General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMore Evidence of the Critical Failure of the IG Report - By Josh Marshall
June 16, 2018 3:52 pm
Yesterday I posted this lengthy post about a critical shortcoming in the 2016 election IG Report. Despite specifically being to requested to address the issue, Inspector General Horowitz basically ignored lots of evidence about bias against Secretary Clinton. Indeed, he didnt so much ignore evidence as ignore the question itself, specifically about anti-Clinton sentiment in the FBIs New York field office and specifically whether the fear of leaks out of that office was the driver of the October 28th Comey letter which clearly damaged Clinton significantly in the final days of the campaign. It turns out that I simply missed some of the clearest evidence for that anti-Clinton bias in the report itself.
Before looking at that, lets address another point. The IG Report is in a sense of a masterpiece bureaucratic document. If the effort were to hide evidence of bias out of the New York field office it does a poor job. It simply draws no inferences from that evidence. So, for instance, much of the report is framed around examining whether pretty good evidence of hostility toward candidate Trump (though by no means only Trump) affected the actions of lead agent Peter Strzok. But whether the abundant evidence of bias and actions by those hostile to candidate Clinton had an effect is just passed over.
I have not read the entire 500+ page document. My comments were based on reading significant portions of it and reading reporting about the portions I had not read myself. It turns out that meant I missed even more striking evidence of what I was talking about in last nights post. (Let me credit the sleuthing by the lawyer who goes by NYCSouthpaw on Twitter for alerting me to this.) This comes from the Inspector Generals interview with former AG Loretta Lynch. She is discussing a meeting with James Comey on October 31st, 2016, three days after Comey had sent his letter to Capitol Hill.
Comeys description of this meeting focused on Lynch bucking him up, saying that the information would have leaked anyway and that that would have been worse. Her description is much more extensive and focuses on Comeys own views of the New York field office (emphasis added)
Now, I knew that the laptop had been handled in a case out of New York. And so I said, you know, we have to talk about the New York office and the concern that both you and I have expressed about leaks in the past. And I said, do you think that this was the right way to deal with the issue, the concern about leaks? He didnt have much of a response. But we were having a conversation . And I said, you know, Ive talked, you and I have talked about that before . [McCabe] and I have talked about them before .
more
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/more-evidence-of-the-critical-failure-of-the-ig-report
duforsure
(11,885 posts)Doing the same thing as a few were mentioning negative things about trump, probably more, and where are those emails and agents at now? This was a obviously one sided story from the start , and even though they found no bias towards trump, there was some towards Hillary, which they failed to point out. They did things to hurt Hillary , such as leaking to rudy and others what was being found, or promoted negatively against Hillary. Who informed Ghouliani ? Who was behind that? This IG report is lacking real credibility, but when the House and Senate are retaken a real investigation will expose those who were leaking to Ghouliani and others for trump in the FBI. Mueller probably already knows who they were leaking to Ghouliani and others for trump,and probably watching hem now.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Comey was a huge reason, among many, as to why it's not thank you Madame President, instead of it now being what is desired by this potus, Heil Trump.
luvtheGWN
(1,336 posts)my first thought was that when he wrote "We'll stop him" it meant that Peter knew some things about Trump/Russia/campaign that if it had come out before the election, would have prevented Trump from ever reaching the White House. And, if not for McConnell warning Obama that this info would be far too "partisan", then it would have. So my feeling is that Peter's email was wrongly interpreted. Just my 2 cents' worth, folks.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Not a few rogue agents at the FBI.
jayschool2013
(2,312 posts)For Republicans, the question "Which came first?" usually involves bias followed by evidence. That means Republicans tend to already know what they want, then seek evidence to confirm that. See the conservative idea of journalism (Fox News) to understand that.
So when they look at progressives, they just assume we're doing the same thing. Fact-based journalism? No such thing. Everybody's playing a game, a scan, a con ... at least in their brains.
When Republicans hear someone say "We'll stop him," they assume the verdict has been reached and evidence will now have to be conjured to fit their game. They really don't understand the idea of fairness and justice. I really believe that has been lost in the 40 years among GOPers.
ewagner
(18,964 posts)Why isn't this being blasted over every talks show and by every Democratic Office holder in the land???
Where is our megaphone?
Why are we not getting "our side of the story" out????"
WTF??