Heads Are Starting to Roll at The FBI


Most news outlets generally ignore the investigations on the investigators.

Earlier this year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz launched an investigation into the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

Horowitz wrote last January that the review will concern itself with:

Allegations that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director’s public announcement on July 5, 2016, and the Director’s letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative decisions were based on
improper considerations;

Allegations that the FBI Deputy Director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters;

Allegations that the Department’s Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters;

Allegations that Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information; and

Allegations that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI’s release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1, 2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize same, were influenced by improper considerations.

Since then, several Department of Justice and FBI officials have either been removed, reassigned, or are rumored to be resigning.

Sharyl Attkisson has conveniently summarized their cases, insofar as what’s happened to them and what they’re accused of. Attkisson also summarizes the roles key investigators play.

Sponsored Links

It also helps explain why President Trump’s tweets about bias in the FBI aren’t “witness intimidation.” The bias we can see in several of these individuals is absolutely staggering.

Heads aren’t just rolling at the FBI. We all want to know why some investigators played down evidence against Clinton, while others exaggerated the usefulness of discredited “evidence” against Trump.

Sponsored Links

We know where these investigators have been. But what’s their next move?

Recommended for you

Comments are closed.