True. I’m not going to say that Horowitz hasn’t been disappointing. Just trying to point out that it’s not an exoneration. I stick by my punting analogy. Horowitz outlines lots of misconduct but declines to draw conclusions on what motivated them. And since his access to evidence is limited, his reticence on this point is anything but an exoneration. The decision to prosecute has always rested with Durham and Barr and they’ve already weighed in on their disagreement with Horowitz on this point.
It's whatever the person spinning it says it is. Comey, Chris Wallace, all of CNN, the DEMs, to a tee, all assert this report is a flat out exoneration. They cite summariy sentences and removes the "qualifying" words so that "no direct evidence" becomes "no evidence."
Of course the IG is going to cover for the agency . That is the prime function of IG.
Horowitz is creative too. If there is no policy directly on the point, for example, no policy on handling presidential campaigns, then find no policy violation. Voila - exoneration.
Put it a little bit of carelessness and slop so Congress can have hearings and pretend a fix - it's all good. Taxpayers keep paying for the abuse.
I have said from day one that several special prosecutors or counsels needed to be appointed as this IG report is simply sweeping everything under the carpet. A disgrace.