[STARLIT]

UNSEEN!

When the Mueller report came out Barr and Trump got the narratove out that there was no collusion and no obstruction. That narrative stuck because the underlying report showed no evidence of collusion nor obstruction. The report did have some narrative built in but no real

...evidence to back up those Narratives so the Mueller report went no where for the Dems.

Fast forward. The IG report came out and the opening narrative is "no political bias, it followed policy". However, it's clear the underlying report does not back up that narrative

As more people see the evidence buried in the IG report that first narrative will IMO not stand. People aren't stupid.

Most heard "no collusion, no obstruction", checked the underlying report and came up that the narrative was factually based.

With the IG report I think people will hear the "no political bias, good predicate for spying", will check the underlying report and come up with the realization that there is no evidence to support that narrative. In fact it points to the opposite.

I'm 100% sure we won't hear any leftist crying "read the report" like they did with the Mueller report.

[jennychase]

A group of ≈10 House Democrats is floating the idea of censuring Pres. Trump instead of impeaching him. https://t.co/MfpSgk1acG— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) December 10, 2019

[stylin19a]

"no political bias, it followed policy"

I still think Horowitz couldn't say there was political bias.
It would make his 06/2018 report a lie.
The same actors are in both reports.