(06-15-2018 05:18 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Good grief. This makes me feel even worse.

You know Spirit, I don't really think you should be on this website. With your problem the things we see and seen about our seditious FBI and DOJ is enough to get someone upset, worried, and grievous of our government employees. Yes, the same one that are supposedly "taking" care of its people.

Our judicial system is starting to resemble that of the Soviets KGB with unlimited power to bring down our Republic. It's sad and I pray that someday we can have a unbiased FBI and DOJ. But, we can only hope.

In other words, this site doesn't help you at all, in any way. Leave it.

(06-15-2018 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:33 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  key words in that article: "at the conclusion of the investigation."
So, two agents who were romantically involved with each other are talking about their political preferences via instant messenger AFTER the FBI had made their decision not to prosecute HRC.
So now FBI agents aren't allowed to talk to their significant others about who they're voting for, or who they're NOT voting for?
I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but I'd venture a guess that most people who live in the DC area lean democrat...and they probably ESPECIALLY did given the choice we had in 2016 for a
Are these people egotistical jackasses? Probably.
That doesn't mean they're working behind the scenes to undo Trump.

You seem to believe that these people are professional enough to overcome their prejudices and do an objective and unbiased job.
I don’t.

People have to overcome predjudices and biases in every single walk of life for every single job. So yes; the expectation is that people be professional enough to do their job in an objective manner, whether they agree with the person or not.
You can't weed out employees based on their political leanings, and you can't stop colleagues from speaking with each other about non-work related things. So exactly what should have been done differently here? The investigation was over by the time these conversations were had - it wasn't like they were coaching the agent prior to speaking to HRC.
Should the FBI hire based on whether or not they are a staunch democrat, republican, or only hire moderates? Of course not.

No, but they should be extra careful in staffing high-level investigations not to stack the deck with people who lean to one side or the other. They obviously were not in this case.

If you have a group of people who lean disproportionately one way, then you are relying solely on their ability to put their prejudices aside. If you intentionally seek diversity of thought, there is a better chance for the process to work fairly.

You're actually supporting selecting investigators based on their political beliefs? You might want to rethink that.

(06-16-2018 01:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:18 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Good grief. This makes me feel even worse.

You know Spirit, I don't really think you should be on this website. With your problem the things we see and seen about our seditious FBI and DOJ is enough to get someone upset, worried, and grievous of our government employees. Yes, the same one that are supposedly "taking" care of its people.

Our judicial system is starting to resemble that of the Soviets KGB with unlimited power to bring down our Republic. It's sad and I pray that someday we can have a unbiased FBI and DOJ. But, we can only hope.

In other words, this site doesn't help you at all, in any way. Leave it.

Just a glutton I suppose....

(06-18-2018 10:56 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:33 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  key words in that article: "at the conclusion of the investigation."
So, two agents who were romantically involved with each other are talking about their political preferences via instant messenger AFTER the FBI had made their decision not to prosecute HRC.
So now FBI agents aren't allowed to talk to their significant others about who they're voting for, or who they're NOT voting for?
I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but I'd venture a guess that most people who live in the DC area lean democrat...and they probably ESPECIALLY did given the choice we had in 2016 for a
Are these people egotistical jackasses? Probably.
That doesn't mean they're working behind the scenes to undo Trump.

You seem to believe that these people are professional enough to overcome their prejudices and do an objective and unbiased job.
I don’t.

People have to overcome predjudices and biases in every single walk of life for every single job. So yes; the expectation is that people be professional enough to do their job in an objective manner, whether they agree with the person or not.
You can't weed out employees based on their political leanings, and you can't stop colleagues from speaking with each other about non-work related things. So exactly what should have been done differently here? The investigation was over by the time these conversations were had - it wasn't like they were coaching the agent prior to speaking to HRC.
Should the FBI hire based on whether or not they are a staunch democrat, republican, or only hire moderates? Of course not.

No, but they should be extra careful in staffing high-level investigations not to stack the deck with people who lean to one side or the other. They obviously were not in this case.
If you have a group of people who lean disproportionately one way, then you are relying solely on their ability to put their prejudices aside. If you intentionally seek diversity of thought, there is a better chance for the process to work fairly.

You're actually supporting selecting investigators based on their political beliefs? You might want to rethink that.

Just what I said, don't stack the deck. If that means that political viewpoints have to be considered, then absolutely. The horrors that I think you are suggesting as problematic occurred when everyone had the same viewpoint.

(06-18-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:56 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You seem to believe that these people are professional enough to overcome their prejudices and do an objective and unbiased job.
I don’t.

People have to overcome predjudices and biases in every single walk of life for every single job. So yes; the expectation is that people be professional enough to do their job in an objective manner, whether they agree with the person or not.
You can't weed out employees based on their political leanings, and you can't stop colleagues from speaking with each other about non-work related things. So exactly what should have been done differently here? The investigation was over by the time these conversations were had - it wasn't like they were coaching the agent prior to speaking to HRC.
Should the FBI hire based on whether or not they are a staunch democrat, republican, or only hire moderates? Of course not.

No, but they should be extra careful in staffing high-level investigations not to stack the deck with people who lean to one side or the other. They obviously were not in this case.
If you have a group of people who lean disproportionately one way, then you are relying solely on their ability to put their prejudices aside. If you intentionally seek diversity of thought, there is a better chance for the process to work fairly.

You're actually supporting selecting investigators based on their political beliefs? You might want to rethink that.

Just what I said, don't stack the deck. If that means that political viewpoints have to be considered, then absolutely. The horrors that I think you are suggesting as problematic occurred when everyone had the same viewpoint.

The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

The opinion that all these were were espressions of frustration is ridiculous and I think you know it. When people say 'we will stop them', especially when they then are at or near the center of efforts to do just that, that is not merely 'frustration'.

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:56 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  People have to overcome predjudices and biases in every single walk of life for every single job. So yes; the expectation is that people be professional enough to do their job in an objective manner, whether they agree with the person or not.
You can't weed out employees based on their political leanings, and you can't stop colleagues from speaking with each other about non-work related things. So exactly what should have been done differently here? The investigation was over by the time these conversations were had - it wasn't like they were coaching the agent prior to speaking to HRC.
Should the FBI hire based on whether or not they are a staunch democrat, republican, or only hire moderates? Of course not.

No, but they should be extra careful in staffing high-level investigations not to stack the deck with people who lean to one side or the other. They obviously were not in this case.
If you have a group of people who lean disproportionately one way, then you are relying solely on their ability to put their prejudices aside. If you intentionally seek diversity of thought, there is a better chance for the process to work fairly.

You're actually supporting selecting investigators based on their political beliefs? You might want to rethink that.

Just what I said, don't stack the deck. If that means that political viewpoints have to be considered, then absolutely. The horrors that I think you are suggesting as problematic occurred when everyone had the same viewpoint.

The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

Two points:
1) Agreed, personal political leanings/opinions don't "automatically" equate with not being able to do your job fairly. But, and it is a huge but, when the views expressed are so extreme, I think it is reasonable, if not required by any logical analysis, to conclude that the investigation is very likely to be tainted. I don't quite understand how one speaks fairly freely about "insurance policies" and "stopping him from becoming president" an maintains objectivity when conducting investigations of two presidential candidates. They're not angels, they're human, and from the looks of things, pretty sleazy humans.
2) And this one is tougher, I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that given the extent to which they expressed those opinions in texts and emails, they probably made their views pretty well known around the office. How many people do you know that hate Trump that haven't been pretty outspoken about it? And in bureaucrat-land, the tide of opinion against Trump has to be pretty strong, because he would certainly be seen as a threat to a lot of turf. So I tend to doubt that those opinions were unknown.

Without some good explanation of what those texts mean, and it had better be damn good and there had better be corroboration, I'm going to be inclined to a high degree of skepticism about anything they did with respect to either the Hillary or Trump investigations.

(06-18-2018 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:56 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, but they should be extra careful in staffing high-level investigations not to stack the deck with people who lean to one side or the other. They obviously were not in this case.
If you have a group of people who lean disproportionately one way, then you are relying solely on their ability to put their prejudices aside. If you intentionally seek diversity of thought, there is a better chance for the process to work fairly.

You're actually supporting selecting investigators based on their political beliefs? You might want to rethink that.

Just what I said, don't stack the deck. If that means that political viewpoints have to be considered, then absolutely. The horrors that I think you are suggesting as problematic occurred when everyone had the same viewpoint.

The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

Two points:
1) Agreed, personal political leanings/opinions don't "automatically" equate with not being able to do your job fairly. But, and it is a huge but, when the views expressed are so extreme, I think it is reasonable, if not required by any logical analysis, to conclude that the investigation is very likely to be tainted. I don't quite understand how one speaks fairly freely about "insurance policies" and "stopping him from becoming president" an maintains objectivity when conducting investigations of two presidential candidates. They're not angels, they're human, and from the looks of things, pretty sleazy humans.
2) And this one is tougher, I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that given the extent to which they expressed those opinions in texts and emails, they probably made their views pretty well known around the office. How many people do you know that hate Trump that haven't been pretty outspoken about it? And in bureaucrat-land, the tide of opinion against Trump has to be pretty strong, because he would certainly be seen as a threat to a lot of turf. So I tend to doubt that those opinions were unknown.

Without some good explanation of what those texts mean, and it had better be damn good and there had better be corroboration, I'm going to be inclined to a high degree of skepticism about anything they did with respect to either the Hillary or Trump investigations.

I think that's a lot of reaching re: the employees' talk around the office (if they even spend any time together in an office setting - I doubt FBI agents are spending a lot of time hanging out in a cube farm). I have pretty distinct opinions about Trump, and so do several of my co-workers (I know this because I'm friends with them on social media as well), but after the election it was pretty quiet around here, because we all know better than to have political discussions in the office.

Again, I welcome digging further to see if anything came of this other than tough talk between friends/significant others over text. I think that the fact that this particular report turned up no adverse effect on that investigation does not bode well for those who think that they were conspiring, however.

(06-15-2018 06:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:33 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  key words in that article: "at the conclusion of the investigation."

So, two agents who were romantically involved with each other are talking about their political preferences via instant messenger AFTER the FBI had made their decision not to prosecute HRC.

So now FBI agents aren't allowed to talk to their significant others about who they're voting for, or who they're NOT voting for?

I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but I'd venture a guess that most people who live in the DC area lean democrat...and they probably ESPECIALLY did given the choice we had in 2016 for a repub.

Are these people egotistical jackasses? Probably.
That doesn't mean they're working behind the scenes to undo Trump.

So you think these people were not working behind the scenes to undo Trump?

I know you're a liberal but you have got to be kidding...seriously

They know it but the consequences of admitting it are to much to handle.

(06-18-2018 12:51 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  I think that's a lot of reaching re: the employees' talk around the office (if they even spend any time together in an office setting - I doubt FBI agents are spending a lot of time hanging out in a cube farm). I have pretty distinct opinions about Trump, and so do several of my co-workers (I know this because I'm friends with them on social media as well), but after the election it was pretty quiet around here, because we all know better than to have political discussions in the office.

I don't think it's reaching at all. I've spent a lot of time around both federal and state administrative agencies, and I'd say that I've never spent very much time around any agency employee without having a pretty good idea of where he or she stood politically. FBI field agents may or may not spend a lot of time hanging around their cubes, but these aren't field agents. These folks are in the home office, and they basically drive the same desk around every day.

Social conversations around those agencies tend to be a lot more political than what I have experienced in other office settings over a long career.

Quote:Again, I welcome digging further to see if anything came of this other than tough talk between friends/significant others over text. I think that the fact that this particular report turned up no adverse effect on that investigation does not bode well for those who think that they were conspiring, however.

I think the fact that this report reached a conclusion of no political influence on the investigation may largely be attributed to two factors:

1) It was the FBI IG who did the report, and remember what I've said about security classifications: confidential, secret, top secret, and embarrassing to the agency, and there's only one of those hills they will die on. IG reports tend to whitewash as much as possible.

2) The report apparently went through several rounds of review by higher-ups before it was released. Pretty much any review would tend pretty strongly to weaken any language critical of the agency.

There is one other factor. Common sense simply says that the notion that the extreme bias portrayed in the texts/emails had no impact on the investigation is ludicrous. I would give Strzok, Page, and others the opportunity to testify to clarify what they meant, and I would be open to giving them an opportunity to explain how and why it was a "no harm, no foul" situation. But that's not my default position.

No, I don't have much respect for the honesty and integrity of Washington Beltway bureaucrats. Field agents, yes, but their bosses in DC, no.

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

I wonder what your reaction would be if you discovered that the cops investigating you were exchanging messages like, "Tigergreen is such as asswipe, I can't wait to see this clown go down".

(06-18-2018 03:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

I wonder what your reaction would be if you discovered that the cops investigating you were exchanging messages like, "Tigergreen is such as asswipe, I can't wait to see this clown go down".

If I were a political candidate, I'd take it with a fair grain of salt.
I'd also want it investigated, which I've said all along in regards to this. I just think it's not going to be the coup attempt that some of you think.

(06-18-2018 03:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 03:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  The horrors of texting your co-workers to discuss frustration/disappointment with the outcome of an election? Because that's the only thing that's been shown from this report.
Again, if they want to keep digging go for it, but personal political leanings/opinions don't automatically equate with not being able to do your job fairly.

I wonder what your reaction would be if you discovered that the cops investigating you were exchanging messages like, "Tigergreen is such as asswipe, I can't wait to see this clown go down".

If I were a political candidate, I'd take it with a fair grain of salt.
I'd also want it investigated, which I've said all along in regards to this. I just think it's not going to be the coup attempt that some of you think.

I certainly didn't start out thinking it was a coup attempt at all. In fact, the leaks about the FBI's investigation into Trump's ties with Russians had the desired effect on me which was to make me doubt what Trump was saying about it all. I admit it. For most of my long life I've held the FBI in high regard. The FBI certainly wouldn't BS the American public on such a thing, would they?

Now, with each passing day there's not only more evidence that the FBI has not been straight with the American people, but that they CONTINUE to stone-wall Congressional investigators who are legitimately asking for documents.

That doesn't make you wonder what's up Tigergreen? What reason would they have for all the stonewalling and redacting of documents? Protecting sources? They've claimed that plenty but once the truth (the unredacted information) if finally known, it turns out to be nothing more than info embarassing to the FBI.

I'm tired of their shyte. If they're guilty of crimes, and I believe they are, then let's get on with justice.

The FBI's downplaying this crapola just to protect its integrity what little they have now. They know they don't have any and they still keep at it by stonewalling. What the director said was to soften their dishonesty but yet again they keep being dishonest. They don't want to show anything that will prove that they're complicit in wrongdoing after all it's their job and you don't want any besmirching of it.

They're crooked like the Demoncraptic Party. Maybe they'll change but don't hold your breath.

(06-16-2018 12:17 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:39 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Any one who believes that there hasn't been a willful cover-up of wrong doing at the highest levels of our government is a fool who is deluding him/herself.

The office of the president has provided Bueller's team with something on the order of 1.2million pages of documents they've asked for. I've not heard a single complaint from Bueller that the White House is slow-walking anything.

Now, the FBI and DOJ? One need only look at the contents of the unredacted texts in the IG's report versus when they were originally handed over to congressional investigators redacted to know who's covering their ass.

Yes sir. I should have said at the highest levels of our Justice Dept.