35 Times FBI “Deviated Standard Practice”/Committed Crimes to Exonerate Hilary/Indict Trump

*** Title had to be shortened in order to fit ***

STUNNING LIST: 35 Times the FBI “Deviated from Standard Practice” or Committed Crimes in Effort to Exonerate Hilary and Indict Trump

The FBI leadership under the Obama Administration took many actions that deviated from standard practice [i.e. were corrupt and criminal] in their efforts to exonerate Hillary from her crimes and then spy and frame candidate and then President Trump. Today current members of the FBI are embarrassed to even turn on their TV’s as a result.

Time magazine of all places reported recently about the many efforts the FBI took related to Hillary exoneration and then the Trump framing. These corrupt and criminal actions have taken a desperate toll on the current members of the FBI –

In normal times, the televisions are humming at the FBI’s 56 field offices nationwide, piping in the latest news as agents work their investigations. But these days, some agents say, the TVs are often off to avoid the crush of bad stories about the FBI itself. The bureau, which is used to making headlines for nabbing crooks, has been grabbing the spotlight for unwanted reasons: fired leaders, texts between lovers and, most of all, attacks by President Trump. “I don’t care what channel it’s on,” says Tom O’Connor, a veteran investigator in Washington who leads the FBI Agents Association. “All you hear is negative stuff about the FBI … It gets depressing.”

Of course the employees of the FBI are in a funk, their fearless and corrupt leaders, as well as leaders in Obama’s corrupt DOJ, went to extravagant links to exonerate the obvious criminal actions of Hillary Clinton, and then to do all they could to prevent candidate Trump from winning an election. Then once the election was won by President Trump, they went to unheard of depths of deceit and corruption to attempt to remove him from office.

Click link for full article, including the list in question.

This is really nothing new to those who have been following this mess since the beginning. It might be new to those who are on the fence on this issue or for people on the left who want more facts to support the accusations against the FBI. As for discussion of this topic that's up to the people who read the article and wish to comment. My intent was to bring this list to the front for reference since I believe the issues raised in the article are going to come to the forefront sooner rather than later now that the new AG is in the process of being confirmed.

Here is the link to the Time article referenced in the Gateway Pundit article.
* - The FBI Is in Crisis. It's Worse Than You Think - May 2018

a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

Thats actually true for any Law enforcement

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

lying to the fbi is only a crime if someone on the trump campaign or administration does it

a reply to: Xcathdra

I hope and pray that history will acknowledge this sh1tshow in the future.

My heart will warm when I see my grandchildren learning about Spygate and Russiagate in their history classes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

at this stage of the game, I'm still not sure the left understands where all the anger stems from, it's the double standard. The one highlighted in this and other articles. Fix that, and I'd bet that most of the left vs. right infighting would be gone.

Do they even see it?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

lying to the fbi is only a crime if someone on the trump campaign or administration does it

Let's see what the IG report and Huber's office does on lying to the FBI. Dont forget that is why McCabe was fired - for being less than candid in questions asked AKA lying to the FBI blatantly or by omission of fact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

lying to the fbi is only a crime if someone on the trump campaign or administration does it

Let's see what the IG report and Huber's office does on lying to the FBI. Dont forget that is why McCabe was fired - for being less than candid in questions asked AKA lying to the FBI blatantly or by omission of fact.

oh lots of them have been caught under oath lying
none that I know of have been charged yet
none but those from trumps campaign or administration

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.

Wow. It seems as though if one wants to commit crimes and not be prosecuted for those crimes, the best thing to do is to get hired on at the FBI.

lying to the fbi is only a crime if someone on the trump campaign or administration does it

Let's see what the IG report and Huber's office does on lying to the FBI. Dont forget that is why McCabe was fired - for being less than candid in questions asked AKA lying to the FBI blatantly or by omission of fact.

oh lots of them have been caught under oath lying
none that I know of have been charged yet
none but those from trumps campaign or administration

Valid points...

Hopefully Barr will correct this.

a reply to: Xcathdra

hopefully huber has been working on it and only waiting for the current witch hunt to end

The problem is whether this is a big issue or not. What does it mean as to whether inappropriate actions happened or not. How does someone on the right see it as a big foul and someone on the left say no big deal. We all on both sides would see robbing a 7/11 as the same thing, so how do we get to that same point with something like this. The OP makes it sound like a big deal, but then the FBI internal audits has not supported that most likely, and it seems neither has Congress on any large scale.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The problem is whether this is a big issue or not. What does it mean as to whether inappropriate actions happened or not. How does someone on the right see it as a big foul and someone on the left say no big deal. We all on both sides would see robbing a 7/11 as the same thing, so how do we get to that same point with something like this. The OP makes it sound like a big deal, but then the FBI internal audits has not supported that most likely, and it seems neither has Congress on any large scale.

The op source correctly points out that, using your analogy, robbing a 7/11 is bad if you are a Republican/Conservative/Trump Supporter and robbing a 7/11 is ok if you are a Democrat/Liberal/Never Trumper.

That is what the source pointed out. A major double standard when it comes to application of the law and how dangerous a 2 tiered system can be.

When 2 people kill a person under the same scenarios and one person is charged because of their political beliefs and the other is ignored because of theirs...

That is the point we are at and I can say the people on the right, myself included on this topic, resent the hell out of the mindset that laws are not applied equally.

McCabe lied under oath 4 times - nothing
Flynn is accused of lying to the FBI - plea deal

The legal system has become infected with political partisanship, which in my opinion, is a direct threat to this nations security.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


The op source correctly points out that, using your analogy, robbing a 7/11 is bad if you are a Republican/Conservative/Trump Supporter and robbing a 7/11 is ok if you are a Democrat/Liberal/Never Trumper.

That is what the source pointed out. A major double standard when it comes to application of the law and how dangerous a 2 tiered system can be.

But the reality is both sides DO see robbing a 7/11 as bad, and both sides can agree on 1000s of events as bad, but here we are and we can't say if XYZ happens it is bad. Also I'm not ready to suggest the FBI internal affairs is biased...

So what gives...is it bad or is it just the right making it look like something bad...

I don't know...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

McCabe lied under oath 4 times - nothing
Flynn is accused of lying to the FBI - plea deal

I truly believe they have other things on Flynn that it was Flynn's best interest to plea deal on this, but if he didn't I'm sure he could have beaten it and mostly likely got something worst he might not beat.

I'm not sure what is the difference between "lacking candor" while not a part of an investigation and lying while under oath as the focus of an official investigation.

In the end I'm not sure how they compare...as in are they apples and apples or apples and oranges.

a reply to: Xtrozero

In order to support that conclusion I would want to see all the paperwork involved. Until that happens all he is charged with was 1 count of lying to the FBI. We can also use Manafort and his charges and then ask why the Podestas werent charged considering at the time they worked together and committed the same crimes.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The legal system has become infected with political partisanship, which in my opinion, is a direct threat to this nations security.

Absolutely, it is a direct threat to our national security. What happens when roughly half the country has written off the US legal system as hopelessly corrupt and partisan? We're going to see the rise of vigilante justice, possibly along with an attempt to form some kind of alternative to the FBI. It's going to be really ugly.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xcathdra


The op source correctly points out that, using your analogy, robbing a 7/11 is bad if you are a Republican/Conservative/Trump Supporter and robbing a 7/11 is ok if you are a Democrat/Liberal/Never Trumper.

That is what the source pointed out. A major double standard when it comes to application of the law and how dangerous a 2 tiered system can be.

But the reality is both sides DO see robbing a 7/11 as bad, and both sides can agree on 1000s of events as bad, but here we are and we can't say if XYZ happens it is bad. Also I'm not ready to suggest the FBI internal affairs is biased...

So what gives...is it bad or is it just the right making it look like something bad...

I don't know...

No, the reality does not support that. The op source is pointing out and supporting the charge of only one side saying robbing a 7/11 is bad and its bad if your a Republican (all inclusive) while at the same time documenting crimes by the left that are viewed as non crimes. We see it in the political threads on this site on almost a daily basis. There are those of us who bitch about the double standard while people on the left keep saying Clinton is no longer in office / Obama is no longer in office so leave them alone.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

In order to support that conclusion I would want to see all the paperwork involved. Until that happens all he is charged with was 1 count of lying to the FBI. We can also use Manafort and his charges and then ask why the Podestas werent charged considering at the time they worked together and committed the same crimes.

I'm going on the assumption that the judge in the case basically opened up the path for him to suggest he was in the right and the FBI was in the wrong, but he still went forward to accept the pled deal.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The legal system has become infected with political partisanship, which in my opinion, is a direct threat to this nations security.

Absolutely, it is a direct threat to our national security. What happens when roughly half the country has written off the US legal system as hopelessly corrupt and partisan? We're going to see the rise of vigilante justice, possibly along with an attempt to form some kind of alternative to the FBI. It's going to be really ugly.

I was watching the Barr confirmation a little while ago and this exact topic came up. He was asked about Federal District Court Judges issuing rulings with nationwide implications instead of it applying only to their own district. Barr was not in favor of that style of judges authority and said in the end the Supreme Court will have to smack the district courts down for those types of ruling and appeals district for allowing those types of rulings to stand.

I do know scotus issued a warning to the lower courts with their ruling upholding Trumps travel ban. Scotus noted district courts were ruling in areas they have no jurisdiction to do so and were improperly using their authority for nationwide rulings. They warned the appeals and district courts to knock it off or Scotus would get involved (which is their right as the head of the 3rd branch of government). Congress can curtail the lower courts and have done so in a very restrictive manner. Scotus said the purpose of district courts is to get different rulings / legal opinions to help appeals courts and ultimately supreme court decisions.

Until the mid and lower courts are brought under control parties will judge shop to get an outcome they want = politicization of the judicial branch.

We have checks and balances, up to and including impeachment of federal officers who required Senate consent (like judges). Our government needs to start doing their jobs and hold each other accountable.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Some aspects of the coup against President Trump are still operating as we speak.