I understand Horowitz not wanting to speak of peoples motives....although that seems to be similiar to the idea of intent. Still he was very cautious with his answers to Republicans over his ease with answers to Dems.
I recall a Police officer saying in court it’s very important how questions are asked into what will be revealed by officials.
Horowitz did find direct evidence that bias existed (the anti-Trump texts), but he did not find direct evidence that this bias was the motive for decisions influencing the investigation.
That is because without a confession, there can BE no evidence, and nobody in their right mind would confess to such a thing.
So, you’ll notice whenever Horowitz is asked if he found evidence of bias, he says “yes”, but whenever he is asked if the bias influenced the investigation, he says “no”.
We saw the same thing in the Mueller report. It’s all about how you ask the question:
The Democrats are better off asking if Horowitz found evidence that bias that influenced the investigation, so that they can extract a “no” response, (because of course, absent a confession, there could be no evidence of motive).
The Republicans are better off asking if Horowitz found evidence that bias existed, so they can extract a “yes” response, because of course he found such evidence (the anti-Trump texts).
I wish the Republicans would follow every “no” answer extracted by the Democrats with the following cross-examination:
“Mr Horowitz, you just testified that you found no direct evidence that the bias affected decisions in the investigation. What would constitute such evidence? Is it not impossible to find such evidence, and if so, isn’t lack of evidence completely meaningless and non exculpatory?”
(Haha! While I was typing that, Senator Lee just asked that - almost word for word!)