>based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past department processes.

>not whether the decision was the best possible decision, just that it's consistent with THEIR understanding of the laws.

hmm. Was the IG report to consider political bias, or was the IG report supposed to consider rule breaches?

>consistent with the department's historical approach, citing a VERDICT FROM 2008

>ignored department policy to leak things re: Clinton

>your review found "Comey's unilateral announcement was inconsistent with department policy, practice, and protocol."

>Horowitz: "…When some individuals [in a conspiracy] are charged and some aren't, department policy says you can't speak about the uncharged individuals: even if you believe it to be a crime."

Are they planning to drain the swamp based on political bias, or based upon AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF OBJECTIVE DEPARTURES FROM POLICY?

>>1812682

If they have them dead to rights on an array of other, less controversial rulings (people will still somehow dispute the political bias), why would they prosecute on political bias?

What office in the DoJ prosecutes attorneys based wholly upon objective rule breaches:

the OIG, or the OPR?

>>1812742

>OIG audits the legal procedure

>OPR is essentially the DoJ Malpractice office that deals with errors of judgement, departure from policy, and breaches of protocol.

Wray and Horowitz have been telling you for DAYS that there are unnamed attorneys going through OPR, and that once it's concluded people are getting prosecuted.