FBI not motivated by political bias in Trump probe

Nov 2005
9,830
4,612
California
The Justice Department inspector general on Monday released a long-awaited report that found FBI agents were not motivated by political bias in opening investigations into associates of the Trump campaign in 2016.

The report, however, sharply criticizes the FBI over its handling of applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, providing fodder for Trump and his Republican allies while at the same time undercutting a key GOP talking point that agents driven by bias improperly targeted then-candidate Trump.

The findings released by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz set the stage for a partisan showdown on Capitol Hill, where he is slated to testify publicly Wednesday to answer questions from a Senate panel about the inquiry into the FBI’s Russia probe.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations,” the report states, referring to investigations into four people on Trump's campaign: George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Page.

Horowitz further concluded that the FBI had “an authorized purpose” to launch an investigation to “obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity.”

The report found that the FBI launched its investigation into the Trump campaign, dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane,” after it received information from a friendly foreign government on July 28, 2016, that Papadopoulos had suggested the campaign received an indication that Russia could assist in the election process by releasing damaging information on then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Horowitz did not find evidence that additional information was used as the basis to launch the investigation, but said the FBI and other intelligence agencies were already aware at the time of Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

Not surprised at the results.
And Repubs would latch onto a criticism that the FBI could cut down on their use of semi-colons if it were there. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007 and PMB
Mar 2013
10,464
11,439
Middle Tennessee
The irony here is, this was Barr's handpicked man. His job was to root out this corruption and bring these people to justice. He was going to make Trump's enemies pay. So Trump's hand-picked man's hand-picked man, couldn't find a shred of evidence the FBI acted improperly. Not only did he not find anything inappropriate, he found that the FBI was justified in its investigations.

If your handpicked and agenda-driven bulldog can't find the dirt, there must not have been anything for him to find.

Of course this won't stop Trump from continuing to spread his conspiracy theory and it won't stop the Trumpeteers from believing him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007 and RNG
Jun 2018
7,156
1,667
South Dakota
The idea that there was no political bias should appear as believable to the loons as the Mueller report saying there was no collusion. Your political bias is showing when you switch horses to go with however you can spin it to bash Trump even tho it contradicts you previous position.
The report found many "errors" and "mistakes" none of which worked in favor of not compelling the FISA court to refuse to allow the investigation of Carter Page. Subsequent investigation might just call the Page investigation invalid and anything that came from it "fruit of the poison tree".
I think this is what caconservative is alluding to.
 
Jun 2018
7,156
1,667
South Dakota
Does Barr have any evidence to lead to a different conclusion?

Without evidence, it's just "does not agree" (which would appear to be entirely politically motivated) with nothing of more significance.
With your support of the house of cards the Dems have build on hearsay and lack of any direct, tangible evidence you should get right behind Barr even if he has no evidence at all.
 
Jul 2015
5,930
2,432
chicago
Does Barr have any evidence to lead to a different conclusion?

Without evidence, it's just "does not agree" (which would appear to be entirely politically motivated) with nothing of more significance.
Yes he has evidence. You know he is in charge right?