Former FBI Counterintelligence Chief Undergoes Public Senate Hearing - Polidicks

So do you guys just dismiss the 500 page IG report out of hand?

No but you are dismissing anything and everything to maintain a point even congressional members don’t neccesarily agree with me I’d suggest you listen to strozyks testimony in this whole ordeal as he makes it quite clear that your main point here isn’t possible in a group like the FBI. I doubt you’d maintain these requirements for “lack of bias” were it slanted in your favour and by omission I feel you are doing just that.

Do you have any evidence of that? From what I've heard people say, the intelligence committee was never very pro-Trump, even if they were pro-republican generally because of his many negative statements about vets, the FBI, etc. What have I dismissed? I'm the only one presenting real evidence in this conversation with the IG report. I've also listened to ~80% of the Strzok hearing, as it was happening, yesterday. The IG report specifically claims that there are examples where his bias seems to have been relevant. Why are you taking the words of the person in question over the official internal watchdog report?

That wasn't a political matter, it was an interpersonal one.

Whatever biases he might have had, were removed, and controlled for by the remainder of the FBI, and it's investigative process. I think it's pretty unlikely that any of his stated bias did leak into the case as we saw he was removed and it was controlled for. Whatever implication the report makes that he mishandled his own biases, it makes it clear that none of that ended up the in the proceeding report, or was made actionable. You can't cherry pick the IG's words like that and expect that to work out dude. Pg 526 of the Report, under the Conclusions sections: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1894/641079de-4a2e-401c-a66e-28ed62f2f9aa/image.png This seems to speak to the fact that this is purely a PR nightmare for the FBI, and not a procedural one. No procedures were violated.

They specifically refer to instances, like the Weiner laptop, where bias came into effect. How can you say that Strzok failing to follow up on new evidence isn't more than simple PR? Like I said previously, the report concludes that the investigation wasn't majorly affected by bias, but that Strzok showed extreme signs of bias that did come into play in at least that one situation.

The conclusion of the report does not mention that "one incident" so it must not be of large enough consequence to be mentioned in the Conclusions section of the report which does detail the main arguments of what the consequences to the FBI should be for bungling this. Maybe, if you're going to hold the IG report as a document to be used to throw the book at anti trump actors, you should realize that even in the conclusion section of the report, this report does not condemn the actions of Strzok or Comey, and merely points them out as failings of the individual, and not the institution. It certainly casts negative lights on the FBI, which is why the conclusions section has a number of recommendations going forward which will likely result in any of these types of discussions or leanings on the behalf of agents be kept more secret and off record entirely.

The very part that you quoted mentions it... I really don't know what you're reading. It says: "It also called into question Strzok's failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear related investigative lead found on the Weiner laptop."

Yes, it brings up instances of failure and overall indicates the investigative procedures were in good standing. The FBI wasn't compromised by Strzok, the Mueller investigation sure as hell wasn't, so why are we so focused on Strzok? You're CERTAIN his bias would have been involved, but I've known lawyers who are certain of somethings, but argue the contrary as it is their job. It isn't a stretch for me to believe for a moment Strzok was able to seperate the two. you don't believe that. I do.

Or a more personally-relevant and, I imagine, shared experience: You hate your job but you put on a smiling face and do the work diligently and reliably - because that's the job and you need the job.

Because this thread is about Strzok? The report states: "In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias."

It seems I'm not alone in believing that based on the report.

It does not make the same conclusions in the same extremes you do.

The report states: There was no concrete evidence of bias, however The text messages raised the possibility of him being biased, and because There was no concrete evidence of him not being biased (I don't think that's even possible to produce in this case), He was removed from the investigation This is basically FBI taking "guilty until proven innocent" approach to ensure the investigation is not affected by bias. You could accuse any agent of bias for pursuing an agenda. But because this guy wrote it down in a text message and it ended up public, he was removed from the investigation due the fact he clearly had preference for the investigative target's opponent, even if only privately.

That's not quite it. They state that there was no good reason for the delay being spoken about, and that the reasons given by the FBI were not sufficient. Those facts, combined with the personal bias from people like Strzok, mean they can't dismiss the real possibility that his bias had an effect in decision making. At this point in time, there is no other sufficient reason being provided.

One thing I'd just like to say that everyone has personal biases, including everyone on this forum, everyone on the US administration and everyone on Mueller's team. For all I know, Mueller's team may be comprised of 90% Trump supporters and that's completely irrelevant. Reasonable people's opinions can also change over time based on new information. I'm sure investigators' personal opinion of the administration is also changing as they investigate further. Strzok could have (this is strictly an example) been a trump supporter 2 years ago but now that he's got some new insight, he's not anymore. If someone can do their job professionally, unaffected by their personal opinion, then their personal opinion is completely irrelevant.

I'm not sure how important it is to focus on Strzok when he's been removed from the investigation anyway.

In the big picture, probably not that important, but in a thread about Strzok, I think it's fairly relevant.

I suppose that's true but it feels like you're continuing to argue because you want to be right. if you acknowledge it doesn't really matter in the long run, why continue.

I honestly don't really get your point here. So if something isn't the important, then we're all supposed to just ignore when people make claims that we see as wrong? Not every discussion needs to be of the utmost important. Why wouldn't your point apply to everyone else in this discussion in an equal way? Are they not also here continuing the discussion?

https://youtu.be/sRR1D78O7vQ This is an angry man.

I dunno man. I'm not saying you can't you can't discuss things, don't let me stop you. You keep trying to argue that Strzok is biased, you're the only one doing so, even though you acknowledged it doesn't matter. I am only asking you because it seems like you're fruitlessly running a hamster wheel. If you like doing that I guess that's swell but I think that what you're doing is weird and worth pointing out.

Alright, then. I'm not sure what to say other than that.

Strzok being biased or not is irrelevant. The facts of the case are what matter, and no amount of character assassination will change that. All proper procedure was followed, and continues to be followed, within Robert Mueller's investigation, and it has continued to bear fruit long after Strzok was completely removed from it for simply having the appearance of unprofessional bias, despite no evidence whatsoever that any aspect of the case had actually been impacted by his personal beliefs. This kangaroo court is distraction and deflection, like damn near everything else the GOP is doing right now. It's an irrelevant character assassination that has absolutely zero bearing on the investigation or its findings. This is the most critically important federal investigation in US history. Don't let these self-interested partisan bootlickers control the narrative with bullshit.

The fact is this hearing was the most unprofessional display of congressional processes that is possible and supporting yet another clear republican “witch hunt” based on partisan biases is a waste of America’s time. Nothing about this was “proper”. The republicans in control demonstrated clear biases that sgman would swear should dismiss them if they were only democrats. They’re not so he says everything they do in a farcical pursuit of “justice”. Hard not to call it a joke.

Good fucking god I had no idea Congress was so childish.