Its hard to prove that bias results in some action. But the bias is clear and the actions are clear, and the connection between them is not really provable without an admission (although libs seem to believe in other situations that they can easily tell that bias causes actions with minimal evidence, so....)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251002)

agreed completely. but it's also an issue for all of us. when you see direct proof of passionate bias against someone, you naturally conclude it affects behavior -- except for jihadists and anti-Trumpers, apparently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251022)

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251089)

They're not practicing lawyers. Lay people (including my clients) do that shit all the time assuming that terms and phrases are synonyms when under a particular statute or cases it can mean something entirely different. You can go ahead and attack the decision not to refer it for criminal prosecution, but who cares about the drafting process for Comey's statement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251146)

and Comey's big cash-out statement was the claim that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary for the email debacle. how is that not a legal conclusion?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251168)

Isn't this ultimately a legal disagreement about whether negligence can or should be indictable under this particular statute?

Couldn't Trump's DOJ indict Hillary anyway?

At some point this becomes insane deep state conspiracy mongering.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251306)

It might be Comey's ultimate call, but we're talking about actions by Strzok that stink of coming from biased and not objective analysis.

Per the article above: The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251537)

In what universe would DOJ not prosecute a low level employee for doing this? They would take the case 100/100 times. The fact that every single element may not be a guaranteed slam dunk has never precluded them from aggressively going after people. She should have been prosecuted precisely because she was SOS. She obviously new better, and should be held to the strictest standard as a leader. Instead, a double standard was applied.

Trump's DOJ cannot prosecute Hillary because the OIG just white-washed the entire investigation. They aren't going to revisit it, nor should they at this point. It's over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251786)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36255506)

I'd be parading those texts around the office celebrating how I just won the case. Outside of a literal admission, there will never be clearer or stronger evidence of bias.

Horowitz did a great disservice to this country by intentionally narrowing the inquiry to bias that could be tied to an individual investigative decision. That is a made up standard designed to white-wash. The issue is whether the people running behind the radar with great power are doing things fairly, professionally, and with some semblance of neutrality. Clearly not here.

Hell, even Mueller agreed. Three people have now been kicked off his team for this shit. How the fuck is DOJ able to reconcile that? They may think that this white-washing puts them back on the path towards repairing their credibility, but it does the opposite.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36251429)

No. It's addressing a typical argument raised by defense attorneys to win over juries and attack a prosecutor or cop's motivations. Maybe a cop used racist language sometime in his career. Maybe he was a racist and even had it in for the defendant. But, if there is no evidence that the investigation was improper, or that the evidence showing the defendant to be guilty of the crime was manufactured, then intelligent, objective people should conclude that the personal feelings of the investigator do not have bearing on the merits of the case. Mark Furman may have been a piece of shit, but I don't have any doubt that OJ did it.

Horowitz wasn't afraid to point out the improper behavior of agents and the lack of adherence to protocol in certain situations. But to say that invalidates all of the decisions that went into investigations is ridiculous. Our criminal justice system wouldn't survive such a standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36252237)

We have an FBI agent that is leading both investigations saying "we're going to stop Trump." By tying the bias issue to a *particular* "investigative decision," the IG created a standard that will never be met. Under this standard, Strozk would have to literally say something like "we're going to stop Trump, therefore I'm going to now subpoena the Trump organization to carry out this plan."

This is laughibly stupid. Compare what actually happened in the two investigations.

In one case, we have a person that was involved in potential criminal conduct (Hillary), because she built a fucking server in her house to store classified data. I.e., the evidence is real and was created as a result of Hillary's own doing. In the other case, the only evidence we have looks to be almost entirely concocted or manipulated by the government's "counter-intelligence" operation, and/or the DNC itself. So then we look at the sum total of Strozk and companies acts: at almost every opportunity they took the most narrow and lenient investigative path with Hillary, but did the opposite with Trump. And of course, these are all people working under an administration that is the same side as Hillary.

So yes, Horrowitz did a great disservice to the country. No one believes that these were fair and unbiased investigations. If the "standard" allows for a different outcome when it is so plainly obvious, then it is a dumb fucking standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36256118)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVdXdtztxjk&feature=youtu.be

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4002739&forum_id=2#36270028)