Watchdog report finds FBI not motivated by political bias in Trump probe

What old account are you talking about? I've gone by this name since the first days of the Xbox 360.

You said you have been here since 2016, your account is from 2019.

I said I wasn't here before 2016 (the elections). I never said I was here since 2016.

Then why make such false statement? If I told you I wasn't here before 2006, it is logical to assume I have been here since (sometime in) 2006. If I didn't show up before 2012, why on earth post it as not being here before 2006, when I wasn't here for the next 6 years either.

So, if you actually read at least the executive summary, you will learn that the phrase used is:

"...we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation..."

That is not the same as the widely reported, Watchdog report finds FBI not motivated by political bias.

What the IG is telling us is:

A. They found no documentary evidence, i.e. no one involved was stupid enough to leave an email or other doc that said "I hate Trump so much I'm going to lie to the FISA court". Gee, big surprise no one was that blatantly obvious.

and

B. They found no testimonial evidence, i.e. no one they interviewed was stupid enough to admit in an interview with the IG, that they were politically motivated. Given that the IG has no "teeth", i.e. he cannot put anyone in legal jeopardy, is anyone surprised that no one adnitted to being politically motivated?

Things will be different when these folks are faced with a US Attorney that has subpoena power and a grand jury empaneled. The standard for proving an act was motivated by bias does not require a confession, or a specific documented expression of intent.

Once again, Michael Horowitz has proven himself to be an honorable and dedicated IG, and in my opinion, a patriot. He and his team have done a great job of spelling out the facts, and their timeline. It is now up to the AG and the rest of the DOJ, to hold people accountable.

What are you talking about? How is saying I wasn't here before the last election a false statement? No, it isn't logical to assume you've been here since 2006. You're clearly reading into something, and seeing something that isn't there. You're trying to set a narrative that fits with a reality you want to exist, but doesn't. The relevance of 2016 is in the message I wrote, on the subject of the previous attorney generals of the US.

I'm speaking about your account here, not AG.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit because not only did you misread my comment when you went off on this tangent, but you've already forgotten what my original comment was in reference to.

I wasn't here before 2016, but I'd suspect you didn't have much of a problem with Holder and Lynch being just that.

Are you looking for any excuse to purge people who do not fit your political leanings? Because that's what it is starting to look/sound like.

@horgen: if his IP was banned there'd be at least three other accounts disappear as well

No. Just trying to clarify what you meant by it. You aren't 12, are you? :P

@burntbyhellfire: calm down little man. You're so defensive. It's almost like you have alts and got caught