He never said there was no political bias. From page iii of the report:
“We concluded that Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision.”
So, Horowitz is not saying there was no evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open the investigation. He’s saying that he found no DOCUMENTARY or TESTIMONIAL evidence of that being the case. Sure, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence, and it would have been nice if Horowitz had pointed that out, but he punted and stuck to what could be proven through direct evidence (i.e. texts, phone conversations, direct testimony). Based on that type of evidence, he was unable to draw conclusions. That’s probably because Priestap was probably a lot smarter and more discreet than Strozk and Page. To find the documentary evidence will likely require authority that Horowitz doesn’t possess - which Durham does.
If he has no evidence after all this time and energy - it is because he didn't look for it...or he allowed people to lie to him and didn't use all the tools to get to the truth. I call that a whitewash.
You can call it whatever you want. Have a good day.
Even with Strzok, Horowitz found no direct evidence of bias affecting his treatment of any case he handled. That was in the HIllary exoneration report that caused the FBI to be subjected to glowing praise and retraining.
To find the documentary evidence will likely require authority that Horowitz doesn’t possess - which Durham does.
That evidence is long destroyed. Guaranteed. There will be no smoking gun here.