The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

[DivineOb]

I'd actually prefer not to guess - which is why I like to ask. Others have a tendency to ASSUME.

Of course. But I gave you permission and I bet you guessed correctly.

Yeah, that doesn't clear them of wrongdoing.

Did it not clear them of the sort of wrongdoing which is relevant to this thread?

[rogue06]

And I think it's been argued back and forth that there's a difference between saying that there was no proof found of actual bias, and that there was "no bias". Kinda like the "17 errors" admission where 100% of the "errors" were against Trump's interests.

All the IG could do was merely ask them if they were biased and unless they fessed up was forced to conclude that there is no evidence of any bias.

[DivineOb]

All the IG could do was merely ask them if they were biased and unless they fessed up was forced to conclude that there is no evidence of any bias.

Then I hope you call your representative and ask them to close this loophole! But that's the law/regulation as written today so that's all we've got.

[Cow Poke]

Of course. But I gave you permission and I bet you guessed correctly.

I'm still getting to know you -- so far, you don't seem to be very similar to our typical atheists.

Did it not clear them of the sort of wrongdoing which is relevant to this thread?

All these threads run together -- and there are so many components to this whole "orange man bad" thing, I prefer to know specifically what we're discussing.

I'm sure you've noticed, just because it's "in this thread" by no means indicates it's related to this thread.

[Cow Poke]

Then I hope you call your representative and ask them to close this loophole! But that's the law/regulation as written today so that's all we've got.

But it's incorrect to use somebody's "summary" of the findings rather than what the findings actually say.

I've been re-reading the IG report to which you linked, and there's some pretty damning stuff in there - and recommendations made to the FBI, and responses from the FBI admitting failure (Appendix 2, page 424).

[Cow Poke]

Thanks; couldn't remember the details of Page's lawsuit.

--Sam

You're a standup guy, Sam -- I just think you take yourself a bit too seriously here.

[Ronson]

Both will likely win or settle out, partially because there's documentary evidence of pro-Trump FBI agents making the same sort of talk without similar reprisal, even the demotion that Stzrock (by memory) doesn't object to.

What "sort of talk"? About having a love affair or politics?

[Cow Poke]

What "sort of talk"? About having a love affair or politics?

Strock (hooked on phonics) and Page were having their extramarital affair (I believe Strock's wife found out about it by looking at his highly classified phone ) was definitely a problem, but I think the complaint was that there were Pro-Trump FBI agents who were texting each other, and they didn't get their hannies swatted.

I think a big difference would be observing that you approve of somebody (cheering them on?) vs. actually working to STOP somebody.

[DivineOb]

I think a big difference would be observing that you approve of somebody (cheering them on?) vs. actually working to STOP somebody.

That seems like a distinction without a difference in the context of FBI agent behavior where even the appearance of impropriety is the standard.

[Sam]

What "sort of talk"? About having a love affair or politics?

Politics. A personal affair, to my knowledge, would not be sufficient grounds to fire Strzok, nor do I believe it factored into DOJ's rationale for his termination. The IG report, finding no proof of bias affecting the FBI investigation of Trump associates and the campaign, uncovered similarly improper texts from other FBI agents -- these discussing volunteering for an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, cheering Trump's election, and implying that anti-Trump personnel would have to be out looking for new jobs.

--Sam

[Sam]

Strock (hooked on phonics) and Page were having their extramarital affair (I believe Strock's wife found out about it by looking at his highly classified phone ) was definitely a problem, but I think the complaint was that there were Pro-Trump FBI agents who were texting each other, and they didn't get their hannies swatted.

I think a big difference would be observing that you approve of somebody (cheering them on?) vs. actually working to STOP somebody.

A key feature in the IG report and in Strzok's lawsuit is that he never took actions in his duties at the FBI that were improper for the investigations he was conducting. So he didn't "actually work to STOP somebody".

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

A key feature in the IG report and in Strzok's lawsuit is that he never took actions in his duties at the FBI that were improper for the investigations he was conducting. So he didn't "actually work to STOP somebody".

--Sam

That's debatable, Sam -- there was the matter of the texts between him and Page regarding leaking of information.

[Sam]

That's debatable, Sam -- there was the matter of the texts between him and Page regarding leaking of information.

Not really debatable, given there was an entire IG investigation and report on the matter.

I mean, people will still assert it no matter what ... but the evidence of such improper actions remains to be seen.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

That seems like a distinction without a difference in the context of FBI agent behavior where even the appearance of impropriety is the standard.

And in days when I actively interacted with the FBI (45+ years ago) there was a tremendous emphasis on "the appearance of evil". Since then, the agency has gone downhill significantly.

[Cow Poke]

Not really debatable, given there was an entire IG investigation and report on the matter.

I mean, people will still assert it no matter what ... but the evidence of such improper actions remains to be seen.

--Sam

From the FBI's official response to the IG report, contained IN the IG report...

(forgive the apparent formatting problems - I copy/pasted directly from the source, and didn't want to 'doctor' it for readability out of concern I might accidentally change the intent - bolding mine)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the OIU ' s crucial independent oversight role and the thoroughness and professionalism your office brought to this work. The Repor1·s findings and recommendations !'\:present constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization. We also appreciate the Report' s recognition that the FBI cooperated fully wilh this review and provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the OIG, including highly classified and sensitive material involving national security . The Report concludes that the FBl' s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related investigations of cL'T1llin individuals were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with adequate factual predication. The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel. at t imes during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OJG, did oot comply with existing policies. neglected to exercise appropriate diligence. or otherwise failed to meet the standard o f conduct that the FBI expects of i\5 employees -and that our country expects of the FBI. We are vested with significant authorities. and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI's duty to the American people......

There were a lot of screw-ups significant enough to warrant reforms.