╌>

A few thoughts on the IG Report

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  6 years ago  •  51 comments

A few thoughts on the IG Report

Image result for picture of ig david horowitz

  The recently released IG report concerning FBI conduct during the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails is 500 pages long, slightly half as long as the Bible. There is much to be learned about our government and it was a breathe of fresh air for many of us. It was a wonderful report, which finally shed some light on a highly controversial investigation and more important, imo, into the attitudes of the elite leaders of US government agencies. If you had watched the three cable news networks after the report was released, you would realize how differently ideologs view things. It is possible to garner some good news out of this report no matter where one is in the political spectrum. For progressives there is one caveat. The Clinton investigation has been looked at once and for all. That being said there was a false narrative put out by the liberal media, which is really a stretch and that is the finding that:   "no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations." t was reported as: " No bias found" . Let me correct that lie right now. The report is rife with examples of bias on the part of FBI officials as well as DOJ officials. It is that attitude which needs to be addressed because it was not only a hate for Donald Trump but a contempt all of middle America. Remember Peter Strzok texted:– "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support." These are the people at the highest level of the FBI and Strzok was the lead investigator in both the Clinton and so called "Russia" investigation. While the IG can't find any provable overt bias during the investigation, the IG does take the trouble to remind us of possible pressure from above: "October 11, 2015, Obama "characterized former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server as a 'mistake,' but stated that it did not 'pose a national security problem' and was 'not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.' What was an already biased investigator, not to mention James Comey, supposed to do after the President called Ms Clinton's actions a "mistake"?
This probably closes the door on the Clinton investigation, but history will record that it was never a serious investigation to begin with and the abnormal procedures, which I'm not going to repeat again in this article, verify that fact.

The IG referred five FBI agents for investigation:

Is anybody aware of this? One might never know based upon media coverage. Of course we know about Strzok and Page and we also learned about another text from the devious duo:    Page’s texts that Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”   Question: Why wasn't that damning text turned over to congressional oversight committees long ago?

Other agents are unnamed only numbered.

Then there is Comey, who took the brunt of the criticism for  “a serious error of judgment,” for having “concealed information” from superiors, and for “violation of or disregard for” departmental and bureau policies". Comey, coward that he is, had ample time to read the report before the public got to see it and was out of the country when it was released and had an op-ed all ready. It appeared as the report was being released.

We know about Andy McCabe and what he is now facing. He filed a lawsuit against the department just days before the report was released.

What about the DOJ?  Are they in the report?

First there is Obama's DA Loretta Lynch, who told James Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" and then kind of forgot DOJ policy when Bill Clinton who just happened to be in the same airport (about a one in 500 chance) wandered onto her plane for chit chat. Something they got caught red handed doing. Lynch told us it was all "grandchildren talk". Where is the lefts response on that one? She got off fairly light. The IG called it  “error in judgment.” 

Then There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who tipped off the Clinton campaign at every stage of the investigation and was supposed to be recused from the investigation but in fact wasn't. What about him?  The key word here is former, he's already gone.


The culture of leaking at the FBI:


One of the most important things we learned from this report was the widespread leaking at the agency. If you were a supporter of Donald Trump, you kind of knew this was going on. Horowitz included lengthy attachments to show all the communication between the FBI and members of the media. Also noted was the gifts given to FBI agents by members of the media. We learned that the FBI became an unregulated agency, which made it's own rules


Hopefully Congress and the new FBI director can pick up the pieces and restore a once great law enforcement agency. The first step is for the agency to admit that it had rogue officials running the organization and they most likely fudged two investigations.









Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    6 years ago

The IG is now looking at the origins of the "Russia" investigation. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 years ago

Once the Republicans wrap up the midterm elections, Trump needs to prod Sessions to appoint a new special prosecutor to root out all the bad actors in the Obama administration, and its illegal ties with the DOJ and FBI. Of course there was bias on the part of the left wingers, but it's probably not prosecutable. An awful lot of left wing stink has wafted over to the Mueller investigation and hopelessly tainted it.

 
 
 
Silent_Hysteria
Freshman Silent
3  Silent_Hysteria    6 years ago

Out of all of this the one thing I want to see changed is the practice of politicians using aliases on emails.  Seems a shady way to hide emails from FOI requests.  Completely unacceptable 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @3    6 years ago
Out of all of this the one thing I want to see changed is the practice of politicians using aliases on emails.  Seems a shady way to hide emails from FOI requests.  Completely unacceptable

Indeed. I also want all  government employees (including the POTUS) to use government-issued and approved email addresses and servers.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    6 years ago

There are a good number of federal employees within the IC that need to use commercial email accounts, even for some official communications.  BUT...   when that is needed, we forward those emails to our official low side unsecured email accounts and if required, to the high side secured accounts through the provided methods.   However, those commercial accounts are always subject to audit and review by security, and in fact are routinely monitored

However, NO ONE....  has a personal private email server in their basement bathroom.

I agree and defer to your expertise on this. What you've provided requires employees' honesty, and we know that Hillary, her staff, and the high levels of the Obama Administration (including Obama) clearly demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, and transparency.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.3    6 years ago
To me, the BIG issue all along was the personal server.

Many people STILL don't understand that an email ACCOUNT and email SERVER are NOT the same thing.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.6  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    6 years ago
has a personal private email server in their basement bathroom.

No, they had them and still have them on the RNC server

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.7    6 years ago

Guess reading is not your strong suit.

I said they have private accounts on the RNC server. Whether that server is in the basement or not I don't know.

And your bullshit about "Top secret clearance" is just that. I don't need top secret clearance to know that they still communicate through an outside server that has already been hacked at least once.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4  Dulay    6 years ago
One of the most important things we learned from this report was the widespread leaking at the agency. If you were a supporter of Donald Trump, you kind of knew this was going on.

The widespread leaking was uncovered long before the IG report. The IG was asked to investigate it BEFORE the election and has yet to issue a report on that investigation. In fact, it's unknown whether he even conducted an investigation at all. 

It's stunning that the IG didn't investigate those leaks and that the report doesn't even mention their existence.

Yesterday, Nunes admitted while on Fox that 'good FBI agents' LEAKED information to the GOP in September 2016. 

Notice that Nunes calls them 'whistleblowers', which is total bullshit since the LEAKS happened days after the emails were found. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4    6 years ago

Why don't we confine ourselves to what the IG reported rather than what House democrats or Devin Nunes think about it?  What do you think?

As Joe Friday used to say "Just the facts ma'am"

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    6 years ago
What do you think?

Well since you insisted that one of the MOST important things were FBI leaks, the leaks that WEREN'T investigated properly are pertinent, don't you think. I know for a fact that if the IG hadn't investigated the leaks YOU wanted to know about, it would be a topic for your thoughts. 

BTW, the House letter was issued November 4, 2016 and it wasn't about the findings of the IG report and the IG CHOSE not to include those leaks in the investigation. Just as with Comey, the IG doesn't seem to care about FBI bias against Clinton. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    6 years ago
Well since you insisted that one of the MOST important things were FBI leaks, the leaks that WEREN'T investigated properly are pertinent, don't you think. I know for a fact that if the IG hadn't investigated the leaks YOU wanted to know about, it would be a topic for your thoughts.

The IG investigated leaks at the FBI. The IG says there was a culture of leaking at the agency including gifts by reporters. That was part of the purpose of this investigation. Sorry if you don't like the findings.

the IG doesn't seem to care about FBI bias against Clinton. 

I thought the report was extremely kind to Clinton. I know that progressives have settled in on the notion that Comey cost Clinton the election because he wrongly (and I do say wrongly) announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation just prior to the election. However, to be fair, Conservatives also complain that he saved Clinton by wrongly exonerating her (Comey's original sin) after a dubious non-investigation of the Clinton e-mails. Clearly, gross negligence is written into the statute - which never required intent.
Let's resist the old partisan debate. The IG report could have classified the Clinton e-mail investigation a sham. Instead it stopped just short of doing so. As I said above, the investigation got reviewed and we can close the book on the Clinton investigation. That would be a huge victory for team Clinton.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    6 years ago
The IG investigated leaks at the FBI. The IG says there was a culture of leaking at the agency including gifts by reporters. That was part of the purpose of this investigation. Sorry if you don't like the findings.

Where did I say I didn't like the findings? 

It's obvious that the SCOPE of the investigations of FBI leaks was limited for some unexplained reason. The leaks, and the worries about leaks from the NY Field Office are cited ad nauseum in the report, by multiple people that were interviewed, yet the IG didn't see fix to get to the bottom of those VERY IMPORTANT leaks. 

Clearly, gross negligence is written into the statute - which never required intent.

The legal definition of 'gross negligence' includes intent. 

From the report:

The statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which criminalizes the removal, delivery, loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction of national defense information through “gross negligence.” Due in part to Comey’s July 5 statement criticizing Clinton for being “extremely careless,” which many observers equated with being “grossly negligent,” this provision became the focus of much of the questioning of the declination decision. As detailed above, the prosecutors identified statements in the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) that they found indicated that the state of mind required for a violation of that section is “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful.” In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of Sections 793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors stated that “the government would very likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it prosecuted an individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified information at the time of the removal and never became aware he had done so.” Based on all of these circumstances, and a review of the small number of prior civilian and military cases under Section 793(f), the prosecutors interpreted the “gross negligence” provision of Section 793(f)(1) to require proof that an individual acted with knowledge that the information in question was classified. The investigators and prosecutors told us that proof of such knowledge was lacking.

Let's resist the old partisan debate. The IG report could have classified the Clinton e-mail investigation a sham. Instead it stopped just short of doing so. As I said above, the investigation got reviewed and we can close the book on the Clinton investigation. That would be a huge victory for team Clinton.

Sure, it COULD have classified it as a sham but that would have been a lie. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    6 years ago

Hillary had been around the fetid Federal swamp long enough what messages should be classified, and at what level. She intentionally sent and received classified material on that server, which probably wasn't secure, and we learn that it was indeed, hacked. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    6 years ago
Hillary had been around the fetid Federal swamp long enough what messages should be classified, and at what level. She intentionally sent and received classified material on that server, which probably wasn't secure, and we learn that it was indeed, hacked.

Let's hope that the Federal government continues to base prosecutions on the ACTUAL evidence and not how you FEEL about the subject. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    6 years ago
Based on all of these circumstances, and a review of the small number of prior civilian and military cases under Section 793(f), the prosecutors interpreted the “gross negligence” provision of Section 793(f)(1) to require proof that an individual acted with knowledge that the information in question was classified. The investigators and prosecutors told us that proof of such knowledge was lacking.

You do understand what that means, right?

In the interpretation of the prosecutors (James Comey & Co) the law required intent - AS OPPOSED TO, LETS SAY, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    6 years ago
You do understand what that means, right?

Yes I do, though you obviously don't. 

In the interpretation of the prosecutors (James Comey & Co) the law required intent - AS OPPOSED TO, LETS SAY, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION!!!!

The LAW cites GROSS NEGLIGENCE, the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of which includes INTENT. 

LEGAL definition of Gross Negligence:

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care..."

Now those with and INTENT to obfuscate or a limited vocabulary may try to make the argument that 'conscious and voluntary' doesn't mean "intent'. To accomplish that cogently, one would have to get past the fact that the definition of both the words voluntary and conscious includes 'intent'.

One should not only seek the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of a term, one should seek the LOGICAL interpretation too.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    6 years ago

Comey was a PROSECUTOR?

really want to go with that?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    6 years ago
Comey was a PROSECUTOR?

Why ask me? My comment wasn't about Comey, it was about the definition of Gross Negligence. If you have an issue with characterizing Comey as a Prosecutor, take it up with the member who I was replying to. 

really want to go with that?

See above. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    6 years ago

If Comey was the prosecutor, it is only because Lunch shirked her duties, or had to recuse herself because she did something so STUPID a first-year law student would have known better than doing.

Meeting Clinton when his wife was under investigation was STUPID.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    6 years ago
If Comey was the prosecutor, it is only because Lunch shirked her duties, or had to recuse herself because she did something so STUPID a first-year law student would have known better than doing. Meeting Clinton when his wife was under investigation was STUPID.

You keep going on about who the prosecutor was. As documented in the report, their were MULTIPLE prosecutors. There were 4 prosecutors present for the Clinton interview, NONE of them named Comey and one presumes that all of them were interviewed by the IG. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    6 years ago

Sorry, that definition does not equal INTENT. Negligence means failure to take proper care in doing something. Or according to the law failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. You simply don't intend to forget what you were taught by the State Department when you become a part of it. Nice try though, as strained as it was.

Have you ever thought of becoming a public defender? You'd make a good one.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.12    6 years ago
Sorry, that definition does not equal INTENT.

Are we to believe what we read or your proclamation? 

Negligence means failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. Or according to the law failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

We aren't talking about the definition of negligence, though are we Vic?

We are talking about definition of GROSS NEGLEGENCE and I already cited it's LEGAL definition.

You simply don't intend to forget what you were taught by the State Department when you become a part of it. 

Your deflection is noted. 

Nice try though, as strained as it was.

I wish I could say that YOUR try was nice, it wasn't, nor was it cogent. As for strained, I'm not the one deflecting. 

Have you ever thought of becoming a public defender? You'd make a good one.

Since our jurisprudence relies in no small part on the right to a vigorous defense, I'll take that as a compliment. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    6 years ago
We are talking about definition of GROSS NEGLEGENCE and I already cited it's LEGAL definition.

You are completely wrong. Gross Negligence means without intent and your "legal" definition is not much different than mine. Gross Negligence would also be a very low standard to prove while intent is often the most difficult bar, which is probably why Comey chose to interpret the law in the same unique manner you have. I happen to thing Ms Clinton violated both standards and should have been prosecuted either way. Putting government information on a private server, which was against policy (she signed off on that) was intentional and it was done for one reason - to conceal information, most likely from Congress or a FOIA request later. Something I believe Ms Clinton learned during the Whitewater investigation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.14    6 years ago
I happen to thing Ms Clinton violated both standards and should have been prosecuted either way.

I could fill up the rest of this page with legal opinions that disagree with you. 

Vic, I hate to say it, but you are a conspiracy aficionado. Unfortunately the conspiracies that interest you seem to run entirely in one direction. Your credibility suffers badly from both of those tendencies. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.15    6 years ago
Vic, I hate to say it, but you are a conspiracy aficionado.

There was no rogue elements in the FBI? No double standard between the Clinton and Russia investigations?

John, have you ever considered publishing your own supermarket tabloid?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.17  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.16    6 years ago
John, have you ever considered publishing your own supermarket tabloid?

He does, but in the form of seeds and posts on here.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
5  Jasper2529    6 years ago

First there is Obama's DA Loretta Lynch, who told James Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" and then kind of forgot DOJ policy when Bill Clinton who just happened to be in the same airport (about a one in 500 chance) wandered onto her plane for chit chat. Something they got caught red handed doing. Lynch told us it was all "grandchildren talk". Where is the lefts response on that one? She got off fairly light. The IG called it  “error in judgment.” 

-----------------------------------

How do two people, one of whom has a Secret Service detail, have a "chance encounter" at the same airport at the same time? Hmmmmm ...

Lynch has claimed she and Clinton spoke of only “innocuous things” during their tarmac meeting, calling it a “chance encounter.”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @5    6 years ago

"chance encounters"?  I have em all the time. I get on the plane, buckle in and somebody I know gets off his/her plane and walks over onto my plane to talk about grand kids. Dosen't it happen to you?  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    6 years ago
"chance encounters"?  I have em all the time. I get on the plane, buckle in and somebody I know gets off his/her plane and walks over onto my plane to talk about grand kids. Dosen't it happen to you?  

Yep! We also talk about golf. And just like Bill, I never allow reporters and my Secret Service detail onto the plane when I have those "chance encounters" with the US Atty General that coincides with federal investigations related to my wife who "happens" to be a shady POTUS candidate.  Wink

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.1    6 years ago
I have those "chance encounters" with the US Atty General that coincides with federal investigations related to my wife who "happens" to be a shady POTUS candidate.

And the next step is always to say something vague about a recusel and leaving it all up to the FBI director (not the deputy AG) . Funny how people like Lynch and McCabe and Peter Kadzik get so confused about recusel.

Definition of   recuse

recused ;   recusing
:   to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case;   broadly   :   to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest


I guess Jeff Sessions is the only one who knows the definition.


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.2    6 years ago
but those damn pesky airport employees and their damned cell phones are just all over the place and catch the "encounter".

That's why we have the FBI try and cover it up:

FBI cover up exposed 30 hidden Clinton-Lynch tarmac docs found. Watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that FBI had suddenly discovered 30 pages of documents related to the tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Phoenix

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
5.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    6 years ago

From fox fake news... LOL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.5    6 years ago

Don't attack the messenger. Judicial Watch extracted the documents, the FBI hid em and Fox News did it's job and reported it

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    6 years ago
Judicial Watch extracted the documents

Have you seen their report on Trump's golf outings? They dedicated so much time and effort to documenting the cost of Obama's golfing, I can't wait to see their data on Trump. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.7    6 years ago

I'm a member. I don't recall any FOIA requests on golf outings.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    6 years ago

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.9    6 years ago

Thanks for all the info

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    6 years ago
Thanks for all the info

You're welcome. Hope it piqued your memory. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    6 years ago

Andrew McCarthy had a very good analysis of the report too:

"The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start:   It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did.   In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong.   The cop-out is that we are dealing here with “discretionary” calls; therefore, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude. Consequently, the IG says his job is not to determine whether any particular decision was   correct ; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness, the decision was   defensible . And he makes that determination by looking at every decision in isolation.

But is that the way we evaluate decisions in the real world?

In every criminal trial, the defense lawyer tries to sow reasonable doubt by depicting every allegation, every factual transaction, as if it stood alone. In a drug case, if the defendant was photographed delivering a brown paper bag on Wednesday, the lawyer argues, “Well, we don’t have X-ray vision, how do we really know there was heroin in the bag?” The jurors are urged that when they consider what happened Wednesday, there is only Wednesday; they must put out of their minds that text from Tuesday, when the defendant told his girlfriend, “I always deliver the ‘product’ in paper bags.”"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    6 years ago

Besides causing a massive loss of trust in the FBI, the report probably makes it impossible for the Democrats to achieve the holy grail they've been working on since election night, the impeachment and removal of Trump.  Removal can only occur with massive public support that by necessity would have to include a significant percentage of Republicans.  But the detail in this report alone has poisoned the investigation. 

Famously, OJ's lawyers were able to create doubt in the jury's mind about a possible frame up by pointing to generalized racist statements Detective Fuhrman had made in the years prior to his work on the Simpson case.  Imagine if the defense had documentary evidence of Fuhrman calling Simpson himself racist names while working on Simpson's case? That's the type of bias the IG's recovered and its going to make it damn near impossible to convince Republicans that Trump "obstructed justice" (which seems to be the only crime Mueller can dig up) by not cooperating with what the IG has demonstrated to be an investigation led by partisans out to stop him.  

 
 

Who is online





Trout Giggles
Igknorantzruls
Jeremy Retired in NC


78 visitors