a fine but important distinction, he said there was no evidence that the decisions were the direct result of any bias. that's a VERY loaded statement legally.

no evidence =/= evidence to the contrary (example: if there was another message that Strzok said, "i had the chance to really F over Trump today, but i'm not gonna do something to risk my job because i dont like the guy")

direct result =/= bias free (think of what i said about different vs inordinate, he could have been slightly pushed one way or the other, that's largely unprovable)

part of the game at play here is that its quite possible his political biases made him make small decisions along the way that could have had large impacts in the long run, a man in his position throws a pebble and the ripples can be much larger. it's not possible in a non-Minority Report world to prove this stuff. That's why the political, but acceptable in light of precedent, decision was made to fire him. The circumstances are similar to HRC, but no one who thought her actions were fishy could fire her.




cell phones and email are all thats changed in my opinion. the FBI has always been a semi-rogue agency that's heavily influenced by politicians.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 13 2018 01:45pm

Did not have confidence the decision to prioritize Russia investigation over following up on Weiner laptop was free from bias, in light of his text messages.

the OIG found substantial reason to believe that Strzok's personal bias interfered with his prioritizing the Trump investigation over the Hillary investigation

These claims are not the same thing.

the former statement is one he would not have made without the latter statement being true.
He would not have testified to 'no confidence' without there being reason for that no confidence. If he had no substantial evidence, he would have testified that he 'had no reason to believe Strzok's bias impacted his handling of the investigation'- which is what Horowitz testified about Strzok's actions within the investigations, but not with the handling of the prioritization between them. He gets up and says he no confidence in proposition A, but has no reason to believe proposition B. There's a clear difference.

He ends the sentence with "in light of the text messages", which implies that without those text messages revealing Strzok's bias against Trump, he wouldn't have a firm reason to say he doesn't have confidence that Strzok's decision was free from bias. Otherwise, it's just a difference of opinion over prioritization of investigations... and it's not difficult to see why the Russia investigation was significantly more urgent and important than the Hillary investigation.


---

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1029106880126234625

I tend to lean towards this argument on Strzok's firing.

This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 14 2018 07:14am

stupid frogposter

The President's morning words of inspiration and encouragement for the nation

Complainer-in-chief.

Also lol @ calling his former black employee a dog.