The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

His investigative committee spent over two and a half years and $7.8 million investigating the events surrounding the 2012 Benghazi attack, ultimately finding no evidence of specific wrong-doing by then-Secretary of State Clinton.[3][4][5] Gowdy pressed for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.[6] Since 2017 he chairs the House Oversight Committee.

Put as much faith into Wiki as a source as you like but we really spent $7.8M on the HRC email circle jerk and we gained what from it?  I guess Gowdy gave guys like Guido some titular moments with his Youtube quotables, but did he really do anything for the country as a whole? I'm not seeing the value in it.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yD_-Oy2Z040/W0grglSyc5I/AAAAAAAA2vk/77MF0ZpUKM4GLwLl3usc-_I4xUWygfwZwCLcBGAs/s400/SmirkGIFStrzok.gif)

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yD_-Oy2Z040/W0grglSyc5I/AAAAAAAA2vk/77MF0ZpUKM4GLwLl3usc-_I4xUWygfwZwCLcBGAs/s400/SmirkGIFStrzok.gif)

Thats the face you make when you know you are a lot smarter than the political lap dog questioning you.

https://www.salon.com/2018/07/13/watch-stephen-colbert-re-enact-fbi-agent-peter-strzoks-insane-congressional-hearing/

Are you crazy? That performance was a failure but more importantly he was poorly prepared. The last thing you want your witness to do where your trying to defeat a bias claim is EXPLAIN what is the basis for your bias. That’s precisely what he did during Gowdy’s time. But, if Colbert has a different take, well what do I know.

Are you crazy? That performance was a failure but more importantly he was poorly prepared. The last thing you want your witness to do where your trying to defeat a bias claim is EXPLAIN what is the basis for your bias. That’s precisely what he did during Gowdy’s time. But, if Colbert has a different take, well what do I know.

Are you crazy? That performance was a failure but more importantly he was poorly prepared. The last thing you want your witness to do where your trying to defeat a bias claim is EXPLAIN what is the basis for your bias. That’s precisely what he did during Gowdy’s time. But, if Colbert has a different take, well what do I know.

"We don't want people who are biased on the FBI! We just want people who will support Trump and the GOP in whatever they do, no matter the law, and who are willing put Democrats in prison, no matter if they actually did anything worthy of sentencing!"

Am I missing something from this "story?"  As I understand it, some FBI agents whined about their political preferences on "company" phones.  In this instance, they didn't like Donald Trump and they said so.  Appropriately, an investigation took place to see if the political preference of these agents caused any bias in the actions of the FBI. A ~year long investigation produced hundreds of pages of reports that basically said - no, the actions of the FBI were not influenced by these agent's politics.

Is there  actually an issue that we are trying to resolve?

Am I missing something from this "story?"  As I understand it, some FBI agents whined about their political preferences on "company" phones.  In this instance, they didn't like Donald Trump and they said so.  Appropriately, an investigation took place to see if the political preference of these agents caused any bias in the actions of the FBI. A ~year long investigation produced hundreds of pages of reports that basically said - no, the actions of the FBI were not influenced by these agent's politics.

Is there  actually an issue that we are trying to resolve?

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,”

Not exactly the sentiment of the IG report...

In summary I think they tried to wrap it all up and say that bias did not play a part. But upon detailed review, they essentially leave it open by not saying one way or the other.

In undertaking our analysis, our task was made
significantly more difficult because of text and instant
messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by
five FBI employees involved in the Midyear
investigation. These messages reflected political
opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and
against her then political opponent, Donald Trump.
Some of these text messages and instant messages
mixed political commentary with discussions about the
Midyear investigation, and raised concerns that political
bias may have impacted investigative decisions.
In particular, we were concerned about text messages
exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy
Director, that potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted
by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in
Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text
messages raising such questions pertained to the
Russia investigation, which was not a part of this

review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia-
related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might

be willing to take official action to impact presidential
candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to
question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in
which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific
actions in the Midyear investigation based on his
political views. As we describe Chapter Five of our
report, we found that Strzok was not the sole
decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear
investigative decisions we examined in that chapter.
We further found evidence that in some instances
Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive
investigative measures in the Midyear investigation,
such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search
warrants to obtain evidence.
There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a
number of important areas between Midyear agents and
prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or
testimonial evidence that improper considerations,
including political bias, directly affected the specific
investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or
that the justifications offered for these decisions were
pretextual.
Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the
FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the
investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find
evidence to connect the political views expressed in
these messages to the specific investigative decisions
that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic
approach described above, we found that these specific
decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
made during the course of an investigation by the
Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
judgment calls were not unreasonable.

The summary doesn't exactly contextualize the details. Sorry bud.

The summary doesn't exactly contextualize the details. Sorry bud.

The summary doesn't exactly contextualize the details. Sorry bud.

Not trying to sound very harsh here, but how is it you don't understand that...?    Yeah, they are biased, they don't like Trump, and it had no effect on the investigation.  


Just like Gowdy realized last week with his fantasy Congressional investigation league event.  This truly is not rocket science.  And outside the Fake Fox News Rose colored diffusion/deflection glasses filter, it's easily understood.

Okay, so it appears everyone agrees that there was no evidence presented or conclusion reached that any political opinion influenced the actions of the FBI.  Everyone agrees that the FBI agents expressed a political opinion opposed to Trump.

So the disagreement is how we receive the information:

- Heironymous is saying that the conclusion stands at face value.  There was no evidence or conclusion that the personal bias of the FBI agents influenced any action or decision. The decisions reached and actions taken were all rational and within protocol.

- erfalf is saying that the investigation failed to prove the negative (saying there is no evidence or conclusion is not saying that bias had no influence), so therefore it remains a possibility that rational decisions were still influenced by bias.


I remain really confused. Everyone seems to agree that there is no evidence indicating the FBI did anything inappropriate.  The probe has already resulted in indictments and guilty pleas. Trump won the electoral college and is the sitting President.  The worst crime that anyone can accuse someone of is having a political opinion and being stupid enough to text it on "company" phones, at least introducing the appearance of bias.

If we trotted out FBI agents who were in favor of Trump and disliked Hillary (obviously such people exist), but no evidence that they actually did anything wrong, would that prove that Comey intentionally spoke about the Hillary investigation to help Trump?

Is there more to it, or is it just noise to try to get attention at this point?

Okay, so it appears everyone agrees that there was no evidence presented or conclusion reached that any political opinion influenced the actions of the FBI.  Everyone agrees that the FBI agents expressed a political opinion opposed to Trump.

So the disagreement is how we receive the information:

- Heironymous is saying that the conclusion stands at face value.  There was no evidence or conclusion that the personal bias of the FBI agents influenced any action or decision. The decisions reached and actions taken were all rational and within protocol.

- erfalf is saying that the investigation failed to prove the negative (saying there is no evidence or conclusion is not saying that bias had no influence), so therefore it remains a possibility that rational decisions were still influenced by bias.


I remain really confused. Everyone seems to agree that there is no evidence indicating the FBI did anything inappropriate.  The probe has already resulted in indictments and guilty pleas. Trump won the electoral college and is the sitting President.  The worst crime that anyone can accuse someone of is having a political opinion and being stupid enough to text it on "company" phones, at least introducing the appearance of bias.

If we trotted out FBI agents who were in favor of Trump and disliked Hillary (obviously such people exist), but no evidence that they actually did anything wrong, would that prove that Comey intentionally spoke about the Hillary investigation to help Trump?

Is there more to it, or is it just noise to try to get attention at this point?

The summary by definition attempts to compile sometimes unrelated details in a succinct single point. Sometimes that means you have to generalize. How is this so hard to understand? This is like arguing over the definition of is. But when you so viccerally hate Trump, I guess you can just overlook all the cases of potential bias and chalk it up to nothing.

Basically at this point, it is never going to be "wrong" for an agent to not pursue an investigation. I mean, there are only so many man hours available so looking the other way is not inappropriate per se. Putting additional man hours and investigative effort into the Trump investigation isn't "inappropriate" be definition, but was it really the highest and best use or resources, or an attempt to play out a couple of people's biases? Nothing he did was illegal. It obviously casts a pretty big shadow over his credibility, which is somewhat important at this juncture where we still have yet to see any connections made to the Trump campaign of any meaningful crime. All my opinion only obviously.

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

The more you try to explain it, the less I understand.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

The more you try to explain it, the less I understand.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

Feeling that pretzel 'burn' yet...from twisting yourself into all those different directions??

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

No need. You guys are doing a fine job twisting around me all by your selves.

If his cult followers really cant comprehend anything over 140 characters, this is what they believe to be true:

@realDonaldTrump
   
President Obama thought that Crooked Hillary was going to win the election, so when he was informed by the FBI about Russian Meddling, he said it couldn’t happen, was no big deal, & did NOTHING about it. When I won it became a big deal and the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by Strzok!
10:37 PM - 15 Jul 2018

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018731223890481153?

The irony of someone insulting someone for only being able to understand in short bursts, after "your crew" was using the summary of a huge report as "evidence" of something is comical at worst. A huge lack of self awareness at best.

grumble is censored. ok.

First of all, there are no "correct" answers. And second, I made no contention that the Mueller investigation was a bad use of resources. You jumped about 15 steps ahead on that one all by yourself.

What I suggested (again, no right/wrong answers here), is that potentially the lead investigator in both the Clinton and Trump matters may have minimized his efforts on the Clinton investigation because he favored that candidate and increased his effort on the Trump matter out of his hatred. Not that either of those things necessarily would have lead to convictions or exoneration. But then again, you will never know. The die has already been cast.

And he only advised re-opening the matter after sitting for months on the newly discovered emails on Weiner's laptop. Hardly a springing to action if you ask me. Just goes to confirm that bias was likely playing a role in his decisions. More like the pressure was likely so great he couldn't avoid it. That decision making there likely lead to her defeat more than anything, all the while he was probably trying to protect her. Again, none are wrongful decisions legally, but if he would have just played it down the middle, we might be talking about a Clinton presidency instead of the alternative. Karma is a grumble.

Actually, yes, there are right and wrong answers in much the same fashion as there is right and wrong on moral and legal and business issues.  Fake Fox News would have you believe otherwise, but they truly do exist!

It has been shown - repeatedly - by Republican investigators that there was no bias toward Hillary, nor the Trump investigation.  Even Gowdy had his Congressional hearings and even though he didn't like it, had to admit that Hillary has done nothing illegal, even though you know that had to hurt him to his very core!   And she didn't do anywhere near as much "wrong" as Bush did with his private email server that deleted over 20 million emails.  Did you even know about that??   Or knew and just selectively chose your moral position...?




Or use "l" - bltch.

I knew. But again, point out to me where it has been shown repeatedly that bias didn't go into the FBI deciding to not pursue charges against Hillary when they have no right to make that decision. Admitedly the AG wouldn't have either but I'm sure there was no bias there either.

Again, the IG report did not rule out bias went into decisions, just that bias didn't cause them to make illegal/against policy decision. There is a difference.

I knew. But again, point out to me where it has been shown repeatedly that bias didn't go into the FBI deciding to not pursue charges against Hillary when they have no right to make that decision. Admitedly the AG wouldn't have either but I'm sure there was no bias there either.

Again, the IG report did not rule out bias went into decisions, just that bias didn't cause them to make illegal/against policy decision. There is a difference.

Oh, come on....you are much better and smarter than this.  You can listen to them and investigate what they are saying...read all the reports..and you are more able to comprehend than most Minions.   And tell me again why a Republican would go after him and pass up a valid opportunity to go after Hillary, if there was one?  There wasn't...    If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on.


Especially after all the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations the Republicans have paid good money for decades to get her and Billy Bob...  As reported on by the two main paid agents the Repubs hired to go after them - Kenneth Starr and David Brock.  Both of whom finally had bouts of conscience and recanted all and apologized for their misdeeds.

I'll continue to wait for the answer to my question I suppose.

You are kidding, right?   It has been answered.  Repeatedly.  By every real news outlet in the world.

Haven't been able to find it. Humor me.

Unbelievable.  Even your Fake Fox News people are blasting Trump...how bad do you suppose it has to get for that to happen?   Just another Russian Fellow Traveler.

My logic brain is hurting.

No one will ever definitively prove that alleged bias did not influence a decision.

It simply can't be done.  Not only can you not prove the negative, but it is basically impossible to eliminate the possibility the someones state of mind did, or did not influence any particular action or inaction.  Saying that there is no evidence to support that conclusion, or that available evidence supports the actions/inactoins in the absence of bias, is about as good as one is going to get.

The burden of proof would lie with the one holding the alternate (non-null) hypothesis.  Like some hypothesis that political beliefs exchanged in text messages resulted in some vaguely referenced judgments/actions/inactions that are disliked.  You can't state a vague hypothesis and then argue its merit because it cannot be disproved.   That's pretty much the definition of a conjecture or conspiracy theory.

Not comparing your example to this, but I think it illustrates the point:

I know a lady who claims she had Sasquatch living near her at Haickey Creek Park.  She heard them all the time, and will do an impression for you. They ate her chickens and left hair on the fencing several times.  She sent the hair to OSU for analysis, but they destroyed it because the government is helping hide the Squatch. She doesn't have any more hair.  She tried to get pictures, but they are nocturnal and smart, so she always failed. If you go out there, you won't hear them anymore because they left when the Creek went in.  I'm not making this up, and there is no way I can prove that there was not Squatch living near out there.

But that doesn't mean Sasquatch used to live near Haickey Creek Park.

I'll just chalk that up as a you are going to stick with the talking points instead of answering the question.

herion's playbook exposed:
1. Make a claim.
2. Upon being presented with contradictory evidence, change the subject.
3. If that doesn't work, bring up Fox news or some derogatory name for a Trump supporter and move on.

Projection.  Deflection.  Diversion.  Dissemination of half truths - and not even half....  

As I stated before, and you obviously ignored, "If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on."  

Asked and answered.  In more ways than one.  And more times than one.

I made no claim.  DOJ made one.  Every news source, including the Fake one made claims.  And now, even Republicans are making claims.  Known to the world at large as stating facts.   All I do is repeat what is stated publicly by others.  And you say I make a claim....Lol.  If you take the blinders off, you might be able to see the entire world.  Amazing place - you might enjoy some of it.

I already pointed out how the DOJ made no such claim, yet I'm the one with blinders on. Got it. We'll move on. Just admit you made false claim every once in a while. It's endearing.

The really funny thing is you always say others are projecting, deflection, and diverting when that is literally your playbook when you can't backup your claims with evidence, which I'll admit is rare, but it does happen. You are just so fun to watch when it does.