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.
