Replies

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/29/too-deep-to-drain-oig-finds-preponderance-of-evidence-against-fbi-deputy-asst-director-doj-refuses-to-prosecute/

Too Deep To Drain? – OIG Finds Preponderance of Evidence Against FBI Deputy Asst. Director – DOJ Refuses to Prosecute…

FTA:
...
Incredibly, the inspector general (IG) indicated, without explanation, that “prosecution of the DAD [deputy assistant director] was declined.” Instead, the investigation’s findings will be referred to the FBI for “appropriate action”. What the hell is going on?
...
If you note the common thread is: U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie K Liu, well, you would be entirely accurate. Oh, but wait, we’ve only just begun.
...
Now some might ask why Barr would simultaneously make Jessie Liu the chair of the Attorney General Advisory Committee on the same day her name is withdrawn (March 28th announcement); however, Barr doesn’t have a choice about the DC U.S. Attorney sitting on the AGAC. By law [28 CFR § 0.10] the Attorney General can pick all of the AGAC members, with one exception. The DC U.S. Attorney is required to be a member.

[Nice little deep state continuity trick]
...
Right there, in combination with the non-accountability outcomes of the two previous inspector general reports, is a big part of the corruption problem. If AG Bill Barr intends to save these institutions, he has his work cut out for him.

When we overlay a day when corrupt special prosecutor Robert Mueller takes to the podium to state prosecutors cannot prove guilt, but rather President Trump must prove his innocence; and simultaneously the DOJ refuses to prosecute a demonstrably corrupt Deputy Asst. Director…. Well, things are beyond FUBAR.

When we see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion; when we see that in order to invoke our sixth amendment right to due process, we need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution; when we see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics; when we see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but protect them against us; when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – we may well know that our freedom too is soon to perish…

OIG Finds Preponderance of Evidence Against FBI Deputy Asst. Director

Wait, what? OIG "finds preponderance of evidence'? What does that even mean. I posted this beyond the trees. See if it makes sense.

Just FYI. The "preponderance of evidence" is a standard of proof. A lower one than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Horowitz was just, with that line, explaining which standard of proof he used.

It has nothing to do with bringing charges.

FYI also, Horowitz cannot indict. His job is to identify malfeasance within the departments FBI/DOJ. It will be up to the DOJ whether the identified crimes are filed upon.

I also am of the opinion, after a careful reading of the document, that Horowitz was referring to his prior report when he said "prosecution of the DAD [deputy assistant director (Peter Strzok)] was declined".

I'll wait until I hear from the DOJ before I say no charges are forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that this is one tiny aspect of the IG report and has nothing to do with FISA.

So to conclude. Any writer/pundit that would say "OIG Finds Preponderance of Evidence Against FBI Deputy Asst. Director" identifies himself as somebody that doesn't know what they're talking about.

One does not FIND a 'preponderance of evidence" against anybody. They make a finding BASED on a preponderance of the evidence. Sometimes "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, but not in this case.

So, take these pundit's articles with a grain of salt. It's pretty bad when Bagster knows more about the law then they do, if you ask me. Cause I'm semi-retarted.

p.s. Hold off on melt-down mode. Lots of IG report upcoming.

I read somewhere that the reason the Just-us Dept. refuses to prosecute crimes that are found thru the OIG is because of a supposed wall the Courts have established that say employees waived their 5th amendment rights for an internal investigation not criminal charges.

I have been wondering all along if the appointment of Durham was a parallel track investigation that would only use evidence discovered thru other means like grand juries, FOIA and Congressional Supeonas etc. so they can be brought up on charges.