[ClearCase_guy]

I am less down-hearted than many here.

I think Horowitz was blocked from declaring bias unless he found documents attesting explicitly to bias or unless someone confessed bias to him. Barring those 2 unlikely events, he cannot claim bias.

But reading between the lines of what he did say, it is all unmistakable. AG Barr and Durham are better positioned to make a pronouncement about bias. They are less constrained than Horowitz.

I think the Horowitz report will serve us well.

[Bob434]

[[I am less down-hearted than many here.]]

Party pooper!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think the Horowitz report will serve us well.

I see your point - but I also see Durham’s point in rebutting the “no bias” point.

Grand Juries are secret - if Durham has already convened one, and is presently using it to indict "ham sandwiches" (with bloody hands in the cookie jar), we wouldn’t know it.

So I assume that is the case, and that Durham rebuts Horowitz’s “no bias” point because he is pursuing indictments on precisely those grounds.

[itsahoot]

I think Horowitz was blocked from declaring bias unless he found documents attesting explicitly to bias or unless someone confessed bias to him.

Won't matter what Barr decides clearly it will just be sour grapes because Horowitz already said they were innocent, even though he didn't say that the MSM all reported he did.