[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: BOMBSHELL Inspector General's Report Source: National Review URL Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/news ... rocedure-during-clinton-probe/ Published: Jun 14, 2018 Author: Jack Crowe Post Date: 2018-06-14 14:41:34 by Jameson Keywords: No, Political, Bias Views: 3386 Comments: 24 “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,” Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: So I guess the whole "FBI was in the tank for Hillary" argument has been rendered pointless....... of course the more mentally unstable will now claim that Horowitz is "in on it" too! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2. #1. To: Jameson (#0) If you cannot see political bias, you are a liar, a moron, or a lying moron. jeremiad  posted on  2018-06-14   14:55:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: jeremiad (#1) If you cannot see political bias, For the record, Inspector General Horowitz has determined that there was no political bias. That's pretty clear. I'm sorry it's not what you wish to hear...... Jameson  posted on  2018-06-14   15:04:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 2. #5. To: Jameson, jeremiad (#2) For the record, Inspector General Horowitz has determined that there was no political bias. Overall, it's a whitewash, but it does not go quite that far. "[W]e 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." Executive Summary, page ix We were cognizant of and considered these messages in reaching the conclusions regarding the specific investigative decisions discussed below. In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation. Nonetheless, the implication in certain Russia-related text messages that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects—for example, the August 8, 2016 text exchange in which Page asked Strzok “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” and Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it”—caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which he was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views.120 As we describe in this chapter, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific investigative decisions examined in this chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures than did others on the Midyear team, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence. Page 149 In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we considered the text messages that Strzok exchanged with Page expressing hostility for then candidate Trump and preference for a Clinton victory. 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. Page 329 nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-14 18:41:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Jameson, jeremiad (#2) For the record, Inspector General Horowitz has determined that there was no political bias. For the record, the report does not support that blanket claim. The IG claimed to have not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias directly affected specific investigative decisions or justifications. - - - - - - - - - - At page 149: There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions discussed below, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual. We recognize that these text and instant messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that these political views directly affected the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed in this chapter. - - - - - Comment: No document was found where anyone documented their political bias directly affecting decisions or justifications. When asked if their political bias directly affected decisions or justifications, nobody admitted that it did. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = At pages 413-424 [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]] On Election Day on November 8, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant messages. 14:21:10, Agent 1: “You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesnt” 14:21:56, Agent 5: “she better win… otherwise i’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns.” 14:22:05, Agent 5: “and likely quitting on the spot” 14:28:43, Agent 1: “You should know;…..” 14:28:45, Agent 1: “that” 14:28:50, Agent 1: “I’m…..” 14:28:56, Agent 1: “with her.” 14:28:58, Agent 1: “ooooooooooooooooooo” 14:29:02, Agent 1: “show me the money” 14:29:03, Agent 5: ““fuck trump.” On February 9, 2017, in the context of an FBI employee receiving a presidential award for public service, Agent 5 messaged, “...I think now that trump is the president, i’d refuse it. it would be an insult to even be considered for it.” We asked Agent 1 and Agent 5 about their use of instant messaging generally and about these messages in particular. As mentioned in Chapter Five, Agent 1 told us that he believed that instant messages were not retained by the FBI and therefore used less caution with those communications than he would have with other types of communications, such as email or text messages.208 Agent 5 413 - - - - - - - - - - also made this point, stating that she considered these exchanges as a private “outlet” to Agent 1. Both Agent 1 and Agent 5 apologized for their use of instant messaging in this manner and told us that they were embarrassed. We asked Agent 1 whether he believed these political discussions raised questions about the integrity or reliability of the Midyear investigation. Agent 1 stated: I don’t based on knowing my actions. I guess I would kind of repeat what I said before. Yes, I, I have personal, a personal life, private opinions, private views. I think what happened here is that I used instant message and chat like it was my home. ...I like the job of fact-finding and having it lead you where you go. I don’t start any day with an endgame in mind of let it, let it go to, go to that. That’s the way I think I act, that’s how I think I’ve acted over my whole career. That’s how I, that’s how I know I acted in, in this case. Yeah, I think that, I understand your question because it’s an FBI system. I just unfortunately did not view it that way and did not use it that way. I used it as, as, you know, some of my worst hits here, as a, a way to relieve stress, as a way to be jocular, as a way to exaggerate, as a way to blow off steam, as a, you know, potentially get sympathy from, and then, you know, it was compounded by frustrations from other people coming to me for answers for why certain people got elected, and is it our fault, and, so I think there was a, kind of a cocktail of, of stress in this case that came out on this system like it was a conversation. So I, I don’t, I don’t think so based on knowing my actions and what I did knowing the actions of the people around me. We also asked Agent 1 whether his personal beliefs impacted his investigative actions in Midyear. Agent 1 responded: [I]n no way do I think it, it impacted my view. I guess the best way is almost like a, it’s almost like you switch on your, when, when we did our morning meetings, it was what do we have and where do we go next? It, it was just like almost, you know, like there’s a, there’s the professional side, the do your job side, and there’s a personal side. And I think a lot of this falls into the personal side. 414 - - - - - - - - - - ...It was only to try to do the right thing.... That’s, that’s the only thing, the only thought process in my head when I was, when I was doing my job. We asked Agent 5 how she would respond to someone who read these messages and concluded the opinions expressed in them impacted the Midyear investigation. Agent 5 stated: Well, I can see someone who doesn’t know us at all saying the same, wondering, I guess, if [our political beliefs] could have impacted [the Midyear investigation]. I can tell you in no way did my political or what I understand of [Agent 1], no political anything is going to interfere with us doing our job as professionals. I can see me going into these rants. I can see me ranting in some of these, and, you know, again, I think all of these are very personal, offthe- cuff...these are personal, private messages. I mean, you could probably even see the difference between, if you’ve seen anything in my [career] that I put to the file...for, you know, case-related things. I am very thorough, methodical, and I think through everything when I’m typing it. I don’t even cut corners with acronyms. I, I treat that extremely seriously in my [career], and even before I became an agent. So I, I would tell that person that part of being a professional, part of the oath that I swore here to work, I...uphold it. And I upheld it at this point. I, I do have personal beliefs and personal opinions. You know, I expressed some of those. Some of them come out in frustration. Some of them come out in jokes. I can see us quoting things kind of just to make us smile, you know, make us feel better, you know, after sometimes tough days. And...I would say in, in no way has it ever or would it ever affect the way I, I handle any investigation, any case, any professional work that I, that I put forward. C. FBI Attorney 2 Instant Messages FBI Attorney 2 was assigned to the Midyear investigation early in 2016. FBI Attorney 2 was not the lead FBI attorney assigned to Midyear and he told us he provided support to the investigation as needed. FBI Attorney 2 told us that he was also assigned to the investigation into Russian election interference and was the primary FBI attorney assigned to that investigation beginning in early 2017. FBI Attorney 2 told us that he was then assigned to the Special Counsel investigation once it began. FBI Attorney 2 left the Special Counsel’s investigation and returned to the FBI in late February 2018, shortly after the OIG provided the Special Counsel with some of the instant messages discussed in this section. We identified instant messages on FBINet involving FBI Attorney 2 that discussed political issues. Most of these exchanges appeared to be jokes or attempts at humor, often involving Trump. We asked FBI Attorney 2 in general 415 - - - - - - - - - - about the use of FBI instant messaging in this manner. FBI Attorney 2 told us that, in general, he regretted his use of instant messaging in this manner and noted “it’s not something that I did routinely.” He described these messages as “commentary” on recent political events and not connected to decisions or activities in investigations. FBI Attorney 2 stated that almost all of these messages were sent to co-workers he “considered to be” friends and he “was talking to them in that capacity,” and “[n]ot in a professional capacity.” FBI Attorney 2 reiterated that these messages or views had “absolutely” no impact on his work on investigations. He stated: I, like most people, have particular views on, on politics. I’m a bit of a news junkie when it comes to government. It’s one of the main reasons I, I joined the federal workforce is because I’ve always found it so fascinating and interesting. But when it came to doing my work, I never injected this, this type of, of color commentary or this type of water cooler type talk into that. I, I maintained impartiality and just tried to work through the issues individually as they came through. So if they needed some assistance on a warrant or some assistance on, you know, potentially pursuing contacts with another government agency or something like that, like, I just, I assisted with the process more like, kind of like an XO type role I guess. Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias. The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey’s October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated: 13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: “I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.” 13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: “I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.” 14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: “As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?” 15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: “I’m clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic’s destruction” FBI Attorney 2 described these messages as reflecting his surprise and frustration that the FBI “was essentially walking into a landmine in terms of injecting itself [into the election] at that late in the process.” FBI Attorney 2 continued: I think that, that there is some distinguishment between my frustration at the way that the Bureau is operating itself in October in 416 - - - - - - - - - - terms of, of wading into the process at that point.... But, I think that there is a distinguishment between having reservations about the way that we were operating and just expressing the frustration about, about us coming into the process. It’s like, in terms of, of, you know, what’s not in here too is like, you know, we, at that point we had investigation, the Russia investigation was ongoing as well. And that information was obviously kept close hold and was not released until March. So, you know, it, it was just kind of frustration that we weren’t handling both of them the same way with, with that level I guess. FBI Attorney 2 described the “destruction” language as “hyperbolic” and “off-thecuff commentary to friends.” The second exchange we identified occurred on November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election. FBI Attorney 2 and another FBI employee who was not involved in the Midyear investigation exchanged the following instant messages. Note that the sender of the instant message is identified after the timestamp and intervening messages that did not contribute to the understanding of this exchange are not included. 09:38:14, FBI Attorney 2: “I am numb.” 09:55:35, FBI Employee: “I can’t stop crying.” 10:00:13, FBI Attorney 2: “That makes me even more sad.” 10:43:20, FBI Employee: “Like, what happened?” 10:43:37, FBI Employee: “You promised me this wouldn’t happen. YOU PROMISED.” 10:43:43, FBI Employee: Okay, that might have been a lie…” 10:43:46, FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.” 10:43:47, FBI Employee: “haha” 10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.” 10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.” 10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.” 10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.” 11:00:03, FBI Employee: “That is not so.” 11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.” 417 - - - - - - - - - - 11:11:43, FBI Attorney 2: “I’m just devastated. I can’t wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.” 11:12:06, FBI Employee: “Why are you devastated?” 11:12:18, FBI Employee: “Yes, I’m not watching tv for four years.” 11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: “I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.” 11:14:58, FBI Employee: “Yes that’s all true.” 11:15:01, FBI Attorney 2: “And it’s just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states.” 11:15:09, FBI Employee: “Yes it was very thin.” 11:15:23, FBI Attorney 2: “Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff.” 11:15:24, FBI Employee: “But no I absolutely do not believe the FBI had any part.” 11:15:33, FBI Attorney 2: “So, who knows if that breaks to him what he is going to do.” We asked FBI Attorney 2 about this exchange. FBI Attorney 2 stated, “I’d say that we’re just discussing our personal feelings on [the outcome of the election] between friends, yeah.” When asked about the FBI employee meant by “[y]ou promised me this wouldn’t happen,” FBI Attorney 2 told us that he “did not promise [the employee] anything,” and stated, “I think, again, it’s just kind of the way that [the employee] and I converse. We tend to exaggerate some statements back and forth to one another.” We also asked FBI Attorney 2 what he meant by “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.” FBI Attorney 2 replied: That was a, that was a reference to, again, just in terms of the way that we opened or how long it took us to open [in October]. You know, with the, with the knowledge that the information was there [on the Weiner laptop], why we didn’t work on it to, to gain access sooner, as opposed to later because it was a, a bit of a, of a gap between us learning of the information in New York and, and officially getting the case reopened again.... Just in terms of like what I could have done to, to either have accelerated the process or to, like how I expressed to [FBI Attorney 1] that I didn’t know if this was the correct way for the Bureau to be doing this notification, et cetera. Whether, you know, I could have said something differently to her that would have resonated in, or, or 418 - - - - - - - - - - would have been part of the discussion. But I wasn’t anywhere near the, the room deciding on these factors.... It was just kind of like a discussion on how I could have either moved the process along more quickly or more efficiently at a, at a more, at an earlier time, or whatnot. When asked if he thought earlier action on the Weiner laptop would have alleviated the need to send the letter to Congress, FBI Attorney 2 stated: Well, not, not, I don’t think that that would have alleviated the need for the letter in the Director’s eyes. But if we would have opened a few weeks earlier, as opposed to at that time, two weeks before the election, I think it, you know, it would have given more time for the FBI’s actions and, and required and, and necessary investigation to, to occur to allow the, the public a chance to make their own decisionmaking. FBI Attorney 2 again reiterated that his “personal political feelings or beliefs...in no way impacted” his work on the Midyear or Russia investigations. The third exchange we identified was on November 22, 2016. FBI Attorney 2 sent an instant message to FBI Attorney 1 commenting on the amount of money the subject of an FBI investigation had been paid while working on the Trump campaign. FBI Attorney 1 responded, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” FBI Attorney 2 replied, “Hell no.” and then added, “Viva le resistance.” FBI Attorney 1 responded that Trump was “going to eliminate all of our pensions in order to pay for people like” the person discussed in the instant message exchange, and FBI Attorney 1 and FBI Attorney 2 then began a discussion of federal pension and retirement issues. We asked both FBI Attorney 2 and FBI Attorney 1 about this exchange. FBI Attorney 2 stated: So, this is in reference to an ongoing subject. And then following that, like I interpreted [FBI Attorney 1’s] comment to me as being, you know, just her and I socially and as friends discussing our particular political views, to which I see that as more of a joking inquiry from her. It’s not something along the lines of where I’m not committed to the U.S. Government. I obviously am and, you know, work to do my job very well and to continue to, to work in that capacity. It’s just the, the lines bled through here just in terms of, of my personal, political view in terms of, of what particular preference I have. But, but that doesn’t have any, any leaning on the way that I, I maintain myself as a professional in the FBI. We asked FBI Attorney 2 if “Viva le resistance” signaled he was going to fight back against President Trump. FBI Attorney 2 responded: 419 - - - - - - - - - - That’s not what I was doing.... I just, again, like that, that’s just like the entire, it’s just my political view in terms of, of my preference. It wasn’t something along the lines of, you know, we’re taking certain actions in order to, you know, combat that or, or do anything like that. Like that, that was not the intent of that. That was more or less just like, you know, commentary between me and [FBI Attorney 1] in a personal friendship capacity where she is just making a joke, and I’m responding. Like, it’s not something that, that I personally believe in that instance. FBI Attorney 2 acknowledged that both he and FBI Attorney 1 were assigned to the Russia investigation at this point in time and he “can understand the, the perception issues that come from” this exchange. FBI Attorney 1 stated that she and FBI Attorney 2 were friends and often had discussions unrelated to work. She acknowledged that that this was “not the right place to make those kind of comments.” We asked FBI Attorney 1 what she meant by the message, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” She stated, “I think what I meant was are you going to leave the government and start working to get more money.” We also asked FBI Attorney 1 what she understood FBI Attorney 2 to mean when he messaged, “Viva le resistance.” FBI Attorney 1 told us, “I think it was a joke obviously. But I think it was intended to say that, you know, he was committed to continuing to work for the Bureau, for these cases.” FBI Attorney 1 stated that nothing about this exchange affected her work on the Russia investigation. D. Analysis The conduct of the five FBI employees described in sections A, B, and C of this Chapter has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI. As described in Chapter Five, our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five. Nonetheless, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the FBI Midyear investigation and sowed doubt the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. Moreover, the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence. We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a 420 - - - - - - - - - - willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias. Each of the five employees expressed remorse about using FBI devices and systems for these discussions, and each also stated that they intended these messages to be private conversations. Several of the employees also expressed the belief that their messages would not be preserved or would be exempt from public disclosure under FOIA. We found this reliance on the “private” nature of these messages to be misplaced. Because these messages were exchanged on government systems and devices, they were never “private.” Every Department employee sees a notice each time he or she logs onto the Department’s network informing him or her that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications exchanged on government systems.209 We recommend that the FBI add a similar warning banner to all of the FBI’s mobile phones and devices. Indeed, rather than being “private” communications, these messages were at all times potentially subject to being reviewed by others (including the OIG) and to being disclosed to the public. This point seems even more obvious in light of the significant congressional and public interest generated by the Midyear and Russia investigations. The employees exchanging text messages and instant messages are trained law enforcement agents or attorneys, and should have known that these messages were potentially subject to release in response to FOIA requests, subject to disclosure in civil litigation, or discoverable as impeachment evidence even in the absence of the OIG investigation.210 We note that these messages also 421 - - - - - - - - - - potentially implicate the FBI’s or prosecutors’ disclosure obligations in any prosecutions resulting from the investigations at issue.211 We do not question that the FBI employees who sent these messages are entitled to their own political views. Indeed, federal statutes and regulations explicitly protect the right of federal employees to “express...opinion[s] on political subjects and candidates” and to “exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation”— provided such expression “does not compromise his or her efficiency or integrity as an employee or the neutrality, efficiency, or integrity of the agency or instrumentality of the United States Government in which he or she is employed.”212 While these employees did not give up their First Amendment rights when they became employed by the FBI, Supreme Court decisions make clear that the FBI retains the authority—particularly as a law enforcement agency—to impose 422 - - - - - - - - - - certain restrictions on its employees’ speech in the interest of providing effective and efficient government.213 We believe the messages discussed in this chapter—particularly the messages that intermix work-related discussions with political commentary— potentially implicate provisions in the FBI’s Offense Code and Penalty Guidelines, which provides general categories of misconduct for which FBI employees may be disciplined. This includes the provisions relating to Offense Codes 1.7 (Investigative Deficiency – Misconduct Related to Judicial Proceedings), 3.6 (Misuse of Government Computer(s)), 3.11 (Misuse of Government Property, Other), 5.21 (Unprofessional Conduct – Off Duty), and 5.22 (Unprofessional Conduct – On Duty).214 However, we did not identify any prior FBI misconduct investigations under these provisions that involved a similar fact pattern or similar issues.215 At a minimum, we found that the employees’ use of FBI systems and devices to send the identified messages demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a gross lack of professionalism. This is not just because of the nature of the messages, but also because many of the messages commented on individuals (Clinton and Trump) who were inextricably connected to the Midyear and Russia investigations. The FBI is charged with the investigation of many important and sensitive matters, including some that generate intense public interest and debate. It is essential that the public have confidence that the work of the FBI is done without bias or appearance of partiality, and that those engaged in it follow the 423 - - - - - - - - - - facts and law wherever they may lead and without any agenda or desired result other than to see that justice is done. Although we found no documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific Midyear investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned. Ultimately, the consequences of these actions impact not only the senders of these messages but also others who worked on these investigations and, indeed, the entire FBI. We therefore refer this information to the FBI for its handling and consideration of whether the messages sent by the five employees listed above violates the FBI’s Offense Code of Conduct. Additionally, we recommend that the FBI (1) assess whether it has provided adequate training to employees about the proper use of text messages and instant messages, including any related discovery obligations, and (2) consider whether to provide additional guidance about the allowable uses of FBI devices for any nongovernmental purpose, including guidance about the use of FBI devices for political conversations. [...] 424 nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-14 21:37:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 2. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com