[OFFICIAL] [ROBERT REICH] Liz Cheney for President 2024 Thread

In the same very FBI unit one of the cameras shut off at Mar-a-Lago come on please screw that sh.it …If you can’t be transparent especially considering the past then you wonder why a large segment of the American people distrust the government this is exactly why…

 

Trump isn't and hasn't been the only one being investigated.

The problem with Trump goes beyond politics -- why else would the likes of Cheney and Sanders be aligned against him when they couldn't be further apart politically? So I don't know what you mean by "political bias". At any rate, I would question the judgment of anyone in government who doesn't have a personal bias against Trump and doesn't think he's unfit to be President.

 

So you think agents with a bias against Trump should be investigating Trump…I rest my case lol

I appreciate your honesty that investigation with implicit bias from the start is fine…I think we should also apply that against the Democrats as well and I frankly feel like going forward guess what that’s going to happen

 

It really depends on what you mean by "political bias", now doesn't it?

Do I think agents who personally dislike Trump and think he's an awful choice for president should be dismissed from investigating him? Of course not. That means you are disqualifying anyone with a functioning moral compass.

 

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth as they say …just wait. Remember who started it first lol

 

That’s not how justice works or should work. If you have a political bias against an opposing politician then they should not be investigating especially to the extent that hurricane crossfire was involved in imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and a agent felt like Biden is not cognitive aware and doesn’t deserve to be president do you think investigation of his son might be heavy handed unevenly or slanted ? Is this fair

 

https://ablinlaw.com/articles/2021/09/22/keeping-independent-investigations-free-from-bias/

@durvasa

Unfair Investigations Have Consequences
Any investigation which results in either party feeling like they were treated differently or unfairly because of a bias of the investigator can cause issues once the investigation is over. The outcome will be called into question, and this could cause additional friction between the accuser and the accused as well as against the investigator. This could also undermine your entire investigatory process going forward and may result in other employees not filing legitimate complaints because they are uncertain as to whether they will be treated fairly

 

You are wrong. If a person shows that they are incapable of performing their job without letting their personal bias affect how they perform it, then they should step aside. Expecting people to not even having a personal bias to begin with is silly. We are talking about human beings, not robots.

 

I rest my case

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

"Whether we think so or not, we all have biases that can impact our decision-making. Stopping those biases from interfering when you are conducting any investigation is critical to remaining neutral and keeping the “independent” in independent investigations."

This is what I'm saying. Having a personal bias and allowing that bias to interfere with how you conduct your investigation are two different things.

 

That’s why investigation agents have legal standards and bias thresholds of conduct to understand and process at a high level…That is why Peter Strock was such a bad example of such standards and he paid the price in conjunction with Lisa Page of course… There should be further investigation into the investigators themselves if any agents was part of hurricane crossfire and whether there was similar bias that was concluded to be in totality error with investigative standards

 

So you are aware good ole Peter did not meet the standards by his behavior then

 

The FBI has fired Peter Strzok, an agent who was removed from the Russia probe last year for sending text messages disparaging President Donald Trump, Strzok’s lawyer said Monday.

Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s attorney, said FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich ordered the agent’s termination on Friday. Goelman said that the deputy director’s decision comes after the head of the office that normally handles disciplinary actions decided Strzok should instead face a demotion and 60-day… I would think that the attorney would have that stance but when you do something as egregious as an investigative compromise, a simple demotion is unwarranted

 

Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing most of that.

Peter Strzok - Wikipedia

I needed to review what happened with the Peter Strzok thing:

The IG's investigation examined thousands of text messages exchanged using FBI-issued cell phones between Strzok and Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair. She was also a trial attorney on Mueller's team.[55][56] The texts were sent between August 15, 2015 and December 1, 2016. At the request of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the DOJ turned over 375 of these text messages to the House Judiciary Committee.[55][56][57] Some of the texts disparaged then-presidential candidate Donald Trump,[55][56][58][59] Chelsea Clinton, Attorney General in the Obama administration Eric Holder, former Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders.[60][61][62] Strzok called Trump an "idiot" in August 2015 and texted "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 - 0" after a Republican debate in March 2016.[55][56][63] In their messages, Strzok and Page also advocated creating a Special Counsel to investigate the Hillary Clinton email controversy, and discussed suggesting former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald be considered for such a probe.[64] Devlin Barrett from The Washington Post alleged Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair.[65] Upon learning of the text messages, Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation.[28] Messages released in January 2018 showed that Strzok was hesitant to join the Mueller investigation, with Page encouraging him not to.[66]

Strzok's colleagues and a former Trump administration official said that Strzok had never shown any political bias.[67][58] An associate of his says the political parts of the text messages were especially related to Trump's criticism of the FBI's investigation of the Clinton emails.[67] According to FBI guidelines, agents are allowed to have and express political opinions as individuals. Former FBI and DOJ officials told The Hill that it was not uncommon for agents like Strzok to hold political opinions and still conduct an impartial investigation.[68] Several agents asserted that Mueller had removed Strzok to protect the integrity of the special counsel's Russia investigation.[69] Strzok was not punished following his reassignment.[70] Defenders of Strzok and Page in the FBI said no professional misconduct between them occurred.[58]

The decision by the DOJ to publicize the private messages in December 2017 was controversial. Statements by DOJ spokeswomen revealed that some reporters had copies of the texts even before the DOJ invited the press to review them, but the DOJ did not authorize the pre-release. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have asked for a review of the circumstances under which the texts were leaked to select press outlets.[71]

The Office of Inspector General's report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation published on June 14, 2018, criticized Strzok's text messages for creating the appearance of impropriety. However, the report concluded that there was no evidence of bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton.[72] The report revealed additional texts hostile to Donald Trump by Strzok. In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."[73] Many Democrats believed that the FBI's actions during the 2016 presidential campaign, such as reopening the Clinton email investigation on the eve of the election and elements within the FBI telling The New York Times that there was no clear link between the Trump campaign and Russia, ended up harming the Clinton campaign and benefitting the Trump campaign.[74]
​

There doesn't appear to be any indication of political bias that influenced the investigation. "According to FBI guidelines, agents are allowed to have and express political opinions as individuals. Former FBI and DOJ officials told The Hill that it was not uncommon for agents like Strzok to hold political opinions and still conduct an impartial investigation."

Is your point really that anyone who privately expresses that they don't like a politician's politics should be disallowed from participating in an investigation against them? I just totally disagree with that.

 

1. Peter Strzok played a lead role in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and was involved in the FBI’s recommendation that no criminal charges be filed against the former secretary of state.
2. Peter was fired over his standards of conduct and behavior regarding a politician which was inconsistent with fairness expectations per legal and FBI guidelines
3. several members of his team remain working in the counterintelligence unit, the sources say, even though they are under active investigation by both Durham and the bureau's disciplinary arm, the Office of Professional Responsibility

So the question becomes did any members of FBI hurricane crossfire headed by Peter play a role in Mar A Lago ? If Peter was tainted and maybe I’m showing bias of association here But it’s easy to connect the dots …

 

Mueller removed Strzok from his team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election last summer after an internal investigation first revealed texts with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok had an extramarital affair, that could be read as exhibiting political bias.

@durvasa ..even Mueller agreed with me on this one..

 

Im going to remind people that there was plenty of evidence they many in the FBI were biased against Hillary Clinton back in 2015.

I don’t recall a big outcry about that bias then.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

Yes LEO are people and people have biases. That’s why our criminal justice works in the adversarial manner that it does. Defense can challenge evidence and procedures if they can prove bias.

 

Your own post shows that Peter Strozk no longer works for the FBI. Just because people who worked with him are still there doesn’t mean they shared his opinion. I doubt most of us agree with our coworkers on everything.
Durham has not indicted, reported or otherwise indicated there is any any anti-Trump bias at the FBI. Further unless Durham has expanded his investigation greatly beyond his purview he wouldn’t be investigating the issue of Trump taking documents that should be at the National Archives.

 

• So the sources were people with names.
• There were physical notes and memos from actual meetings.
• Trump actually called Homeland security telling them that they should be seizing voting machines.
• Trump had a plan to replace the AG for not agreeing with his plans. The replacement appeared in log books as 'acting Attorney General.'
• There rosters with counterfeit electors that were attempted to be delivered to Mike Pence.
• The plans to have congress vote by state were dependent on the delay of the certification.
• There was the war room where they planned January 6th and those there knew it was illegal.
• The election was delayed not certified on January 6th. It actually happened on January 7th after 3:00 in the morning.

Those aren't loose ends. It's simply evidence put into context of a timeline.

Trump and his team tried numerous attempts to steal the election and execute a coup.

The fact that voters in the Primary chose someone who endorsed that and the lies about the vote not being legit is no fault of Liz Cheney.

 

There were witnesses there. You are falling prey to conspiracy BS.

The formula is take two true things that happen. Then insinuate causation exists between them without showing the link.