Posted on 06/16/2018 2:24:53 PM PDT by Innovative
here is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Clinton-emails investigation. Horowitz’s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault.
It is also, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise — it omits half the story, the Russia investigation — and it flinches from following the facts to their logical conclusion. The media and the Left are spinning the report as a vindication of the FBI from the charge of bias, when the opposite is the truth.
The IG extensively takes on numerous issues related to the decision not to charge former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for, primarily, causing the retention and transmission of classified information on the non-secure “homebrew” server system through which she improperly and systematically conducted government business. (Our Dan McLaughlin usefully catalogues the topics Horowitz addresses here.) If there is a single theme that ties the sprawling report together, however, it is bias.
Or, as the report put it, “the question of bias.” It should not really be a question, because the evidence of anti-Trump bias on the part of the agents who steered the Clinton probe — which was run out of headquarters, highly unusual for a criminal investigation — is immense.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
As I understand it, the IG has very limited powers. They make observations, they state opinions (”there was no political bias”) but after that IG report is filed, other legal agents can enter the scene and take that raw data and action carry out actions in court which may be based on very different opinions and interpretations.
Bias is obvious. Malice is obvious.
Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg are still unimpressed.
He also stated that what he had read was the”scrubbed” version that had been edited by the Dept. of Justice/FBI!
If that is the case, one can readily understand why it lists such things as: “Agent #1,” etc.
In fact, no agents other than Strouck and attorney Lisa Page are the only names that are revealed.
Weird report. Page after page documenting political bias. Conclusion: no one single decision was driven by political bias.
LOL! Of course not — they all were. No one single decision was taken in isolation; they were all part of a strategy.
I am surprised than no one mentions the annex where a diagram proves that a single unnamed reported had contact with 18 different FBI employees. Eighteen!
The sledge hammer was a small portion that Hillary’s emails were accessed by bad state and non-state actors. That changed her email case from gross negligence to treason.
I fully expect Horowitz to say there was bias in the congressional hearing. I believe Wray will also.
Everyone seems to forget that the final draft of this report went through DOJ and Rosenstein. They likely changed some of the language (much as this same cast of characters changed the email memo) purposely. Given the “circle the wagons” tactics of DOJ up to this point they will then be able to point to the “special matters group” on the 7th floor of the FBI that handled this investigation.
Our national discourse is so divided that it is unlikely to make a difference and I think the MSM and left is barking up the wrong tree given how the “bias” question is polling. It will be very interesting to see what the Russia investigation report looks like, but unfortunately it will likely be many months before that drops (if not another year).
The irony of the OIG FISA abuse and the “crossfire hurricane” investigation is that IT IS ESSENTIAL DISCOVERY for anyone including the President facing scrutiny from the special counsel investigation. One can easily make an argument that this information showing bias is exculpatory to every defendant in the case. This biased and likely very illegal investigation, combined with the actions of the now discredited Comey, was the entire basis for the appointment of the special counsel. You cannot build a legal case on an illegal foundation! Any remotely competent appeals attorney will make mincemeat of these cases.
A good question for Horowitz is did he write the summary?
I doubt Hillary knows how to send an email. But I’m sure she was instructing those did it for her. The question is why did she sending the emaiks to Weiner’s home computer?
The IG was looking for documentary proof of BIAS or wrong doing that impacted the case. Well, there was the exoneration letter from Comey before he even interviewed her. That’s a document!
But documentary proof is an insane standard. Some gang robs a bank but we need documentary proof of wrong doing from the gang members. All the IG report does is try to give the democrats some talking points so that it doesn’t appear that it was too one sided. It wants to be seen as impartial...
There was not a question of bias. There was a certainty of bias.
IG Horowitz analyzes every single decision in isolation and rules he can’t conclude political bias for any one of them.
When it comes to us citizens, however, the conclusion would have been “a pattern of behavior.”
Can and Will are not the same.
All sorts of things are possible - like the House using the power of the purse to promote Trump’s agenda, or the Senate confirming Trump’s nominees at an expedited pace (and allowing recess appointments).
Citing hypothetical possibility is whistling in the dark.
Further proof of political bias here from the report - notice that they are not interested in investigating the new emails discovered on the Weiner laptop - they are worried about media coverage!
This is absolute proof of bias. They sat on the information and only acted on potentially incriminating evidence against her when it leaked that many more emails were on the laptop. This was after they had known about it for a month! It was the media leak in NYC that caused the U.S. Attorney’s Office there to contact the 7th floor of the FBI to ask what was going on because they did not want to be seen as the reason for the delay given the leak. Otherwise, it is patently obvious they would have all been happy to ride it out through the election.
What’s this?
A public relations guilt trip by National Review?
Must be time for another fundraiser!
The press is spinning the report as saying no bias was found - in fact what they said was that there was plenty of bias, just no documentation that that bias led to specific decisions on the part of the FBI investigators - they wanted an email from Strzok saying “he won’t be president - we’ll stop him - I’m going to sit on the newly discovered classified emails from Hillary found on Weiner’s laptop until after the election so the news doesn’t hurt her chances of winning” - what’s needed is a special counsel or DOJ lawyer with grand-jury power to question the players under oath and put the pieces together to complete the puzzle......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.