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.”
About Author
lawtonsack
Lawton is a graduate of Georgia Southern University (the GSU) with a degree in Information Technology. He has held numerous positions within the Georgia Republican Party throughout the years.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
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 are any better on this than the Republicans, then you should consider the epithet that you aimed at Karen Handel and then take a look in the mirror. The same arguments and tactics that the Republicans are using to defend Trump against Mueller were used to defend Bill Clinton against Kenneth Starr. The. Exact. Same. Ones. It is absolutely disconcerting that you and so many others do not realize this, it truly is. Democrats to this day revile Kenneth Starr even after Bill Clinton’s disbarment and censure for perjury, his ceasing to claim that Paula Jones was lying and simply out for money, and the Whitewater investigation resulting in a ton of criminal convictions including the sitting governor of Arkansas. Yet if Mueller’s investigation yields a fraction of the success that Kenneth Starr’s did he will be a progressive hero and the subject of a hagiographic Spielberg movie.
Republicans and Democrats: 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The only difference is whose side you are on because it happens to suit your ideology or personal agenda.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think you actually read the report.
You may wish to read the entire thing .
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.
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.
Bam!
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.
Her concerns are that it didn’t vindicate her.
Moving along.
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.
Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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, as so declared in 2008. Therefore, keeping the records on a server wasn’t a requirement for much of the timeframe for which Clinton’s missing emails exist. So…where are the paper copies that were required to be kept?
Finally, what truly sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that agencies are outsourcing federal records management responsibilities. What are these companies? Are they handing these management duties to archivists? I suspect not, and if I am right, how do they determine the intrinsic and extrinsic value of each email?