Rep. Handel Expresses Concerns About Justice Department Findings

Rep. Karen Handel (R, GA-6), issued a statement today after the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (IG) issued a 568 page report of its review of the actions of the FBI during the 2016 election.

Rep. Handel:

“It is deeply disturbing that our country’s lead investigative arm was [co-opted] by politics and bias.  It is abundantly clear from the IG report that the Obama Justice Department and FBI blatantly disregarded protocol during the Clinton investigation.  Worse, according to the report, the IG was unable to definitively say that certain actions were free from bias.

The report presents troubling facts that shake the confidence of the American people in the ability of the FBI and DOJ to conduct thorough, fair investigations.

It is imperative that the Attorney General take immediate and substantive action to begin to repair the reputation of the FBI and regain the trust of Congress and, most importantly, the American people.

On Tuesday, June 19, Inspector General Horowitz will appear at a joint hearing with the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  I look forward to his testimony.”

26
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Holly CroftdownthemiddlebethebalanceBenevolusCaroline Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Caroline
Caroline

She obviously did not read the report. The report said it found no evidence of bias but it did find bad decisions were made by Comey and others. She’s a fool if she thinks anybody would trust Jeff Sessions to fix anything at the Justice Department. The irony is the mistakes that were made helped Trump. There is still more information to come out about Giuliani and the NY field office.

atlindy
atlindy

She did. She merely interpreted it differently from you. Your rejoinder is mere partisanship, no better or no worse than what the Republicans are indulging in. Let me put it this way: had Hillary Clinton won the election there would never have been a #metoo movement which means that Democrats would have never finally come clean about their treatment of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanittra Broadrick by the same people who tried to turn Stormy Daniels into a #resistance hero over her consensual relationship with a private citizen. It is just partisanship, and if you believe that the Democrats… Read more »

Caroline
Caroline

Dude, I’m going on what Chris Wray said. And there is no “interpretation” unless you live in the world of alternative facts. Facts are facts. She completely doffed the reply.

You’re gonna talk about the pedophile chicks? And you cannot predict about a #me too.

Epithet is “fool” in the age of Trump? I mean you are just being plain silly. And you seriously don’t know what you’re talking about if you think the GOP has been an advocate for women. Just look at the legislation they have proposed or passed. Legitimate rape anyone?

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

had Hillary Clinton won the election there would never have been a #metoo movement

Congrats. You just provided the stupidest hot take of the week.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Democrats to this day revile Kenneth Starr even after Bill Clinton’s disbarment and censure for perjury

Personally, I revile Ken Starr for covering up rape and sexual assault by football players at Baylor but, hey, to each their own.

bethebalance
bethebalance

I don’t know anyone who has cared about Ken Starr, or mentioned his name, for about 20 years now. And now that he is being brought back up by some, I still don’t hear any hate. If you did have hate, and you’re sane, you let go of the hate, and move on with life.

alpha male
alpha male

The report stated that they could not discount that bias was involved.

Handel is correct to be concerned. Everyone should be concerned if there is suspicion that politics could co-opt law enforcement.

Caroline
Caroline

The bias was anti Hillary if any. If there was any anti-Trump bias they would have reported that Trump was under criminal investigation for conspiracy against the United States with Russia.

alpha male
alpha male

I don’t think you actually read the report.

alpha male
alpha male

You may wish to read the entire thing .

Caroline
Caroline

Did the FBI let the voters know that Trump was under criminal investigation? No. Did they talk about Hillary? Yes. I mean this is just what we saw. Also there is a Giuliani problem that is going to be reported on.

alpha male
alpha male

Caroline, if you don’t have time to read the entire thing, I would refer you to pages 149, then page 161, and then pages 420-421. IMO they are disturbing.

I would be interested in your take after reading those.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

I mean, I shouldn’t be shocked that the guy who doesn’t know how to Google didn’t read a 500 page document… 149 However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions discussed below, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual. 161 We interviewed each of the seven other FBI and Department attendees at Clinton’s interview, and none of them expressed concerns regarding the conduct of the interview. We also did not find, based on our review of the interview outline prepared in advance of the… Read more »

Dave Bearse
Dave Bearse

Bam!

Benevolus
Benevolus

If she is so concerned about the integrity of our institutions she could/should be reassuring us that she will be working to restore confidence in those institutions. Instead, we get ” I look forward to his testimony.”

Be best, Rep. Handel.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

That would require her to be something more than a shameless hack.

edatlanta
edatlanta

Her concerns are that it didn’t vindicate her.

Moving along.

Caroline
Caroline

That’s it precisely. It now shows that Trump has been lying about this for years to his voters however not that it’s going to matter to them. It’s just another piece of evidence for the rest of us.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Hi there, actual lawyer here. Also, unlike beta bro and lindy up there – who have pretty shoddy track records of not doing any research before running their mouths – I actually spent the better part of my evening reading this thing. Also, because I actually care about reading something before listening to commentary on it, I’ve decidedly avoided Twitter. The IG report demonstrates a couple things: 1. The FBI was right not to charge Hillary with a crime 2. The decision not to charge Hillary wasn’t the result of political bias 3. James Comey made a mistake because he… Read more »

Caroline
Caroline

Thank you.

bethebalance
bethebalance

Too bad that the vast majority of Americans who care about this won’t care enough to do anything but rely on the talking points that are fed to them. That would work if the talking points reflected a truthful rendering of the reading. But when you trust a media source that is not truthful, you will be led astray. Sad.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

I mean, that’s kind of how we wound up in this situation in the first place.

downthemiddle
downthemiddle

How can you say Hillary did not commit crimes by passing on classified information and destroying 33,000 emails. I know lawyers that say she should be in jail and disagree with you completely.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Are you talking to me? The 33,000 emails you’re referring to (the actual figure is 31,830) are emails that Clinton’s lawyers had deemed personal and non-work related. State Department policy allows its employees to determine which emails are work-related, and therefore subject to preservation requirements, and which emails are non-work related. According to 5 FAM 443.5, non-work related emails and messages may be deleted when no longer needed. So, in short, there was nothing illegal about deleting those emails. Your lawyer friends might point out that these emails were deleted after Clinton received a subpoena from the Benghazi committee. For… Read more »

Holly Croft
Holly Croft

Hi, actual archivist here. Key point that no one discusses: Clinton’s emails in question were dated between 2009 and 2013. On August 24, 2012, the National Archives and Records Administration released Memorandum M-12-18, the Managing Government Records Directive, which required all executive branch agencies to comply with new standards for managing emails in electronic format by December 31, 2016. The current “Capstone Method” for managing federal executive branch emails was developed and released in August 2013 as part of NARA Bulletin 2013-02. Prior to this, email was considered a record, but it was saved in PAPER format, not electronic format,… Read more »

Caroline
Caroline

Dude, the IG the expert on this case just yesterday said the FBI did the right thing by not charging her. The emails that were deemed classified were deemed classified AFTER THE FACT and those emails WERE SENT TO HER not sent by her. So even if you are so concerned about retroactively classified emails you should be talking about the person that actually sent them not who recieved them.