Training is not what's needed here. Human beings will have a bias. People at this level of government and law enforcement shouldn't need to be told this and check their bias at the door. What's needed is integrity and ethics, and you can't teach that. Enforcement of existing laws and regulations is what's needed, and that enforcement needs to be administered regardless of position and whatever political fallout may occur. The painfully obvious double standards of who can do what and who can't in this country is the real problem and it's getting worse. It filters down all the way to the street level which is why we see so much disregard for laws and even human life. If it's a free for all up top, then fuck it, it's a free for all period.
11 Quick Things To Know About The Inspector General’s Report
- Thread starter Poindexter
- Start date
So you want a magical imaginary world?
In the meantime, telling/training staff not to write down their personal thoughts on government systems is probably necessary.
Well, when expecting people at this level to adhere to a code of ethics and have some sense of integrity is considered a "magical imaginary world" ,that shows just how far off the beam we've fallen.
Have you heard Donald Trump is your president?
There was never a time when people at the top were not biased. That is for kids to believe, mostly kids I guess.
What you have is the average behavior of a lot of people, a lot like the market.
I think I saw an announcement where the FBI was going to be doing a series of training sessions entitled: "HOW FBI AGENTS SHOULD COVER THEIR ARSES WHEN THEY ARE HELPING DEM CANDIDATES TO WIN." Yeh. More training needed there. Some notable successes and failures there of late.
I also heard that Loretta Lynch would be giving a presentation entitled: "USING THE TARMAC TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS"
I also heard that Loretta Lynch would be giving a presentation entitled: "USING THE TARMAC TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS"
True enough, but you must admit there has been continuing erosion of ethical behavior across the board, in politics and business. The bias has always been there for sure, but they weren't so blatant about it. The new media technology has just made it easier and faster for people to try and sway public opinion.
To some degree but not evenly across the board. Also as we age the past gets more beautiful, even the ugly bits get a little warm soft light.
It used to be that blatant bias was really only obvious to the perceptive and clever. Some care was taken to hide it, that has degraded but the problem with the average Joe is he is swamped and he sees it everywhere now.That is being driven by forces
Jump to about 1:20 in this video.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/15/mark-warner-says-comey-actions-helped-trump-ig-report
Imagine if a president had referred to Americans as 'his followers' in the past? This is really really not good. Alarm bells would have gone crazy if Reagan had said my followers (and other Americans.. for now).
Did Reagan have "followers"? Of course but words matter having the presence of mind to not used that polarising language is the minimum.
Both Reagan and Trump got the support they have at the heads of an ideological movement, some will reject ideologies like that on principle and particularly when they smack of populism.
Last edited:
It all started in the 1970's as liberalism started to take hold. As expected, integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior have taken a deep dive since then. It is clear to see it in all levels of society. Trump's win has awakened the country to what MSM liberalism was silently doing all these years.
My hope is that these times will start a reversal to guide the people of this country back closer to its conservative roots.
Those interested can download the OIG report from the DOJ website in searchable PDF format here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Also decent "bottom line" on the report from Kimberly Strassel:
Insubordination and Bias at FBI
The inspector general report is careful in its conclusions, but damning on the facts.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
June 14, 2018 7:16 p.m. ET
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-page report covers plenty, but it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias. Two terms that are chilling in connection with such a powerful agency.
That won’t be the message from Democrats and most of the press, who will focus on a few episodes they will claim cost Hillary Clinton an election. Watch for them to blame former FBI Director James Comey, whom the report faults for “a serious error of judgment,” for having “concealed information” from superiors, and for “violation of or disregard for” departmental and bureau policies.
True, the report is damning about the man who lectures Americans on “higher loyalty.” It describes how an “insubordinate” Mr. Comey was, as early as April 2016, considering how to cut his Justice Department bosses from a public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton. He hid this scheme for fear “they would instruct him not to do it”—and therefore was able to “avoid supervision.” He then “violated long-standing Department practice and protocol” by using his July 5 press conference for “criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct.” In October, he made public that the FBI had reopened the investigation, even though the Justice Department recommended he not do so. Mr. Comey went rogue, and President Trump had plenty of justification in firing him in May 2017.
Yet it is the report’s findings on the wider culture of the FBI and Justice Department that are most alarming. The report depicts agencies that operate outside the rules to which they hold everybody else, and that showed extraordinary bias while investigating two presidential candidates.
There’s Loretta Lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an “error in judgment.” Mr. Comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI “resources” were dedicated in October to spinning FBI “talking points” about the Clinton investigation—rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September. We even find that Mr. Comey used personal email and laptops to conduct government work.
There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the Clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who “failed to strictly adhere to [his] recusal” when he finally stepped away. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not “fully comply with his recusal,” and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media. Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire “volume of communication” between FBI employees and the press. Not only did these folks have “no official reason to be in contact with the media,” but they also “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”
Be ready to hear the report absolves the FBI and DOJ of “bias.” Not true. It very carefully states that “our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.” Put another way, he never caught anyone writing down: Let’s start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win.
But the bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely “hostile” to Candidate Trump. It’s in Ms. Page’s freak-out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.” To which a second agent replies. “Rog—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.”
It’s in the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements. The report is largely neutral on all this, giving officials the broad benefit of the doubt on “discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation.” But it immediately follows that statement by noting that its job of evaluating the integrity of decisions was “made significantly more difficult” by the obvious bias among key players, which “cast a cloud” over the entire “investigation’s credibility.”
The current FBI and Justice Department leadership can no longer justify its refusal to come clean on its other actions. A neutral arbiter has found they made a hash of the Clinton investigation, and it is reasonable to assume that those same players made a hash of the Trump probe. The sooner they acknowledge it, the sooner Congress can move to reform these agencies so that no such thing ever happens again.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Appeared in the June 15, 2018, print edition.
Also decent "bottom line" on the report from Kimberly Strassel:
Insubordination and Bias at FBI
The inspector general report is careful in its conclusions, but damning on the facts.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
June 14, 2018 7:16 p.m. ET
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-page report covers plenty, but it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias. Two terms that are chilling in connection with such a powerful agency.
That won’t be the message from Democrats and most of the press, who will focus on a few episodes they will claim cost Hillary Clinton an election. Watch for them to blame former FBI Director James Comey, whom the report faults for “a serious error of judgment,” for having “concealed information” from superiors, and for “violation of or disregard for” departmental and bureau policies.
True, the report is damning about the man who lectures Americans on “higher loyalty.” It describes how an “insubordinate” Mr. Comey was, as early as April 2016, considering how to cut his Justice Department bosses from a public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton. He hid this scheme for fear “they would instruct him not to do it”—and therefore was able to “avoid supervision.” He then “violated long-standing Department practice and protocol” by using his July 5 press conference for “criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct.” In October, he made public that the FBI had reopened the investigation, even though the Justice Department recommended he not do so. Mr. Comey went rogue, and President Trump had plenty of justification in firing him in May 2017.
Yet it is the report’s findings on the wider culture of the FBI and Justice Department that are most alarming. The report depicts agencies that operate outside the rules to which they hold everybody else, and that showed extraordinary bias while investigating two presidential candidates.
There’s Loretta Lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an “error in judgment.” Mr. Comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI “resources” were dedicated in October to spinning FBI “talking points” about the Clinton investigation—rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September. We even find that Mr. Comey used personal email and laptops to conduct government work.
There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the Clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who “failed to strictly adhere to [his] recusal” when he finally stepped away. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not “fully comply with his recusal,” and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media. Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire “volume of communication” between FBI employees and the press. Not only did these folks have “no official reason to be in contact with the media,” but they also “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”
Be ready to hear the report absolves the FBI and DOJ of “bias.” Not true. It very carefully states that “our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.” Put another way, he never caught anyone writing down: Let’s start this Trump investigation so we can help Hillary win.
But the bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely “hostile” to Candidate Trump. It’s in Ms. Page’s freak-out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.” To which a second agent replies. “Rog—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.”
It’s in the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements. The report is largely neutral on all this, giving officials the broad benefit of the doubt on “discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation.” But it immediately follows that statement by noting that its job of evaluating the integrity of decisions was “made significantly more difficult” by the obvious bias among key players, which “cast a cloud” over the entire “investigation’s credibility.”
The current FBI and Justice Department leadership can no longer justify its refusal to come clean on its other actions. A neutral arbiter has found they made a hash of the Clinton investigation, and it is reasonable to assume that those same players made a hash of the Trump probe. The sooner they acknowledge it, the sooner Congress can move to reform these agencies so that no such thing ever happens again.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Appeared in the June 15, 2018, print edition.
if you say so, it must be true, just like Mexico paying for the wall. Trump said it, must be true; Paul Manafort said it, must be true; Alex Jones said it, must be true; Steve Bannon said it, must be true; Devin Nunes said it, must be true; Rudy Julie-Annie said it, must be true; Billery said it, must be a lie....
