MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

I.G. Report Won’t Settle Any Arguments About Hillary Clinton’s Emails

The DOJ's inspector general concludes that James Comey acted wrongly but not politically and that an FBI agent said "we'll stop" Trump from winning but didn't act on it.

||| JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/NewscomJONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/NewscomIn August 2016, Peter Strzok, then the FBI's counterespionage chief, told his FBI lawyer galpal Lisa Page that Donald Trump would never become president. "No. No he won't," Strzok texted to Page, according to a highly anticipated report released today by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. "We'll stop it." Yet the I.G. report ultimately concludes that Strzok, who was bounced by Special Counsel Robert Mueller from the Trump/Russia probe last summer when a cache of his inappropriate and political texts with Page were discovered, did not measurably act on his desire to prevent Trump's victory.

"We found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined," the executive summary says, referring to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices as secretary of state. "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed....These messages cast a cloud over the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation's credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable."

Thus arrives the latest evidentiary Rorschach test in a Trump/Hillary/FBI/Russia investigative and political dispute that shows no signs of abating. There is ample material in Horowitz's report for both sides to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, particularly in regard to embattled former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey, the report found, deviated "clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms" in his unusually public and self-directed handling of the Clinton investigation during the 2016 campaign, which "negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." In particular, Comey made a "serious error of judgment" in sending an October 28 letter to Congress saying he was reopening the investigation based on the discovery of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, especially since the laptop had been discovered a full month before.

"Comey's description of his choice as being between 'two doors,' one labeled 'speak' and one labeled 'conceal,' was a false dichotomy," the report charges. "The two doors were actually labeled 'follow policy/practice' and 'depart from policy/practice.'" Still, "we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part."

Comey reacted with his usual stoic pomposity:

The former FBI director found time to author a whole New York Times op-ed piece in response. "The report also resoundingly demonstrates that there was no prosecutable case against Mrs. Clinton, as we had concluded," he wrote.

Democrats, meanwhile, are once again howling for Comey's blood. "The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report," Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) said in a joint statement, "is that the FBI's actions helped Donald Trump become president."

Republicans, too, feel vindicated. "I am alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed by the Inspector General's finding of numerous failures by DOJ and FBI," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in statement. "This is not the way normal investigations are run. The investigation was mishandled. The investigatory conclusions were reached before the end of the witness interviews…. The report also conclusively shows an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI. Peter Strzok's manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation. Bias is so pernicious and malignant as to both taint the process, the result, and the ability to have confidence in either."

Inspector General Horowitz is widely respected in law enforcement and on both sides of the political aisle, so it will be interesting to see if those disappointed that the report didn't provide the final nail in whatever coffin they're hammering on start criticizing his professionalism. More likely, the details across its 568 pages will provide more fodder for a years-long debate and concurrent investigations that seem destined to linger for a long time.

Photo Credit: JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • colorblindkid||

    Everybody in Washington is as corrupt, unethical and incompetent as Trump. Trump is just astoundingly bad at hiding it, and he says mean things about the press so they actually give a shit.

  • Tony||

    He is bad at hiding it because it is so voluminous. Both his corruption and his giant ass. He is no run-of-the-mill grifter. His unprecedented levels of corruption combined with his unprecedented levels of vulgarity as a human are why people chose him and not the only typically corrupt Jeb Bush or some such.

  • Citizen X||

    "Unprecedented?" Weird, i never would have picked you for the sheltered type.

  • Tony||

    Nixon never sold the country out to an adversary state (allegedly).

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    But Hillary sure got some hefty down payments for such.

  • Agammamon||

    Is that it? Because Clinton sold the country out to an adversary state (allegedly).

  • BambiB||

    They found the spent casing. They found the gun. It was still smoking. Hitlery's fingerprints were all over it and on the shell casing. There was video of Hitlery (or an exact clone) firing the shot. There were 100 million witnesses. Her DNA was on the gun, the casing and the body. She has no alibi. In fact, she's admitted her crime.

    But there's not enough to prosecute her? GMAFB. Hitlery, Obozo, Eric Holder should all be in prison for life with no parole. Other players like Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe, Lynch - should be spending between 5 and 50 years in prison.

  • JesseAz||

    Bill CLinton did, to both China and NoKo.

  • Sevo||

    He also did a dandy business renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to various donors:
    "We'll leave the light on for ya!"
    And then she got caught trying to make off with the WH silver!

  • John C. Randolph||

    Not so much "sheltered" as pig-ignorant.

    -jcr

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    His unprecedented levels of corruption combined with his unprecedented levels of vulgarity as a human are why people chose him

    Trump would be hard-pressed to be more corrupt that Travelgate, Craig Livingstone FBI document-snooper hiring, rifling the office of your best friend while his body lies cooling in a park, bimbo eruption suppression, Whitewater missing documents showing up in the White House the day after the statute of limitations expiration, $100,000 futures market wizardry, backroom Hillary-care, sniper fire in Bosnia, CGI/Uranium One pay for play, private email server to hide from FOI requests, DNC money laundering, primary rigging, softball debate questioned Hillary. In fact, I suspect Trump's President specifically because because people understood he was far less corrupt than his competition.

    But Tony, you just keep on being you. By which I mean a completely un-selfaware vapid stone idiot.

  • ||

    ^ VRWC

  • SimonP||

    So, look. This might be hard to accept but, I think you might be certifiably insane.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    ^This is what "crap, that is all true and extremely damning" looks like after editing.

  • SimonP||

    Dude can't even get his conspiracy theories straight. It's just the mumblings of an apparently crazed and paranoiac mind.

  • That guy!||

    ^ This is what "Shit! They're on to me!" looks like after editing

  • SimonP||

    ^ This is what "Shit! They're on to me!" looks like after editing

    It's like debating Pee Wee Herman.

  • Sevo||

    "It's like debating Pee Wee Herman."
    ^ This is what "shit, the called me on my bullshit" looks like after editing.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Sevo showing up today and doing work.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Hey jackass, except for the Uranium One deal, I listed no conspiracy theories, just a series of documented historical events. Calling them "conspiracy theories" doesn't erase the news clips.

    FOADIAF.

  • ||

    Hey jackass, except for the Uranium One deal, I listed no conspiracy theories, just a series of documented historical events. Calling them "conspiracy theories" doesn't erase the news clips.

    I your defense, you didn't even touch on the fact-based portion of the career-topping dumpster fire that is Benghazi, let alone compare it to the fact that Trump essentially told the world that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without so much as stubbing the toe of an embassy security guard.

    Hillary can't even draw a red line in Syria or get the reset button working correctly while Trump seemingly can't tell Putin to go fuck himself hard enough to convince the world he isn't cozying up to the Russians.

  • SimonP||

    Hey jackass, except for the Uranium One deal, I listed no conspiracy theories, just a series of documented historical events. Calling them "conspiracy theories" doesn't erase the news clips.

    ^ This is what, "Yeah, save for that one conspiracy theory, my extremely loaded and factually incorrect and/or misleading descriptions of various scandals that I've sort of half-recalled and pulled out of my ass in a rambling, stream-of-consciousness, incoherent miasma that is too boot, a completely irrelevant tu quoque, have some remote basis in fact-like events" looks like after editing.

  • Sevo||

    Caught on bullshit again, Simon! How come it always happens to you?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    ^This is what "I have totally forgotten I said conspiracies plural, and am hoping everyone else does too" looks like after editing

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Tony's an idiot.

    Freddy is a disaffected, gullible bigot.

    Nobody is perfect.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    When you call virtually everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, it really says more about you than them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's mostly the Trump supporters, who deserve it.

    After a while, appeasing intolerance becomes an embrace of bigotry.

    I recognize, though, that right-wingers don't like to be called bigots anymore. This is among the great achievements of our liberal-libertarian alliance. Forty or 50 years ago, the intolerance was casual, and common, and open, and the racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes wanted everyone to know that their way was the correct way. Today, you can't find anyone who will admit to having been a vicious racist, even in Alabama or Mississippi. Those blacks must have been beating themselves at Selma, and those Freedom Riders must have committed suicide and buried themselves, if you credit today's alibis.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's mostly the Trump supporters, who deserve it.

    After a while, appeasing intolerance becomes an embrace of bigotry.

    I recognize, though, that right-wingers don't like to be called bigots anymore. This is among the great achievements of our liberal-libertarian alliance. Forty or 50 years ago, the intolerance was casual, and common, and open, and the racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes wanted everyone to know that their way was the correct way. Today, you can't find anyone who will admit to having been a vicious racist, even in Alabama or Mississippi. Those blacks must have been beating themselves at Selma, and those Freedom Riders must have committed suicide and buried themselves, if you credit today's alibis.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Keep digging.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Another thing that hasn't changed is Arthur L. Hicklib's copypasta.

    Carry on, soyboys.

  • Headache||

    Oh. 50 years ago? You mean 56 years ago when a greater percentage of DemocRATs voted against the Civil Rights Act. And 61 years ago democRATs blocked the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
    Usually(almost always) when leftist pukes use language like yours, the opposite is usually true. Racism is the history of the DemocRats from Andrew Jackson thru LBJ(Senate Majority Leader when the CRA was blocked in the 50's).

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    "Those blacks must have been beating themselves at Selma, and those Freedom Riders must have committed suicide and buried themselves, if you credit today's alibis."

    No, they were beaten and killed by Democrats like you.....

  • ||

    When you call virtually everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, it really says more about you than them.

    And when you can call virtually everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, blithely ignore what it says about you and claim that they deserve it. It starts to send a message not just about you, but your self-awareness and your self-worth as well.

    We used to call them bigots because they were and it didn't help because they didn't care. But it eventually carried *some* social capital among "non-bigots", so we called them bigots some more until it carried no social capital. Then we called them bigots until pretty much everyone except us got tired of hearing the word bigot. The fact that the bigots, who previously didn't care, are now tired of being called bigots is a sign of their exhaustion and our impending victory. It's like a 50-yr. social ark of Beavis and Butthead.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By "our impending victory," you must mean your big plans for conservatives and Corey Stewart.

  • Tony||

    All together this pile of horseshit sure would likely seem like it adds up to something to a moron.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Which of those items are not true?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    *Crickets...*

  • Tony||

    None of them is true. Watch something besides FOX News you goddamn morons.

  • Agammamon||

    Funny how it only adds up to morons when its a Clinton, but 'where there's smoke there's fire' for Trump.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Exactly.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Damn Freddy, you got three of them to tantrum at you, well done.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Thank you, just earning my nickname.

    To tell the truth though, I was hoping the butt-plugger would chime in.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    It is interesting that their collective rebuttal boils down to "idiot, bigot, pile of horseshit, moron". Behold the logic of the collective.

  • Nardz||

    Give it time...

  • Sevo||

    "To tell the truth though, I was hoping the butt-plugger would chime in."

    haen't seen turd around for a couple of days. It's quite pleasant.

  • BambiB||

    I didn't vote for Trump because I thought he was the second worst possible choice for president. I thought he was a blowhard who wouldn't follow through.

    I was wrong. Trump may be far from a perfect president, but he's gotten more done in less than 2 years than the Bushes, Clinton and Obozo did in 28 years and America is in much better shape due to his leadership.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Well so much for all of us being winner winner chicken dinners.

  • Tony||

    Liberals will rightly conclude that Comey swung the election to Trump but not intentionally, and conservatives will, I dunno, take a long hit of meth and mumble something open borders?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Do you know anyone that changed their vote from Hillary to Trump because of it? I don't. No one I know does.

    It would not be rightly concluded unless some evidence of this can be provided.

  • Tony||

    Leading up to the election there was the notion floating up in the air that Hillary had done something underhanded that fed into the narrative of her lifelong corruption, which Comey reignited with his "it's back on" speech.

    Hard to say how much of an effect it had, but without any peep about the simultaneous investigation of Trump for far worse infractions than a private email server, it comes across as an objectively biased action, even if that wasn't the intent.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Trump, himself, wasn't under investigation at that time. Hillary was. Unless you want to backtrack on why that spy was in his campaign. You already bent over backwards to claim the spy was looking at what the Russians were doing, not trump to justify your believe that there was no spying on Trump at that time.

  • Tony||

    If by spying you mean investigating. As in what the FBI does to suspected federal criminals.

  • ||

    At no point has Trump himself been under investigation.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Some people just last week was bending over trying to explain how the informant that was put into the trump campaign was not gather information on Trump, but on the Russians. To counter Trump's claim he was being spied on.

  • Tony||

    Last I heard he is a subject of a criminal investigation but not a target. For now.

  • ||

    Last I heard he is a subject of a criminal investigation but not a target. For now.

    Hmm. Weird. Some guy named Tony at 4:38 today said that the FBI was investigating Trump during the campaign for "far worse infractions" that what HRC was accused of.

    Was that a different Tony?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "what other Tonies are still floating around in the pool?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfoxsfhi-kk

  • Tony||

    You're nitpicking, and you don't know that he wasn't under investigation. But in fact the relative newness of the Russia probe is why Comey didn't give him the same shaft.

  • BYODB||


    You're nitpicking, and you don't know that he wasn't under investigation.

    Well, if you believe anything government agents say during testimony he most definitely was not. I mean, I don't trust them but you try and cite them all the time so I assume you give that some weight.

  • Headache||

    Multiple personalities really suck!

  • JesseAz||

    Umm... the SC investigation was started on the pretext of a counter intelligence investigation, not a criminal one. So far not a single criminal investigation has been started against Trump himself.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    "about the simultaneous investigation of Trump for far worse infractions"

    Wow. This is some delusion. When has Trump been under investigation for something FAR WORSE than mishandling TS info? THAT is pretty serious - lots of folks in prison right now for violating that one.

    Don't change, Tony. It's comforting seeing your stupidity and inability to state anything even remotely intellectually honestly stay constant....

  • ||

    As in what the FBI does to suspected federal criminals.

    What federal crime were they investigating him for again?

  • Tony||

    I'm sure it will be some extremely interesting reading when it comes out.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump, himself, wasn't under investigation at that time.

    His campaign was.

    And he was charged with charity-abusing fraud today, atop his general grifting.

    Other than that, his preening claims of moral superiority were . . . . still a load.

  • ||

    His campaign was.

    A couple of people who were briefly associated with his campaign were investigated for crimes they allegedly committed years before in service to the Obama administration.

    But those are just details - carry on!

  • Tony||

    Just the campaign manager. Briefly associated. Barely knew him.

    What if it had been David Axelrod in 2008? Nothing to see here, right? Just a campaign guy.

  • ||

    What if it had been David Axelrod in 2008?

    If Axelrod had only just met Obama and only worked on his campaign for a couple of months and then it came out that Axelrod was accused of crimes in a foreign country seven years before while working for the Bush Administration?

    Yeah, I wouldn't say "nothing to see here," but I wouldn't consider it an especially striking indictment of Obama.

  • BYODB||


    Yeah, I wouldn't say "nothing to see here," but I wouldn't consider it an especially striking indictment of Obama.

    Exactly. At worst, in terms of Obama, one might say he had bad taste in employees generally. Also, Trump has pretty bad taste in employees generally.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""His campaign was."'

    That's not what Tony said. And that what I was replying to.

    ""but without any peep about the simultaneous investigation of Trump for far worse infractions than a private email server, ""

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "His campaign was."

    Yeah, no, and that's not even a particularly good try. The FBI was investigating people, not campaigns. As smear attempts go, that is beneath even you.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Maybe not lifelong, but going back to the Arkansas governor time and miraculous commodity trading, plus whitewashing Bill's rape victims. #HerToo

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Funny thing with Whitewater and assumptions of guilt of those involved. Bill and Hill's associates in the land deal went to jail. Yet some people claim that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything. These same people think Trump is guilty because some of his associates are indicted.

  • ||

    Comey would not have had to to the "its back on speech" if Hillary did not send and receive classified information on her private server to begin with or if Huma had not sent classified information to her husband's computer that was found in an underage sexting crime or if Loretta Lynch had not met with Bill Clinton on a plane in Arizona...

    Comey was the culmination of tons of bad decisions made by Hillary camp that all took place after her initial decision to set up a private server.

    Comey is a glory hound and a schmuck but Hillary and her crew did the damage to herself.

  • bvandyke||

    "...the notion floating up in the air that Hillary had done something underhanded..." I know you have your blinders on but really? By her own words she lied, broke security protocols and more.

    I'm no Trump lover but Hillary is the only one at fault for her losing the election.

  • ||

    And the socialists. Don't forget the socialists.

  • Headache||

    That bitch lost the election because of an acute yeast infection, that even caused her to pass out on the campaign trail.

  • Agammamon||

    No who was going to vote for Clinton would have given the slightest import to any accusations against her. Its how she's stayed in politics for all this time.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    The only real question is this: When did Comey become a Russian troll?

  • SimonP||

    Plenty of people stayed home or voted for Stein. That's how Trump won.

  • ||

    Plenty of people stayed home or voted for Stein. That's how Trump won.

    Agreed. We needn't postulate that Clinton voters switched to Trump, just that Clinton was spectacularly unable to motivate Team Blue voters. Hard to say how much of that was Comey's last minute announcement vs. how many people had already decided months before they were just going to stay home or leave their ballots blank on the POTUS line.

  • Tony||

    She was inevitable. This idea motivated Comey's actions, Clinton's final campaign stops, and a lot of voter apathy.

    The polls didn't actually corroborate that attitude. It's just that the idea of Trump being president was such an enormous joke. Still is.

  • ||

    Clinton's final campaign stops

    By which you mean her hubristic drive to turn traditionally red states blue rather than actually campaign in traditionally blue states that she had no idea were in danger?

  • BYODB||

    I know plenty of liberal and progressive people, and I can honestly say that not a single one of them was interested in voting for Clinton down here in Texas. Not a useful sample size, of course, but notably almost everyone I knew who could be described as 'on the left' were in the bag for Bernie.

    Perhaps that's why Bernie had to be sabotaged by the party during the primary in favor of Hillary, but I've never really liked the Democratic primary system since this isn't really a bug it's a feature. The thing that does become a little suspicious and clearly dirty, in my view, is that the head of the DNC at the time left to join Hillary's campaign. That...seems like an ethically dubious move under the best of circumstances.

  • ||

    notably almost everyone I knew who could be described as 'on the left' were in the bag for Bernie

    Me too. I know many who refused to vote in the general or who voted for Stein because they just couldn't/wouldn't accept Clinton as the candidate.

  • BYODB||


    Me too. I know many who refused to vote in the general or who voted for Stein because they just couldn't/wouldn't accept Clinton as the candidate.

    Yep, which is somewhat amusingly exactly why I voted for GayJay. I might regret it, but at least it was closer to my views.

  • SimonP||

    I've seen plenty of reason to suggest that her GOTV efforts just weren't up to snuff. Local offices didn't have the support they needed. She didn't go for a fifty-state campaign. She really was just trying to nudge her way to 270.

    But the constant drip-drip of reporting on this or that e-mail, courtesy of Wikileaks and Russian hackers, didn't help to enthuse the base. Or the oxygen-absorbing coverage of Trump's every outrageous comment.

  • ||

    She really was just trying to nudge her way to 270.

    You're high. She was openly counting on one of the biggest landslides in history. She thought she had 270 tied up in the traditionally blue states and was doing a full-court press on red states trying to embarrass the Republicans.

    You can't have completely forgotten 2016 already, can you?

  • Curt||

    And how many of those were motivated by Comey? I'd venture the number was extremely low. I don't belief that any of Bernie-fans that I know were swayed by that topic. They all saw it as a BS republican scheme to discredit her.

    By comparison, I would guess a large number of them were motivated by the collusion of DNC and Clinton to ensure that she won the nomination.

  • ||

    I would guess a large number of them were motivated by the collusion of DNC and Clinton to ensure that she won the nomination.

    ^ This was my experience talking to Bernie supporters-turned-Hillary haters.

  • SimonP||

    Calling it "collusion," of course, relies on facts not in evidence.

    Clinton and the DNC didn't need to "collude" to ensure that Bernie lost. He lost of his own accord. He couldn't get minorities to vote for him, and most of his primary wins were in caucus states with favorable demographics.

  • That guy!||

    "Calling it "collusion," of course, relies on facts not in evidence"

    But enough about Mueller's case.

  • ||

    Clinton and the DNC didn't need to "collude" to ensure that Bernie lost.

    And Nixon probably didn't need to break into the Democrats' campaign headquarters. And yet . . .

  • Cyto||

    What are you on about? Remember the "DNC email scandal"?

    That's what it was all about. That's why they canned Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, because she made the DNC into a subdivision of the HRC for President campaign. The entire thing was rigged from the jump.

    How did you possibly miss that? What more evidence would you like, beyond the words of the head of the DNC, the head of the HRC for President campaign and members of the news media who were helping them?

  • retiredfire||

    It's OK, because they all miss the fact that HiLIARy's e-mail scandal was made public through FOIA requests by Judicial Watch, not because "Comey revealed the e-mail 'matter' but kept the Trump investigation secret".
    The demoncrap party and its sycophants in the media and on this thread are so known for their perfidy that I expect nothing less.

  • Sevo||

    "Plenty of people stayed home or voted for Stein. That's how Trump won."

    Outside of wishful thinking, you couldn't back that bullshit in a million years.
    Do you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself in public? Or is it just for our benefit.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    I think there's a credible argument that people voted for Stein instead of Clinton. In 2012, Stein got .36% of the vote, and in 2016 she got 1.07% of the vote. Those additional voters had to come from somewhere.

  • retiredfire||

    The vote for 0blama/HiLIARy's party went from 52.9% in '08, to 51.0% in '12, to 48.0% in '16.
    That loss of almost a full 5% over eight years and the fact that there wasn't a subsequent increase on the GOP side, signals someone didn't vote, at least for either of the two major candidates.
    Maybe it wasn't HiLIARy, but the policies the demoncraps espoused.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The DOJ's inspector general concludes that James Comey acted wrongly but not politically"'

    Funny that, Even Comey said some of decisions were made because of how the optics might affect the outcome of the election. Albeit, he was trying to be fair. But that's still a decision made with politics in mind, just not in the way some were hoping.

  • Tony||

    His logic makes sense if he assumed Hillary was going to win. Lots of things make sense when you remember that most everyone, Trump included, thought the same thing. Twas only Trump's monumental unsuitability for the job that distracted us all from the politics 101 maxim that should have applied to Hillary supporters above all: "Never assume you're going to win."

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I see you are failing to understand the basics on this.

    Comey said he didn't want to make anything look like he was favoring either side and that's why he did what he did. Go look up his own words on that.

  • Tony||

    Right. So his calculation was that announcing the reopening of the investigation days before the election would have the effect of reassuring voters post-election that the FBI hadn't put a lid on it in order to favor Hillary. It badly backfired.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Go read his own words.

  • Headache||

    That's what the executive summary said. Matt Welch like all CNN reporters, use the summary instead of reading the report.

  • ||

    Clinton told the interviewers that she did not agree that the information contained in the email was classified, because it described information that was already in the press. Witnesses told us, and contemporaneous emails show, that the FBI and Department officials who attended Clinton's interview found that her claim that she did not understand the significance of the "(C)" marking strained credulity. Agent 1 stated, "I filed that in the bucket of hard to impossible
    to believe."

    So the FBI thought she was lying about not knowing that (C) meant confidential, but could not charge her under a statute that only requires a grossly negligent standard. We already knew this was her excuse, but did not know the FBI agent interviewing here thought it was "hard to impossible to believe."

    What a joke the FBI is.

  • ||

    What a joke the FBI is.

    "Right, but it's not a politically motivated joke." -Horowitz

  • ||

    It is amazing at how badly they botched this. If you wanted Hillary to win, you can whine about the FBI. If you wanted Trump, it is clear that many in the FBI were out to get him. And if you didn't like either, it is clear the FBI cannot be trusted and is a corrupt organization.

    People blame Trump for discrediting the FBI, but the FBI does way more than Trump ever could. Fire them all and start over!

  • SimonP||

    Why wouldn't a Trump supporter trust the FBI? They had Trump opponents running investigations into Russian attempts to hel him get elected, and they not only did their job correctly, they didn't divulge that they were investigating the matter in the first place. I can guarantee you that the bunch of sycophantic, third-rate, inexperienced lawyers Trump would hire in the place of Strzok et al. Would be far less professional - if turnover so far in this administration is any indication.

  • ||

    August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
    Strzok responded, "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

    FBI agents saying they will stop Trump from being president seems like a good reason for Trump supporters to not trust the FBI. Couple that with the fact the FBI did not release this text message to Congress when subpoenaed is super sketchy.

  • Sevo||

    "Dark days for America, The darkest in our history."

    If you died, it's be much brighter.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Sevo bringing heat.

  • Sevo||

    "But no substance, just another hissy fit for his fellow goobers.
    Did I trigger him again?"
    Fuck off and die, asshole.

  • ||

    Because ONLY Trump supporters are wacky enough to blame the entire FBI for what one agent said.

    And ONLY TDS suffers would be wacky enough to look at it and think, "It's OK, this one time, because she really deserved to beat Trump."

    Any voter with half a brain could leap to "What if Nixon's or Bush's FBI did this?" and in reality it's only the dimmest of TDS sufferers that *doesn't* think "What if the Trump Administration does this?"

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""It is amazing at how badly they botched this."'

    I disagree with the term botched. Perhaps it's just semantics, but the FBI played it, how they wanted to play it. It was on purpose, not botched. They didn't have to negotiate with the Clinton camp for interviews and evidence. They could have used what they normally use, the power of subpoenas. But they chose not to.

  • ||

    True, botched would imply they were just really incompetent. But you are right, it was a series of purposeful actions working backward from the assumption she was going to walk no matter what.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|6.14.18 @ 11:40PM|#
    "How do you know?"
    Fuck off, asshole.

  • retiredfire||

    No.
    They had no testamentary, or couldn't find any documented, evidence of political motivation.

    Not that there was none, just that they wouldn't admit it or put it in writing.

    But there could be no other explanation for going so far outside normal procedures.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Clinton told the interviewers that she did not agree that the information contained in the email was classified, because it described information that was already in the press.

    *facepalm* I had a TS/ SCI clearance. I can't tell you how many times we were reminded that just because you may have seen something in the press that was classified didn't magically make it unclassified. Either she's a moron, or she thought the rules only applied to the "little people." Or both. Actually my money's on both.

  • ||

    "Most qualified candidate ever." Obama

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's just willful ignorance of Hillary fans. She can do no wrong, even when she has. They don't care to understand the truthfulness of your point.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Yeah, his arrival is the stench that indicates the thread is dead and it's time to abandon it.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Like failure. Lifelong, crushing disappointment and failure. And poopy depends.

  • Nardz||

    It's unbearably annoying to check back on an interesting thread, see 50 new comments have been posted, then come to find out they're all just Hihn shouting (and gesturing) at clouds.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Thus arrives the latest evidentiary Rorschach test in a Trump/Hillary/FBI/Russia investigative and political dispute that shows no signs of abating."

    The 2016 election featured the two most corrupt, dislikable, pathetically incompetent candidates in the history of the nation. AND IT JUST WONT STOP.

  • SimonP||

    Keep in mind that it hasn't stopped specifically, in this case, because Trump and congressional Republicans pushed for this report. The IG is clearly trying to settle the matter, once and for all; hopefully it'll clear out after a news cycle or two.

  • stuartl||

    Those of us who live in Virginia are going to be lucky enough to re-live it with Corey Stewart vs Tim Kaine. I may leave town for a while

  • ||

    "Comey's description of his choice as being between 'two doors,' one labeled 'speak' and one labeled 'conceal,' was a false dichotomy," the report charges. "The two doors were actually labeled 'follow policy/practice' and 'depart from policy/practice.'" Still, "we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part."

    So, it's pretty clear that the IG's take is that FBI standard policy/practice is one of concealment. Most transparent administration ever!

  • ||

    I mean, wow!

    Comey: I was faced with a tough choice of speaking out or concealing things.
    Horowitz: No, your choice is to shut up and do your job quietly or GTFO!

  • ||

    James Comey's reputation should be over. At least got to sell some books before he was completely revealed for the self-important moron he is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The DOJ's inspector general concludes that James Comey acted wrongly but not politically and that an FBI agent said "we'll stop" Trump from winning but didn't act on it."

    Comey acted inappropriately in the days before the election, but his actions weren't taking the election into consideration--is that what the American people are supposed to believe?

    I suppose that isn't as crazy as the idea that Comey will ever be held accountable for his misbehavior.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, that's basically it in a nutshell.

    At least it looks like Democrats are mad at Comey again for the moment, which is good because he was an idiot, although it could switch back to adoring sainthood at a moments notice.

  • retiredfire||

    How do we know "he didn't act on it"?
    He was the guy, who changed the language in the Comey exoneration statement from negligent to careless, which took her actions out of the realm of it being a crime, thus allowing her to continue her campaign, that everyone thought was a winning one, unindicted.
    That sure looks like an act to try to stop Trump, to me.
    It is almost impossible to prove a negative, yet we are to believe that the IG has proof that there was no political bias?
    Or is he relying on the fact that they didn't leave any evidence, or would admit to it?

  • ||

    "The IG suspected Strzok was biased against Trump, and that may have influenced the decision to sit on the Weiner laptop for a month. Which might have ultimately set a course of events in motion that cost Clinton, his preferred candidate, the presidency."

    Tweet from Jake Tapper that is true. Strzok's bias made him sit on the Weiner laptop info. The SDNY was asking about it because of his underage sexting crimes, so the FBI got a warrant for the laptop and Comey announced it publicly because Loretta Lynch recused herself, without officially recusing herself....

    What a weird series of events. It is like a Cohen brothers movie or something.

  • Eidde||

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Any of us who has had a government security clearance knows we would be in jail today if we did what Hillary did regarding the Email server. People are in jail right now for lesser security violations.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The I.G. report won't settle any arguments about Her Shrillness's emails because, based on the evidence, she should be barred from government service for ostentatious idiocy, and arguably in jail for flagrant disregard for the law.

    OTOH, her defenders have no interest in the facts on the ground.

    Did she have a private email server because she simply didn't understand the law? Then she is too stupid or too ignorant to be in government. Did she have it because she was hiding something? Then no matter what she was hiding, she belongs in jail.

    Nobody disputes that she had an illegal server. Her supporters simply don't want her to be penalized for having an illegal server.

    Therefore, the I.G. report isn't going to change anyone's mind.

  • Tony||

    Work emails on a private account may be a corporate policy infraction, but she was the boss, and it apparently was never considered such a massive cosmic deal before and practices were just not that strict. That goes for classification, which is widely acknowledged to be a shitshow. And she didn't knowingly compromise any classified information.

    The rightwing smear machine turned a granny who didn't want to give up her Blackberry into the definitive scandal of the 2010s. It's actually kind of impressive in its audacity.

    You know who has compromised classified info? The president, with his mouth. But, again, he is the boss.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" And she didn't knowingly compromise any classified information.""

    It's not just about knowingly compromising the information, there are strict rules about how that information is handled and she violated those rules.

  • Tony||

    Try stomping your feet, maybe it will seem slightly less ridiculous to be fixated on that given everything that's happened since. The FBI cleared her. Then helped get Trump elected. If you can find a crime in all that still, you're trying too hard.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""If you can find a crime in all that still, you're trying too hard.""

    It's easy to find the crime here when you've been trained by the Department of Defense on handing classified information. Which I was in the 80s.

    It's easy to deny a crime when you close your eyes and scream LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!!!!

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "The FBI cleared her"

    Honest Tony - stop pointing out she did it, because Obama's pet enforcers let her off the hook, so you are required by me to shut the fuck up or I'll tantrum more

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "Work emails on a private account may be a corporate policy infraction"

    Shorter Tony - it was illegal

    "but she was the boss, and it apparently was never considered such a massive cosmic deal before"

    Shorter Tony - but it only really applies to the Little People

    "and practices were just not that strict. "

    Shorter Tony - but she totally did it

    "That goes for classification, which is widely acknowledged to be a shitshow"

    Shorter Tony - and the law she broke is stupid anyway

    "And she didn't knowingly compromise any classified information."

    Shorter Tony - and breaking the law shouldn't count cause she's dumb

    "The rightwing smear machine turned a granny who didn't want to give up her Blackberry into the definitive scandal of the 2010s."

    Shorter Tony - HEY LOOK OVER HERE

    "It's actually kind of impressive in its audacity."

    Shorter Tony - I'm a salty bitch

    "You know who has compromised classified info?"

    Shorter Tony - now let's ignore her law breaking

    "The president, with his mouth. But, again, he is the boss."

    Shorter Tony - I have TDS and hallucinate as a result

  • BYODB||

    Holy shit, 100% SG speaks retard!

  • Sevo||

    "Shorter Tony - and breaking the law shouldn't count cause she's dumb"

    This was a good one at the time also:
    "She's too fucking dumb to understand what "classified" means, but she's the most qualified POTUS candidate ever!"
    And CNN didn't have the decency to be embarrassed.

  • Oli||

    "too stupid or too ignorant to be in government"

    Hahahahaha! Hahahaha.. ha..

  • ThomasD||

    Pretty much.

    But file it under: Things Matt Welch Would Never, Ever Concede.

  • Overt||

    " Yet the I.G. report ultimately concludes that Strzok...did not measurably act on his desire to prevent Trump's victory."

    No. It did not conclude that.

    If you read the report- in fact you quoted it- it says that they found no political bias in handling of the *Midyear* case- that is, the Clinton Email Server Debacle of Doom. Further, later in the report, they say that Strzok's sitting on the laptop for weeks before upleveling to his superiors seems to be politically biased. But of course, there was another track that appears it was meant to "prevent Trump's victory"- the Russian Collusion investigation. And the particulars of the Russian Collusion investigation were not the subject of this IAG report.

    And I find all of this highly odd wording. Maybe it comes down to the wording in their investigation authorization, but "Political Bias" is an odd bar to set. What if Strzok just had a personal bias against Trump? What if he secretly wanted Clinton to repay his work with a promotion? It doesn't matter and, in fact, it is an impossible case to make. Of course you aren't going to find written documents where Strzok says "I am departing from guidelines for political reasons."

  • ||

    ^^Yup

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're basically just trying to word it so that it's on the record that the FBI acted like a bunch of Keystone Kops during this whole thing, but not to the extent that anyone's actually going to go to jail or lose their clearance for it.

  • retiredfire||

    More like...but not to the extent that the citizens see that this organization, that is supposed to be above reproach, is as corrupt as any you would see in a third-world, or totalitarian country.
    The IG is also a swamp-dweller, as are Gowdy and Ryan.
    They can't let on what so many of us know - the government is totally corrupt and will do anything to try to hide that.

  • ThomasD||

    Only Democrats can get away with the "no smoking gun" defense.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Nobody disputes that she had an illegal server. Her supporters simply don't want her to be penalized for having an illegal server""

    This

  • Tony||

    What pray is an "illegal server"?

    And if it's so illegal why wasn't she penalized it?

    I think even Trumpies are forced to acknowledge that there's a big kink in the "FBI is corrupt and in the tank for Democrats" narrative, that being the fact that the FBI was instrumental in her loss.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""What pray is an "illegal server"?""

    A non-authorized private server being used for official government business. It's even more dubious when said server is storing classified communications.

  • Tony||

    And on a scale of minor to committing treason, how bad of a crime was that?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's not a scale dude.

    You asked a question and I gave you an answer.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Considering that Comey confirmed in an email that his own employees were complaining that they'd be in jail for the same thing, that should be sufficient to answer your question, you obtuse shitlib.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Tony, is it ok for Trump to setup his own email server in Trump tower and do official business on it, including communicating classified information?

  • Tony||

    It seemed OK for him to loudly boast about secret war plans next to the Chinese president at Mar a Lago or whatever the fuck.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    except..
    the President has the unique ability to personally determine, change, or discuss any classified material at any time with no exclusions. He literally cannot legally be in any trouble for it, as he is the ultimate authority.

    Did you really not know that? Is that why you stupidly continue to insist "Trump did it tooooo?"

    Because you're ignorant of that aspect of the law?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "And on a scale of minor to committing treason, how bad of a crime was that?"

    Shorter Tony - but it's not illegal illegal

  • Tony||

    Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Remember that concept? She wasn't even charged. So I'll thank you to appreciate my not taking your word for it.

  • ||

    Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

    Now Trump, on the other hand . . .

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. "

    Are you stoned? That has nothing to do with something being facially illegal, it's the standard of proof for findings of guilt.

    And it's not my word, it's black letter law.

    Jesus Christ man, at least try to understand wtf you're talking about.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I'll take your failure to refute me in any way while resorting to tired, played out nonsense as your admission that you know I'm right. And that you didn't read the IG report.

  • Sevo||

    "I said you're full of shit on black-letter law."
    You lie on a regular basis, scumbag. Who cares?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    the fact that the FBI was instrumental in her loss.

    I guess when you believe the government is hyper-competent when a Democrat is in charge, it makes sense that you'd believe they were instrumental in Her Highness not getting her deserved coronation.

  • Sevo||

    "Ok, here's the reality. Mike Hihn is a nobody, specifically as it relates to the Libertarian party an libertarianism in general. He is despised by essentially everyone I have ever seen him interact with, and he will be dead soon. The only emotions anyone will feel in response to that impending demise are relief and joy, and the desire to take a road trip and empty their bowels in his proximity.
    I can't realistically do anything but pity such a pathetic, wasted existence as his, knowing that he never contributed a single thing of any consequence, and knowing that he knows it and impotently rages at anyone he can find who can still stomach interacting with him. Add to this what appears to be a legitimate descent into senility, and he is a wretched thing to behold and a serious cautionary tale about how to interact with one's fellow human beings."

  • ThomasD||

    A server you set up, knowing it was both unsecured and also not approved to receive classified information, while also knowing that it would and did receive classified information,

  • ||

    COMEY Oct. 12: " I have gotten emails from some employees about this, who said if I did what Hillary Clinton did I'd be in huge trouble. My response is you bet your ass you'd be in huge trouble."

    Comey used a personal email while conducting FBI business. He had a reason to let Hillary walk, because if he did not, he would be right behind her.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And the dumbass ended up getting fired anyway.

  • Nardz||

    This is an under discussed part of the whole thing

  • ThomasD||

    The same organization that demanded evidence of 'intent' from Hillary, when the laws she violated included no such stricture, now demands that there be direct evidence of political intent.

    Rotten apples from a rotten tree.

  • Paulpemb||

    It's actually a consistent standard. There was never an official record of Hillary saying "Set up a private e-mail server so that I can control all of my official communications, and leave it up to my people to delete anything that shows that I'm using the office of Secretary of State to enrich myself and trade future favors with people who expect me to be the next President of the United States. Fuck federal record keeping laws, nobody cares about that shit anyways and we're going to control Federal law enforcement forever going forward."

    So no evidence of intent.

    Similarly, here there are no direct messages between FBI agents explicitly saying "We hate Trump and everybody who supports him, so let's abuse our official positions to take down his campaign. Hillary will probably make me the next director of the FBI, and then we'll be set for life, babe!"

    So still no evidence of intent.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    The statute she violated doesn't require intent. This has been covered repeatedly.

  • ThomasD||

    Wasted effort, you cannot reason somebody out of a position they did not reason themself into to begin with.

    Paulpemb doesn't care to know anything about the handling of classified material, or what terms one agrees to be subject to in order to legally do so.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'd prosecute the lot. It's time to rein in our out-of-control government. The corruption and the contempt for the rule of law is at absurd heights, and both parties are loaded with criminals who get away with murder. One election could do a lot to send a message, that we're not tolerating this level of nonsense any more.

    Why all the partisans make excuses for bad behavior is beyond me. Unless they're in government. Then I know why.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'd prosecute the lot. It's time to rein in our out-of-control government.

    That's Mr. Mueller's job. Stand aside and let the adults handle this.

  • Sevo||

    "That's Mr. Mueller's job. Stand aside and let the adults handle this."

    How would you know what an adult looked like, asshole?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    He services them for money.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Cranky malcontents are among my favorite right-wing authoritarians.

  • Sevo||

    "Cranky malcontents are among my favorite right-wing authoritarians."

    Fucking imbecilic lefties are among my most despised pieces of shit, despised piece of shit.

  • retiredfire||

    If Mueller was doing his job, the multiple examples of HiLIARy's contacts with Russian agents would be under investigation, too.
    They aren't.
    Thus Mueller is doing a politically motivated "investigation", which makes it illegitimate.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    It's not too early to hire a retired spy from some Asian country to gin up a "dossier" detailing how Kamela Harris hired Chinese gigolos to defecate on a Chinese hotel room bed that PDT had slept on. Then the FBI could use that dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on the future Harris for America campaign organization staff including Harris herself.

    And then of course John Bolton could unmask the names of those Harris staffers and start leaking the content of those wiretapped conversations to Fox News and Breitbart.

    Shouldn't be a problem, right? And if Harris finds out and complains, Gina Haspel could ridicule her on the Sunday talk shows, saying that Harris was spied on "for her own good."

  • Nardz||

    Nice

  • ThomasD||

    Actually the first step would be for Trump to direct some sort of intelligence investigation be performed upon some/all of the former Obama administration officials involved in the Iran deal.

    Only the point wouldn't be the investigation, it would be to smoke out some leakers - because you know there would be a few - then nail them to the wall with dismissals, criminal charges, loss of pensions, etc.

    Then, having scared the wits out of all the others, he'd be free to loose the Federal bureaucracy upon his enemies, just like Obama did.

    Libertarians are supposed to see the dangers of an expansive government, but Reason only cares about whose ox is getting gored.

    They will be made to care.

  • Rockabilly||

    Don't fucking worry man.

    The fucking deep state is in charge.

    And now I'm smoking some reefer which the fucking asshole commies of the deep state says is highly illegal.

    Well fuck you asshat commie shit head losers.

    Try and arrest me!!

    ahahahahhahahahaa

  • Longtobefree||

    2 + 2 = 5

  • Sevo||

    "One cockroach and counting ... again using the lame dead-thread excuse. (yawn)"

    One fucking ignoramus, not counting the two up above (pathetic)

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "Reality. Deal with it. Learn how to."

    Ok, here's the reality. Mike Hihn is a nobody, specifically as it relates to the Libertarian party an libertarianism in general. He is despised by essentially everyone I have ever seen him interact with, and he will be dead soon. The only emotions anyone will feel in response to that impending demise are relief and joy, and the desire to take a road trip and empty their bowels in his proximity.

    I can't realistically do anything but pity such a pathetic, wasted existence as his, knowing that he never contributed a single thing of any consequence, and knowing that he knows it and impotently rages at anyone he can find who can still stomach interacting with him. Add to this what appears to be a legitimate descent into senility, and he is a wretched thing to behold and a serious cautionary tale about how to interact with one's fellow human beings.

  • Sevo||

    Can I copy and paste this every time that scum bag posts here? He deserves this and worse.

  • Sevo||

    I just did copy and paste above; hope that's OK.

  • Brian||

    Listen, now: we don't need to argue.

    Trump won the election.

    Move on.org.

  • Sevo||

    "Move on.org."

    That doesn't mean what the losers think it does, right, losers?

  • hello.||

    It's been heaps of fun watching Reason go from advocating violence against cops and defending their killers to vociferously defending the integrity honor and professionalism of the federal law enforcement apparatus.

  • ThomasD||

    We all know good and well that, had the IG report contained multiple quotes from investigating agents critical and/or insulting of Hillary, that Welch would not be so chin tugging above it all with his analysis.

    Almost goes without saying.

    But hey, now they've 'addressed' the 'concerns' over an unelected and obviously unaccountable Federal law enforcement apparatus demonstrating massive deviation from accepted practices while also treating different subjects with vastly differing degrees of deference, so nothing to see here, just move along citizen.

  • Brian||

    Trump is the president, and Hillary's just a big nothing burger.

    No one at the FBI is going to jail for this, so it's a fake scandal.

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online