Anon, that was not just 1 offense. It was numerous offenses that were felonies.
OK, managing caseload is the most rational thing I've heard yet. However, I don't think it was small beans to the degree this SA was guilty of. What if that report was on McCabe or Baker or Strzok? Would it still be ok with you if they got a pass just to manage case load? Do we not fight to have Rule of Law here? Yeah, it really bothers me how corrupted the FBI is and they are getting passes.
That's a great analogy. Makes me think of anons reaching for the cookies in the oven. Meanwhile, the house is burning down around them.
totally agreed. Journalist are no longer journalist. They are nothing more than paid political hacks. Where we go from here will be interesting. Do away with the term journalist altogether? Define a journalist legally? Pheww. what will media be like in a year from now?
You make an excellent point. But, would that not be up to DOJ to determine and not the OIG? Not a lawfag either. Just trying to make sense of it.
A plea deal should still entail some sort of punishment, right. Pleas usually reduce charges, not remove them altogether. ANd those arrangements are done in the DOJ. The OIG only investigates and recommends the action to be taken.
Another anon just mentioned that the SA was retired. Since OIG can not recommend prosecution for non-employees, that would be the only reason I can think of to categorically deny prosecution.
That's a huge relief to my sense of justice. I had forgotten IG can only deal with employees and not private citizens. Doesn't mean DOJ can not go after them…:)
I think it's more logical to say the OIG has to decline prosecution because the SA is no longer employed by the FBI, ie; retired. OIG only provides oversight to govt employees, not civilians. Therefore, if it were Brower or Rybicki, OIG can not recommend prosecution. Period. Since they are not employed.
The OIG only does oversight and makes recommendations to the DOJ for actions. He is not in a position to offer plea deals. So, while the DOJ probably has made deals with some, it has nothing to do with the report stating Prosecution Declined. It can only be because the SA was retired as of the time the report was concluded.
Agree with most of what you said. As far as HrC lackey's etc, remember OIG only deals with DOJ/FBI employees. That excludes HRC/HA/CM, etc. Those investigations have been ongoing for so long, that the SA was still employed and only retired near the end of the investigation.
Anywho, Now Huber can take the OIG report and start prosecution, I HOPE!
Getting frustrated. I know he doesn't do any prosecuting. In fact, I said as much in the post you tagged. Maybe you should go back and read the whole conversation before jumping in at the end of it.
We are going around in circles. I said OIG can not prosecute many times already. His job is to investigate and make recommendations, whether to prosecute or not. Period!
We clear on that?
OIG can not investigate private citizens. Clear?
The DOJ determines whether to prosecute, make deals, whatever. Not the OIG.
If an investigation began (which it did) into a SA's actions and the SA retired before the OIG investigation was complete, the OIG would have no choice but to decline prosecution, because the OIG can not recommend prosecution for a private citizen.
It has nothing to do with deals the DOJ might or might not have worked out.
Actually, I didn't say the DOJ. I said the OIG. We hace no idea what the DOJ is doing. Huber is able to prosecute private citizens.
Do you remember when Spicer first stated as much? Boy oh boy did they have a meltdown then, kek