The FBI IG did a deep dive into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation and concluded, “we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.”
On Monday of this week, the FBI IG released its report into the FBI’s handling of the Trump campaign. Again, it concluded, “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
Yet if you read the Executive Summary of the two reports and compare and contrast the treatment the FBI gave the Democratic Presidential candidate and the treatment it gave the Republican Presidential candidate, the disparity is glaring and obvious.
Hillary Clinton was treated as innocent even after being proven guilty and exonerated on a crime that requires no intent on the basis of lack of intent. Clinton was treated with kid gloves and given every courtesy plausible during the investigation. Trump and his campaign were treated as guilty, even as evidence piled up that both were innocent of the accusations and that the FBI put people in jail for not remembering dates of various meetings in a strong-arm technique to intimidate witnesses.
You have two concurrent investigations into the two major party nominees for President of the United States, but one investigation was in the extreme left tail of investigatory concession and the other was in the extreme right tail of investigatory aggressiveness, including falsifying evidence submitted to the FISA court to justify a wiretap. No rational person could read those two reports together and conclude there was no political bias in the disparate handling of the two investigations. No rational person.
One wonders what type of “documentary or testimonial evidence” would have been required for the IG to conclude there was political bias.Published in