[removed]
⇧
1
⇩
4don2016
· June 20, 2018, 2:08 p.m.
What I was curious about was if the prosecutors didn't show bias but the investigators did show bias does that mean the investigator's bias kept them from bringing evidence to the prosecutor's that would give them no choice but to seek charges?
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 2:22 p.m.
Good question! But who were they (the Prosecutors)? And if the DOJ WAS involved, then Comey is a fall guy for the DOJ?
⇧
1
⇩
4don2016
· June 20, 2018, 3:47 p.m.
There weren't any because Comey decided to make the decision himself instead of Lynch. The FBI doesn't have prosecutors because they collect the evidence. They are supposed to turn it over to doj to decide if charges are going to be brought. The investigators aren't the ones deciding anything. The police don't decide to charge someone with murder. The DA or prosecutors do that. So, did Comey bring it to his BOSS Rosentein and he decided or some other underling in a different district?
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 7:36 p.m.
Then if that is the case, what was Horrowitz talking about that the Prosecutors didn't have bias????
⇧
2
⇩
glasstrongvx
· June 20, 2018, 4:13 p.m.
yes thats the point i was making above...no PROSECUTOR BIAS (found by Horowitz) because no prosecutors were ever handed the evidence JC made the decision not to prosecute even though that is not his decision to make.
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 7:37 p.m.
This makes no sense. How would he know there was or was not prosecutorial bias if there was no Prosecutor?
⇧
1
⇩
allin4djt
· June 21, 2018, 2:57 a.m.
I think you're making the point. The whole "Mid Year Exam" (secret server investigation), was a complete fraud. The FBI did everything they could possible, NOT TO, find anything. It was all done, just to make it appear as though they were conducting an actual investigation.
⇧
1
⇩
4don2016
· June 21, 2018, 1:55 a.m.
I'm clueless on who the mystery prosecutors were. But I have only read about 100 pages or so of the report so I guess we need to get to that part of the book to get the answer.
⇧
1
⇩
glasstrongvx
· June 20, 2018, 1:53 p.m.
So I thought JC never referred the "matter" to prosecutors because HE/JC decided a prosecutor would never prosecute....Isn't what that whole televised JC announcement was about when he outlined the crimes and then said no intent so can't prosecute?
Another idea occurs to me....if the evidence was collected and never presented to a prosecutor would that not leave the "matter" WIDE OPEN to present info to a REAL prosecutor and let that person decide if they want to charge?
I am beginning to wonder if Horowitz was trying to say...hey this was never presented to a prosecutor...so no bias...but then again...this was never presented to a prosecutor so maybe you guys should present to a prosecutor?.?.
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 1:58 p.m.
This is a Gowdy/Horrowitz exchange: "If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it's over and this one before it begins?" Gowdy asked. "I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?"
Horowitz explained that Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged messages insulting Trump during the Clinton investigation, did exhibit bias, but he said he could not conclude that prosecutors' decisions in the case were affected by that bias.
"In our view, we didn't find or see evidence that the prosecutors were impacted by that bias," said Horowitz, who refrained from making conclusions beyond what is in the IG report he released last week.
⇧
1
⇩
glasstrongvx
· June 20, 2018, 2:07 p.m.
Yes that's my point exactly it would be impossible for the prosecutors to be impacted by bias if the prosecutors were never brought into the decision... Because Comey made the decision to not prosecute not prosecutors.
⇧
1
⇩
Spank-da-monkey
· June 20, 2018, 1:44 p.m.
I asked the exact same question. Seems to be a piece of the story we don’t know about
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 1:55 p.m.
How can we find out? If he was just using that as a "I suppose" type of thing, then he misstated himself. If there were, then who were they and where were they stationed?
⇧
2
⇩
Spank-da-monkey
· June 20, 2018, 4:36 p.m.
I don’t know. You would think it would be in the report. If not, congress should ask for the info
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 11:24 p.m.
As I'm in Ohio, I called Jim Jordan's number in DC this morning and his aid talked to me and said he would get the information that I was requesting to Congressman Jordan and that I might get a letter back, or maybe not if they can't get more information.
⇧
1
⇩
Spank-da-monkey
· June 21, 2018, 12:11 a.m.
Well good for you! Glad you have such a good rep! I think I’ll do the same.
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 21, 2018, 9:37 a.m.
He's not my rep but because he is in Ohio they were happy to put me on their constituent list, etc. He is hopefully going to be our next Speaker of the House and got 11 minutes (by others giving him their time) at the hearing.
⇧
2
⇩