it doesnât rise to the level of being a serious problem. On the other hand, any hint of anti-Republican bias is considered totally unacceptable and must be thoroughly investigated and dealt with harshly if necessary. Why the Democrats donât make more of an issue of this, I donât know.
Has Giuliani reported the New York FBI agents who leaked information to him during the presidential campaign? As an officer of the court he is required to do so.
Probably the Democrats donât want to highlight the impact of FBI bias because they/we are counting on the FBI to ultimately bring down Trump.
He was only jokingâŚ
The sheriff, albeit a powerless one, is a vampire too.
Now that Russia is the new shiny beacon on a hill, Iâm sure the NY FBI is leaking a lot of secrets.
If doing so âgets in good with Donald,â how much better then to suck up to Putin.
By Associated Press | January 8, 2284 11:32 AM (Earth Standard Time):
NEW CHICAGO LUNAR COLONY (AP) â The lone member of the old GOP party, Dick D. Plorable (R-South Gilead), today leveled shocking charges against long-dead and one-time Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, claiming new evidence had emerged implicating her in the so-called âDilithium Oneâ scandal. When questioned about her alleged involvement in events that occurred over a century after her death, the representative suffered an apparent aneurism, and was rushed from the chamber by medical drone. Stunned onlookers reported his final words as, âBut her emails! For G-dâs sake, her emails!â
This is a classic bureaucratic case of not asking the question if you canât stand the answer.
Yup.
Iâve told this story here before, but when in grad school we had one of the professors who was quite an annoying type. His research area was user interfaces, so he produced lots of papers which those of us into the âdeeperâ issues in computer science found pretty light weight. Basically the students didnât respect him.
So one day, âsomebodyâ produced a fake paper, all properly formatted and printed out with his name on it and slipped it under his door. The content was just a collection of machine generated argle bargle, clearly meant to mock him, and being quite offended, he demanded the systems staff track down the offender.
Well, the systems manager dutifully launched an investigation, asked the most likely suspects if they had anything to do with the offense. The respose was âI didnât print it out, and he didnât slip it under the doorâ.
The offender(s) were never foundâŚ
You should. If only because the Strzok-Page texts have been used by the right as evidence the entire FBI was biased against Trump, while simultaneously ignoring evidence suggesting that anti-Clinton bias led to FBI actions against Clinton independent of leaks to Nunes, Giuliani, or others.
neo-Orwell says: âSome politically biased FBI agents are more equal than others.â