monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Those text did cause the IG to question if biasness affected any decisions, but after examining documents and listening to testimonial evidence, they saw no biasenss in any of the early decision in the Russian investigation.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed;

...most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review

New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking.

Barbara Underwood said the charitable foundation had engaged in "unlawful political co-ordination" designed to influence the 2016 election.

The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the foundation and $2.8m (£2.1m) in restitution.

The foundation denied the charges, calling them politically motivated.

The president hit back at the lawsuit on Twitter, saying that "sleazy New York Democrats" were "doing everything they can to sue me". He vowed he would not settle the case.

The attorney general is also seeking to bar the president and three of his adult children, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka, from serving on the board of any New York-based charity, "in light of misconduct and total lack of oversight".

She has referred the case to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission, she says.


Ms Underwood filed a petition at the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan on Thursday, Mr Trump's 72nd birthday.

It accuses the foundation and its directors - Mr Trump and his three eldest children - of unlawfully co-ordinating with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated self-dealing transactions, and violating laws under which non-profit organisations must operate.

In a statement, Ms Underwood said Mr Trump had illegally instructed the foundation to provide support to his presidential campaign by using the foundation's name and funds it raised to promote the campaign.

The petition also claims that Mr Trump used charitable assets to pay off legal obligations, to promote his own businesses and to purchase personal items, including a painting of himself.

The Trump Foundation issued a statement denying the charges and accusing the attorney general of holding its $1.7 million in remaining funds "hostage for political gain".

Ms Underwood is a Democrat.

The president described the suit as "ridiculous".

The younger Trumps have yet to comment publicly.

The lawsuit announced on Thursday is the culmination of a two-year investigation, which began under the previous New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, Ms Underwood said.

Mr Schneiderman resigned last month after several former girlfriends accused him of physical abuse.

In October 2016 Mr Schneiderman ordered the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in New York, after finding it had no proper registration.

President-elect Trump vowed to shut the charitable foundation down in December 2016, to avoid "even the appearance" of any conflict of interest.

The Trump Foundation lawsuit adds to Mr Trump's legal challenges, which include a wide-ranging special counsel investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted several of Mr Trump's associates and raided the home and office of the president's long-time lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen.

Furthermore, he merely says he did not find DIRECT evidence. He doesn't say it didn't happen, nor did he deny that there are tons of "indirect evidence."

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

He did not say direct evidence.

He said they did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias directly affected the specific investigative decisions. Not direct or indirect evidence; but directly affected investigated decisions. In other words, there was no biasness that directly affected the decisions of the investigation.

someone ELSE would have to be elected, eh? Now, who could that someone else be, I wonder?

The criminal he "interviewed" while creating no notes, no recordings, no nuthin, all contrary to express FBI policy and all after an exculpatory statement had already been created, maybe?

Nor does he say that political bias did not indirectly affect investigative decisions, as you want to suggest

Quote:

Nor does he say that political bias did not indirectly affect investigative decisions, as you want to suggest

.

Go to the link itself and read the report yourself. He said "directly affect the investigative decisions."

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2018/2018-06-14.pdf

Why hasn’t Peter Strzok been fired yet?

"You could hear the cries of anguish and the gnashing of teeth emanating from Washington, D.C., and the isle of Manhattan, as the media and the political class mourned the coming of peace to the Korean peninsula. ..."