Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

Let me try this:

The priority was that the fact that a laptop was located during a child abuse investigation that contained an unknown amount of classified information and and other communications related to the America's diplomacy for a four year period in an investigation that was so significant that the Director of the FBI released an unprecedented statement about it and then testified to Congress about it was lower than an investigation into a Candidate that the investigator had promised his mistress/**** buddy that he would "stop."

Sounds legit.

/c'mon folks, as soon as the FBI found out that SDNY knew they had been sitting on it THEN it became "absolutely urgent" and the FBI director released another statement about it and it became by far and away the highest priority in the FBI. Why anyone would believe Strzok is beyond me.

 

[logger]

Wait, are you comparing FBI lawyer Page and FBI agent Strzok to run of the mill VOTERS??

There are indeed not nearly enough laughing dogs for that!

Yes, actually I am. Because they are run of the mill voters. Do you suspect they get more than one vote or something? Are you under the impression that nobody at the FBI is allowed a preference?

Sorry dude. Real life doesn't work that way.

No one like these two should ever be in charge of anything that is supposed to be an impartial investigation. That is the point.

Agreed. And OH LOOK!! They're not.

You need to help TBD build that bridge and get over it.

Ironic that you’d be the one to say it was about politics.

Again, whatever point you're trying to make fails because you're not responding to what I said.

I never said it was about politics. Whatever you read got into your brain, tumbled around in the critical thinking void, and came back out completely wrong.







Your reply MAKES NO SENSE.

Sure it does, but since you can’t figure it out I’ll explain it.

It started with TBD’s post where he was shocked that you couldnt understand that these two let their politics get in the way of their job. The left has been saying it wasn’t political and you chimed in with “are you under the impression no one at the FBI is allowed a preference”. Meaning a political preference. You’re perfectly fine having agents politics get in the way of them doing their job. I just thought it ironic that you admitted their political bias when no one on the left seems willing to admit the obvious.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Let me try this:

The priority was that the fact that a laptop was located during a child abuse investigation that contained an unknown amount of classified information and and other communications related to the America's diplomacy for a four year period in an investigation that was so significant that the Director of the FBI released an unprecedented statement about it and then testified to Congress about it was lower than an investigation into a Candidate that the investigator had promised his mistress/**** buddy that he would "stop."

Sounds legit.

/c'mon folks, as soon as the FBI found out that SDNY knew they had been sitting on it THEN it became "absolutely urgent" and the FBI director released another statement about it and it became by far and away the highest priority in the FBI. Why anyone would believe Strzok is beyond me.

It does sound legit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let me try this:

The priority was that the fact that a laptop was located during a child abuse investigation that contained an unknown amount of classified information and and other communications related to the America's diplomacy for a four year period in an investigation that was so significant that the Director of the FBI released an unprecedented statement about it and then testified to Congress about it was lower than an investigation into a Candidate that the investigator had promised his mistress/**** buddy that he would "stop."

Sounds legit.

/c'mon folks, as soon as the FBI found out that SDNY knew they had been sitting on it THEN it became "absolutely urgent" and the FBI director released another statement about it and it became by far and away the highest priority in the FBI. Why anyone would believe Strzok is beyond me.

Leaving aside the parts of your post which are contradicted by the IG report, you've changed from claiming that Strzok's lawyer admitted that Strzok was biased to claiming that he was lying in his statement that Strzok was not biased.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure it does, but since you can’t figure it out I’ll explain it.

It started with TBD’s post where he was shocked that you couldnt understand that these two let their politics get in the way of their job. The left has been saying it wasn’t political and you chimed in with “are you under the impression no one at the FBI is allowed a preference”. Meaning a political preference. You’re perfectly fine having agents politics get in the way of them doing their job. I just thought it ironic that you admitted their political bias when no one on the left seems willing to admit the obvious.

As the IG report says, FBI agents are allowed personal opinions on matters of politics, although they should not share those through official channels as Page and Strzok did. The most damning thing WRT the political opinions of these two that the report has to say is that it cannot rule out that one text in particular indicates that Strzok allowed his political opinions to influence his actions in one particular instance outside the scope of this investigation.

In other words, we don't know whether Strzok's politics got "in the way of [him] doing [his] job" when it comes to the investigation outside of this report, but we can say that it didn't when it comes to what was within the scope of this report - i.e. the Clinton email investigation.

 

[Ziggurat]

As the IG report says, FBI agents are allowed personal opinions on matters of politics, although they should not share those through official channels as Page and Strzok did. The most damning thing WRT the political opinions of these two that the report has to say is that it cannot rule out that one text in particular indicates that Strzok allowed his political opinions to influence his actions in one particular instance outside the scope of this investigation.

I disagree. I think there's something even more damning: the fact that the FBI tried to hide some of these texts from Congress, despite there being no legitimate reason to withhold that information.

Strzok is a bad apple, but bad apples can happen in any organization. But the coverup demonstrates that there's a systematic problem at the FBI, not just a few bad apples.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Sure it does, but since you I can’t [for the life of me, come hell or high water] figure it out, [pretty please], explain it to you me.

The finding was no institutional bias, meaning procedures and protocols were in place for fact-based, instead of political or color-based, reasoning. Personal bias, I see, you are profoundly intimate with.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because it was posted in another thread, I'll post this here, too - the statement from Strzok's lawyer I referred to above is this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/DBL970L.jpg[/qimg]

Holy ****, he just basically admitted that his idiot client was biased.

"we'll stop it."

And can you imagine that the rat ********** is still on the FBI payroll?

Leaving aside the parts of your post which are contradicted by the IG report, you've changed from claiming that Strzok's lawyer admitted that Strzok was biased to claiming that he was lying in his statement that Strzok was not biased.

I was referring to the above statement which you posted in your above quoted post. In there he flat out states that he deliberately prioritized the investigation he promised elsewhere to 'stop" over the Clinton email investigation. Did he claim elsewhere that the putz was not biased? Well then he lied too.

There is nothing contradicted in my post contradicted by the IG report, of course.

 

[logger]

As the IG report says, FBI agents are allowed personal opinions on matters of politics, although they should not share those through official channels as Page and Strzok did. The most damning thing WRT the political opinions of these two that the report has to say is that it cannot rule out that one text in particular indicates that Strzok allowed his political opinions to influence his actions in one particular instance outside the scope of this investigation.

In other words, we don't know whether Strzok's politics got "in the way of [him] doing [his] job" when it comes to the investigation outside of this report, but we can say that it didn't when it comes to what was within the scope of this report - i.e. the Clinton email investigation.

The summary of the report written by political people said no bias. In the report the IG says he couldn’t be sure. It’s left up to us to determine that. Strzok could be a moderate to left republican, we call them never Trumpers. One things for certain, their political bias was on parade for all to see and with what was said I find it reasonable that their politics got in the way. We’ll see what the IG says about the Russian investigation going now.

Some are also saying Strzok May have full immunity.

 

[logger]

The finding was no institutional bias, meaning procedures and protocols were in place for fact-based, instead of political or color-based, reasoning. Personal bias, I see, you are profoundly intimate with.

That was in the summary. In the report the IG says he couldn’t be sure.

Can you ever post without personal attacks?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I disagree. I think there's something even more damning: the fact that the FBI tried to hide some of these texts from Congress, despite there being no legitimate reason to withhold that information.

Strzok is a bad apple, but bad apples can happen in any organization. But the coverup demonstrates that there's a systematic problem at the FBI, not just a few bad apples.

Protecting reputation is a pretty legitimate reason.

 

[The Big Dog]

May 2, 2016: Comey starts distributes his Hillary exoneration memo inside FBI

May 2016. FBI attorney requests access to highly classified evidence related to MidYear exam. Never gets it.

July 2016: Comey releases the exoneration memo.

June 1, 2018: FBI asks for access to the highly classified for some other investigation.

June 14, 2018; IG releases classified section of the report discussing the classified evidence and why FBI never got around to getting it despite its relevance to MidYear Exam.

Hmmmmm, things that make one go hmmmmm.....

 

[BobTheCoward]

May 2, 2016: Comey starts distributes his Hillary exoneration memo inside FBI

May 2016. FBI attorney requests access to highly classified evidence related to MidYear exam. Never gets it.

July 2016: Comey releases the exoneration memo.

June 1, 2018: FBI asks for access to the highly classified for some other investigation.

June 14, 2018; IG releases classified section of the report discussing the classified evidence and why FBI never got around to getting it despite its relevance to MidYear Exam.

Hmmmmm, things that make one go hmmmmm.....

Well, no, not really, because I am not in possession of evidence of why those events occured and whether they are related.

 

[Ziggurat]

Protecting reputation is a pretty legitimate reason.

No, it is not. The laws are pretty clear in this regard.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, it is not. The laws are pretty clear in this regard.

"Legitimately angry or scared" does not mean your anger complies with the law.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, no, not really, because I am not in possession of evidence of why those events occured and whether they are related.

actually you are, it is all outlined in the IG report

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I disagree. I think there's something even more damning: the fact that the FBI tried to hide some of these texts from Congress, despite there being no legitimate reason to withhold that information.

Strzok is a bad apple, but bad apples can happen in any organization. But the coverup demonstrates that there's a systematic problem at the FBI, not just a few bad apples.

You wrote that you disagree with what I said, yet every sentence after that one is completely unrelated to my post.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was referring to the above statement which you posted in your above quoted post.

That's the one that you said was the lawyer admitting bias on behalf of his client, and which actually was not, yes. Whereas now you're just claiming that it's a lie.

In there he flat out states that he deliberately prioritized the investigation he promised elsewhere to 'stop" over the Clinton email investigation.

Oh, before that statement were you unaware of which of the two investigations Strzok had prioritised? No wonder you think a simple statement of fact is an admission of some kind.

No, dear, what that statement is doing is explaining the reason why Strzok prioritised the Russia investigation over the Clinton investigation - namely that the Russia investigation was more important to national security.

There is nothing contradicted in my post contradicted by the IG report, of course.

Sure. If you ignore what the IG report has to say about why Comey made the statements he did about the investigation. If you don't, then there is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The summary of the report written by political people said no bias. In the report the IG says he couldn’t be sure.

Go back and read what I actually wrote, and then read what the IG report actually says. You're equivocating.

 

[BobTheCoward]

actually you are, it is all outlined in the IG report

What you listed from the report are events. What you don't have is evidence that ties those events together. Events themselves are not evidence of why those events occured.