I have never met a Conservative or Liberal that ever allowed the facts to get in the way of their agenda. When talking to any member from either party, the truth and facts are no longer absolute.
The Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation was only missing a magic bullet theory to make its conclusion complete fiction. The IG report states members of the FBI had a bias against President Trump but does not conclude they acted against Trump because of those biases. How is that possible?
It’s human nature to have a bias and act on those biases. We are told police officers act on their biases towards African Americans with far less evidence than what appears in the AG report yet there is nothing to see here – just move along. It’s as remarkable as James Comey implying Hillary Clinton broke the law without saying she broke law during his famous exoneration tour in July 2017.
I need someone to explain to me in plain language how there is no bias when Peter Strzok assures his lover Lisa Page that “we’ll stop” then candidate Trump from becoming president.
According to the IG report, she sends him this text: “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right!?” To which he responds: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” In another exchange, Strzok tells Page that if Trump does become president they have “an insurance policy.”
Apparently, Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General, doesn’t understand the meaning of a smoking gun.
Of course, Conservatives are up-in-arms because any moron can deduce if you have a bias towards someone, that bias will manifest itself in many ways either consciously or unconsciously. Can anyone say leaks?
Coincidentally enough, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russian Collusion soap opera, brought new charges against Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. I know the timing was purely uncalculated.
Anyway, the new charges claim Manafort tampered with witnesses and revoked his bail sending him to jail. Mueller said Manafort “knowingly and intentionally attempted to corruptly persuade another person…with intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.”
There is no real evidence Manafort actually tried to persuade anyone but Mueller says he had “intent to influence.” Why does Manafort have intent but not Strzok?
For Conservatives, if they claim Strzok had intent then they must equally accept the “fact” Manafort did as well. For Liberals, the same holds true for Strzok’s intentions if they believe Manafort intended to tamper with witnesses.
The reality is no one knows the truth but Trump, Clinton, Manafort, and Strzok. I doubt any of them will ever actually tell the truth. They are in politics and the only thing we know for sure about politics is that no one tells the truth.
Unfortunately, no one trusts the news reporters anymore and now we’re at a point where the truth is relative and what you believe.