We also know that an FBI attorney falsified information to get warrants against his campaign advisor.
We know that the FBI urged the media to actually censor negative news about his political opponents.
It would be difficult to them trust such an organization to them perform fair investigations against you after those occurrences, regardless of one's political party.
> In spring 2017, Mr. Page, denying he was a Russian agent, told reporters that he had provided information to the C.I.A. about Russia. An F.B.I. agent who was preparing to sign a factual affidavit to accompany the fourth wiretap application asked Mr. Clinesmith to obtain clarity about whether the C.I.A. considered Mr. Page a “source.” That led to Mr. Clinesmith’s interactions with a C.I.A. counterpart, who sent back an email referring to Mr. Page’s status as an American citizen and citing the memorandum from August as a place to find more information. Based on that exchange, Mr. Clinesmith told the agent that the C.I.A. had explicitly said Mr. Page was “never a source,” something his C.I.A. contact later denied saying. When the agent wanted to see it in writing, Mr. Clinesmith inserted the words “and not a ‘source’” into the email before showing it to his colleague. The agent was satisfied and signed the wiretap affidavit without adding any disclosure about Mr. Page’s relationship with the C.I.A.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/us/politics/kevin-clinesm...
According to who? Trump?
Investigating leads is conspiring against you?
I don’t know the veracity of the claim that the FBI told the media to censor negative news. The media was definitely on guard for being manipulated following the DNC/Podesta email hacking and use of media by Russia in 2016. And so were our counterintelligence agencies. It’s literally their job.
Not focused either way on Trump, just thought that there actually was something to the GPs post.
Edit: Wasn't it Zuckerberg himself that said the FBI reached out to him about limiting the visibility of certain news?
No. The FBI reached out to Facebook to let them know how Russia tended to try to influence US citizens with fake news or by amplifying fake aspects of real news using social networks, including Facebook.
A lot of folks thought this was bad because it led to Facebook not amplifying (not removing, not blocking, just not promoting) the Hunter Biden laptop claims, because the story met the hallmarks of what the FBI pointed out to the team. It still does.
Out of curiosity (honestly), how does it?
Thus the media treated it as hacked attempted manipulation.
That said, everyone knew about it and it’s not exactly news that Hunter Biden, like many in that world, was trading off his father’s position and had a drug problem. Indeed, it wouldn’t be surprising if he was targeted by our enemies to be compromised. Any high level executive’s kid with a drug problem is low hanging fruit for kompromat.
“Even if we assume the crazy sounding laptop repair shop story were 100% true, we had partisan political operatives shopping a story to journalists about the supposedly scandalous revelations cribbed from the contents of someone's stolen email communications and electronic data in the midst of a presidential election campaign homestretch. The fact that some of the information has since been authenticated by the nYT or WaPO as belonging to Hunter Biden doesn't change anything. The Clinton emails that were dumped by Wikileaks in 2016 were also authentic. Didn't make them any less stolen or render their release combined with the gross misrepresentation of their contents to feed unsupported narratives less problematic, nor did their authenticity make it any less a part of a Russian influence operation.”