Trump Blasts ‘Double Standard’ in FBI Treatment of Hillary & Flynn - Liberty Headlines

I did not hear that claim by President Obama. Can you recall when he said that?

It was early in the primary season, January or February

Here is an interesting point of view from the National review, not exactly a hotbed of conservative thought:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary

COL William Oseles - are you confusing the national review with another publication? The national review has been a leading source of conservative thought since its founding. And the guy who wrote the column is a conservative columnist.

LCpl Mike Calhoun - It's actually still a crime to lie to law enforcement, under oath or not, so that's not particularly relevant.

It's definitely fair to wonder if this particular investigator mishandled his duties because of political leanings. IG is investigating and a report is expected in March/April. He was removed in August though, so his impact on the recent indictments would be minimal.

I’ve been a cop a looong time, so yes I’m aware it is a crime to lie to LE but again, Hillary wasn’t under oath and add the fact that she demanded and was granted her request that the chat not only be not under oath, but also no transcription or recording! So until the investigator’s notes are unsealed we won’t know what wasn’t asked. It was a sham interview, check the box, to quiet the critics and say they at least “interviewed” her. She was interviewed over July 4th weekend, at her own convenance, and the next thing you know Comey aquits her. BTW, regardless of when the agent was removed, there are serious conflicts on that team, not only him, but all the lawyers were Clinton voters/doners.

LCpl Mike Calhoun - You do realize that the FBI hasn't recorded interviews in over a decade and that putting an interviewee under oath would be EXTREMELY unusual, right?

Also, we really can't start down the road on who is ideologically pure enough to examine evidence. That way lies insanity. If someone can't do their job because they're politically inclined in a different way or their parents are Mexican, they shouldn't be in the job. Mueller's investigators are not compromised simply because they favored one candidate over another. They're professionals.

Also, it assumes that any dislike of Trump is due to political affiliation. I know lots of conservatives that wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. An agent on that team may hate the guy at this point, not because they liked Clinton, but because they think he's a corrupt moron with a flair for exciting the ideologically blinded.

I'm going to be kind here, but your defense of members of that team is a real stretch, especially that second paragraph. The fact is you have human beings involved on this team, and they have political leanings, and outright bias in fact. For all of Mueller's famed integrity, I just don't buy the idea some have used as a defense that he didn't know their political donation history, or what the word was in the office about their politics. If that is the case, then shame on him, he allowed that team to be assembled with some bad baggage. I know how cops are, we talk constantly about our politics as it pertains to current events because we are most often on the business end of political decisions. In my shop, we all know who leans what way, and I know those who know these agents, and now lawyers as well, knew their political ideologies. You can't do that and expect a fair outcome. It is like a defense attorney if he/she is any good, would move to disqualify any potential jury member who admitted to having been a victim of robbery if his/her client is standing trial for robbery. I have been involved in jury selection involving two of my past cases and believe it or not, even the prosecutors would not want such a member of the jury like that, because you want to remove any possible grounds for appeal afterwards if a conviction is secured. Again, humans involved here. Mueller is smart and has been around the block a few times. He tainted his investigation by either allowing these Clinton donors/Trump haters on the team knowingly or unknowingly. I tend to think is the former. Now as to your point ref "Not compromised simply because they favored one candidate over another. They're professionals." I really am gob smacked by that statement. Yes, they are professionals. This particular agent is not. He changed the legal statute of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" to protect Clinton from prosecution. It was him. I'd call that compromised. Plus, we shall see in coming weeks if it was he who in fact wrote the declaration for the FISA warrant with the fake dossier as the justification to spy on Americans. I wouldn't be surprised at all.