Tailgate88 said:My thoughts exactly. That part is puzzling.redline248 said:
I still don't see how he could tell us all this stuff, and then say - even with qualifiers - no bias involved in the decision not to prosecute.
Quote:
7. And that he was a bridge between the FBI (Anderson) and the Obama White House.
Anderson - Holder.
Anderson - Newman - Obama.
Anderson - Strzok/Page.
Anderson - Comey.
Boom (x4).
That's one of the reasons why Meadows dropped Anderson's name.
THEY KNOW.
I think that might be Sally Moyer, who was outed by Meadows.redline248 said:
Yeah, that's not Strozk?
I think that's orecisely why Comey chose him. It's an attempt to muddy the waters ala Hillary/Cheryl Mills. These people are traitors who are obstructing justice.Bonfire1996 said:Dan Richman won't be one of attorneys for long. That m effer is a witness and potentially an accessory to a crime.RoscoePColtrane said:Comey has hired his close friend and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as his personal lawyer. Comey said Fitzgerald is part of a three-member legal team that includes David Kelley, a former deputy U.S. attorney under Comey in New York, and former federal prosecutor Dan Richman (the memo leaker), a Columbia Law School professor.Deats said:And Comey, correct?RoscoePColtrane said:Strzok's attorney, directly affiliated with the Clinton'sMooreTrucker said:Who is this Goelman, and why do we care?RoscoePColtrane said:
Fitzgerald is the godfather of one of Comey's children. Mueller is godfather to the other
If they draw a judge who actually follows the law, like Judge Ellis, that will end toot sweet.Quote:
I think that's orecisely why Comey chose him. It's an attempt to muddy the waters ala Hillary/Cheryl Mills. These people are traitors who are obstructing justice.
When are the next fireworks scheduled in Judge Ellis' court? I've lost track of the timeline there...aggiehawg said:If they draw a judge who actually follows the law, like Judge Ellis, that will end toot sweet.Quote:
I think that's orecisely why Comey chose him. It's an attempt to muddy the waters ala Hillary/Cheryl Mills. These people are traitors who are obstructing justice.
Not sure. He's been sitting on the Rosenstein memo for several weeks now.Tailgate88 said:When are the next fireworks scheduled in Judge Ellis' court? I've lost track of the timeline there...aggiehawg said:If they draw a judge who actually follows the law, like Judge Ellis, that will end toot sweet.Quote:
I think that's orecisely why Comey chose him. It's an attempt to muddy the waters ala Hillary/Cheryl Mills. These people are traitors who are obstructing justice.
Here's the latest look at the docket as of 5 minutes agoaggiehawg said:Not sure. He's been sitting on the Rosenstein memo for several weeks now.Tailgate88 said:When are the next fireworks scheduled in Judge Ellis' court? I've lost track of the timeline there...aggiehawg said:If they draw a judge who actually follows the law, like Judge Ellis, that will end toot sweet.Quote:
I think that's orecisely why Comey chose him. It's an attempt to muddy the waters ala Hillary/Cheryl Mills. These people are traitors who are obstructing justice.
This is huge.Quote:
- Hillary Clinton was Not formally under FBI Investigation at any time in 2015-2016.
- FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe.
Absolutely none of that was done here. Procedure was broken from Day One.Quote:
Basically, there are three types of FBI investigations that involve opening an investigative case file:
1) Assessments,
2) Preliminary Investigations, and
3) Full Investigations.
The latter two are grouped as "Predicated Investigations" because, unlike in the case of an Assessment, an agent will need to present some degree of factual predication before he can open one of these types of investigation. The type of investigation that is opened will depend upon the factual situation, and if additional facts are developed in the course of the investigation, the type of investigation may be upgraded.
As far as investigative techniques go, the Assessment serves as a baseline -- any technique that can be used in an Assessment can also be used in a Preliminary or Full Investigation. For our purposes, the important point is that the use of existing informants (Confidential Human Sources/CHS) or the recruitment of new informants is authorized for ALL three types of investigations.
They are either conducting a counter-intel probe or a criminal probe. The Hillary email probe was never initiated nor conducted as a Full Investigation into criminal actions. It was not designed to gather evidence, it was designed to gather information.tsuag10 said:
I thought I remembered Horowitz saying that sometimes in a "counter-intelligence" investigation, they might not name a subject/target. I might have heard it wrong though.
Is it possible that they classified it that way?
That's a line of questioning that should be directed at Wray under oath. The case in reference is and has been closed since July 5th 2016, throw in the reopening/closing 10/28/16 to 11/4/16 It's been over a year and a half. No reason Wray can't comment on it on the record. Ask plain and simple, 'Was the "Mid-Year Exam" designated "criminal" or "counter-intel"?' Depending on the answer, take the line of questioning that direction. Have them explain their applied methodology in general, don't need to see the evidence bags, just what were you doing that shows you were acting in the appropriate protocol that is hardbound in the FBI Administrative Policy/Procedures. The are different investigations and have different policy/procedures.aggiehawg said:They are either conducting a counter-intel probe or a criminal probe. The Hillary email probe was never initiated nor conducted as a Full Investigation into criminal actions. It was not designed to gather evidence, it was designed to gather information.tsuag10 said:
I thought I remembered Horowitz saying that sometimes in a "counter-intelligence" investigation, they might not name a subject/target. I might have heard it wrong though.
Is it possible that they classified it that way?
IOW, they broke every rule in the book. When they didn't have to, really. Convene a grand jury, present little to no evidence, Hillary gets no-billed and it's done.
Wray took an oath, he's Chief, It didn't happen under his watch, but it's his watch now. The IG report called in counter-intel as you pointed out, if Wray says the report is accurate, done deal. Then open a true criminal investigation, which I think they already have per Sessions January Press conference, and let real agents do their work, just want it on the record, deflect to the report is fine, he then owns that statement. I personally agree with the IG labeling it counter-intel.aggiehawg said:
In theory, sure, ask Wray. But it didn't happen on his watch so he'd just deflect back to the OIG report.
Ask Strzok.
IIRC, Wray neither confirmed nor denied there is an open investigation on Hillary. That may be emails, Clinton Foundation or both.RoscoePColtrane said:Wray took an oath, he's Chief, It didn't happen under his watch, but it's his watch now. The IG report called in counter-intel as you pointed out, if Wray says the report is accurate, done deal. Then open a true criminal investigation, which I think they already have per Sessions January Press conference, and let real agents do their work, just want it on the record, deflect to the report is fine, he then owns that statement. I personally agree with the IG labeling it counter-intel.aggiehawg said:
In theory, sure, ask Wray. But it didn't happen on his watch so he'd just deflect back to the OIG report.
Ask Strzok.
At first there were just wisps of smoke about something being hinky with 302s from the Strzok/Page texts about some "inflammatory" things being omitted in briefings. Now that could have been interpreted in a number of ways.Quote:
I don't honest know if these reported altered 302s is a red herring or not. If the #2 or the CI Section Chief were stupid enough to leave a paper trail on that, they better fire up the appellate courts 24/7. Can you imagine the case loads they are attached to over 20 years. That's taint that won't wash off. Reminds me of the Forensic Lab scandal in Harris county, nightmarish.
Those texts aren't just between Page and Strzok, They have McCabe's, Comey's, Baker's, Trisha's, Moyer's and many others, I'd expect.Prosperdick said:
So we're still missing ~ 37,000 texts? OK I'll be nice and pretend they were in a romantic relationship (still don't buy it) but there's no way they were sexting that many times.
I'll be REALLY generous and say 17,000 texts were relationship based which leaves ~20,000 texts missing in major gaps of time.
We can't. Please note that Horowitz himself said his investigation was not a reconstruction of the actual investigation. There were no inquiries into what they could or should have looked at, for instance. It is not in his lane to judge the thoroughness of what was or wasn't done. And the fact that this was never a Full Investigation of a criminal kind, instead a weird hybrid of counter-intel and an Assessment, it made his job harder to judge motivations on why they deviated on some procedures and not others.Safe at Home said:
There's something I still don't get about the OIG report's conclusions. Maybe some of you with legal investigation experience can help.
The investigation team is composed of investigators (like Strock) and prosecutors, right?
Although Horowitz acknowledged bias on the part of the investigators, he said he didn't find that bias swayed the decision of the prosecutors not to indict Hillary, right? But the prosecutors can only go by the evidence that the investigators brought to them. How can we ever be sure that the investigators honestly brought all the evidence that they found, or should have found, to the prosecutors. In other words, if there was damning evidence in the 30,000 missing e-mails, and the investigators never looked very hard for them, and as a result the prosecutors never saw them, how could it be concluded that bias did not enter into their decision?
First, we pretty much KNOW that the investigators did nothing *honestly* at all.Safe at Home said:
There's something I still don't get about the OIG report's conclusions. Maybe some of you with legal investigation experience can help.
The investigation team is composed of investigators (like Strock) and prosecutors, right?
Although Horowitz acknowledged bias on the part of the investigators, he said he didn't find that bias swayed the decision of the prosecutors not to indict Hillary, right? But the prosecutors can only go by the evidence that the investigators brought to them. How can we ever be sure that the investigators honestly brought all the evidence that they found, or should have found, to the prosecutors. In other words, if there was damning evidence in the 30,000 missing e-mails, and the investigators never looked very hard for them, and as a result the prosecutors never saw them, how could it be concluded that bias did not enter into their decision?
I've been married 20 years and haven't texted my wife that often...Prosperdick said:
I'll be REALLY generous and say 17,000 texts were relationship based which leaves ~20,000 texts missing in major gaps of time.
