View RSS Feed

Grim17

Sometimes the answer is a simple one: How the FBI handled the Clinton and Trump investigations.

Rating: 1 votes, 1.00 average.
.

Back in 2004 I learned a political lesson that not only has stuck with me ever since, but I think might hold the answer to a current issue that very few on either side of the isle have thought to consider.


Shortly after we invaded Iraq back in 2003, questions about those stockpiles of WMD we were told Saddam possessed started to surface. It didn't take long before it was apparent that those stockpiles simply didn't exist, which lead to the Senate Intelligence Committee opening up an investigation into the matter. Back then I was like most Americans, I supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. My support however, wasn't tethered to the "stockpiles of WMD" claims like it was for most, because I understood he was a bad guy and believed without a doubt, that if he were allowed to remain in power it would come back to bite us in the ass.


I'm someone who prides himself on putting the truth before politics and it was no different back then. So as 2004 rolled around and the Senate investigation got closer and closer to completion, I was faced with what I believed to be the only logical conclusion when it came to the WMD claims made by the Bush Administration... That Bush and his people must have lied about the intelligence, or at minimum, exaggerated about it in order to gain public support for the invasion. The release of that report was something I was not looking forward to because in my mind, it was going to be the end of the president and create a world wide scandal that America wouldn't recover from for decades.


Believing that Bush and his administration lied, the day that Senate report was released I expected the democrats and the MSM to begin a relentless attack on the White House, firing with both barrels. To my surprise, that didn't happen. Sure, there was criticism from the left, but it seemed that the report hadn't concluded that the Bush administration lied and this made absolutely no sense to me. This lead to me downloading and reading the more than 500 page report cover to cover not once, but twice. What I discovered from that report made perfect sense, but it was something that I simply never considered. As with most people who followed politics as closely as I did, the simplest answers quite often evades us because we fail to take politics out of the equation and consider things like simple human nature.


That incident taught me the importance of taking a step back and looking at things from a human perspective, and taking politics completely out of the mix. While most politically oriented disputes do in fact center around partisan politics, there are occasions where they don't and I think it's quite possible we're faced with one of those now. I'm talking about the investigation into the FBI and DOJ on their handling of both the Clinton email investigation, and the initial Trump/Russia collusion investigation.


Based on all the facts publicly known about both investigations, there are some pretty obvious conclusions we can come to. We know that the Clinton email investigation was not conducted in the same aggressive manner as any other investigation would have been. The number of breaks and allowances given to Clinton and her former staff was enough for anyone to cry foul. Clinton basically called all the shots and the FBI catered to her every whim. It all culminated with Director Comey going on national TV and laying out all the misconduct and crimes she committed, and then telling the American people that there would be no grand jury and no charges what so ever filed against her or any of her staff. There is a huge stack of evidence showing that the FBI handled the investigation inappropriately.


The we have the Trump/Russia investigation, which appears to have been centered on an unverified dossier that was compiled as opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. A dossier that was used to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to spy on a member of the Trump campaign, that apparently was misrepresented to the court by omitting facts that would have brought into question the credibility of the information it contained.


Those on the right are claiming the fix was in to both exonerate Clinton, and falsely accuse Trump using bogus information, all because of the anti-Trump bias that existed in both the FBI and DOJ. Of course almost nobody on the left will even acknowledge the possibility that either those investigations were not handled appropriately, even though the evidence is rather overwhelming. There are a few of them who have been honest enough to acknowledge the possibility, and to them along with those on the right, here's a possible explanation that you may not have considered.


Maybe the personal bias against Trump by Strzok, McCabe, Page, Comey and others, had nothing to do with how they handled those investigations. Take a minute and put yourself in their shoes and try to realize the difficult position those people were put in. None those people were part of the rank and file at the FBI or DOJ, they were all in authority positions that they worked years to acquire. Now all of the sudden they are tasked to do an investigation that has career implications the likes of which have never been seen before. Think about it... They had to investigate the former SOS, a woman who everyone on planet earth believed would be the next president of the united states and most importantly to them, would be their next boss. Every single one of them had to believe, especially knowing how ruthless Hillary was, that if they didn't watch their step with this investigation, it could very likely cost them their careers as soon as she took office.


I think there's a good possibility that that is the reason that the FBI handled the Clinton investigation with kid gloves and the reason they never considered recommending any criminal charges being filed against her. Sure, it's possible that their personal biases could have been the reason, or could have at least played a part in how they conducted that investigation, but I think it's more likely that their actions were done out of self preservation, in order to protect their careers.


When it comes to the Trump/Russia investigation, I think it's very possible the same thing applied. I think they pushed the Trump investigation because that's what their soon-to-be boss was expecting them to do. Hillary's the one who paid for that dossier and both the FBI and the DOJ knew it. I'm sure they had to know that if they decided to sit on it until it was verified, it might cost them their careers after she was elected. That would explain why they presented that dossier to the FISA court and withheld all the facts that would have cast doubt on it's validity.


Of course I could be wrong about this and it wouldn't surprise me if I was, especially when you consider the sad state of today's political discourse. But based on what happened back in 2004, I thought I would at least offer up an alternative explanation for everyone to think about.

Grim17
4/30/2019

Updated 04-30-19 at 04:34 AM by Grim17

Categories
Member Blog

Comments

  1. MovingPictures's Avatar
    This post just goes to show some people just don't deal in facts.

    If you truly pride yourself in accepting truth, then you ought to be able to come to terms with the fact that some of your political theories are in fact wrong on a factual basis.

    The IG report did not find any evidence that political bias played a factor in the FBI's decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton. In fact the IG report makes it clear that investigators drew their decision from the law and judicial precedent, including some of which was rooted in the Bush administrations own email scandal.

    Further, the IG report found that because of Republican theories in Congress that the FBI was out to protect Clinton, the FBI leadership - Comey in particular - broke DOJ policy in not criticizing the actions of someone who the FBI chose not to indict, in order to dispel those Republican theories effectively. That goes against the narrative the FBI were out to protect Clinton, whether you accept it or not.

    As for the idea of some deep state out to get Trump: it's absurd. While it's clear Strzok and Page had no love for Trump, they and the entire FBI kept confidential the scandal that was unfolding behind the scenes involving people in his campaign, which proves they were respecting department policy for him, while discarding it for Clinton. That undermines the narrative they allowed politics to factor into their investigative steps.

    Lastly, the FISA warrant on Page was months after he had left the campaign and according to people involved, Steele's dossier (which I do find problematic) was not the only source for the warrant, and they likely would have still had probable cause anyways.

    I'm not saying the laws shouldn't be changed to make what Clinton did amount to criminal conduct. On the contrary, I do. I also feel that the laws should be changed to make what Don Jr-Kushner-Manafort did at 'Trump Tower' with the Russian illegal. I also support the IG finding Steele as a problematic source for the FBI, if he so concludes.

    But the idea of a criminal deep state that's out to get Trump is not based on facts, but on an anger that the FBI had the nerve to ever investigate some of the problematic conduct of Trump and his campaign, as well the fact that Clinton isn't in jail for simply breathing.
  2. <alt>doxygen's Avatar
    Please, read Mueller Report, use a search engine to check your timelines, and remove all of the speculative Clinton/Obama Deep State inferences. Maybe there will be something left, maybe not.

    Do you really think Robert Mueller would spend 2 years running a political witch hunt based on bogus info? That's what you seem to want us to believe.
  3. MrWonka's Avatar
    Based on all the facts publicly known about both investigations, there are some pretty obvious conclusions we can come to. We know that the Clinton email investigation was not conducted in the same aggressive manner as any other investigation would have been.
    This is nonsensically false. The investigation into Hillary Cllinton lasted for over four years, was carried out almost entirely by Registered Republicans, and Clinton herself testified under oath in front of Congress for 11 straight hours without them being able to even accuse her of lying under Oath.

    The Russian investigation lasted only two years. Resulted in numerous members of Trump's campaign staff being charged and close to 30 different indictments being handed down. The investigation was again carried out and overseen by Republicans, and Trump himself refused to testify in person before congress under oath because we all knew damn well he couldn't have lasted 5 minutes in front of Mueller's questioning without telling boldfaced lies that would have landed him in jail.
  4. joko104's Avatar
    Many wars we have been in were justified with outright deliberate lies or asserting unknown facts:
    Spanish-American War
    WW1
    Vietnam
    Iraq War 2
    Democrat Schumer basically admitted he'll do anything the Intelligence community wants out of fear of their retaliation if not.

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: