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!)
He actually says: "We did not have documetarial testimonial evidence."
Not exactly "No."
Sheldon Whitehouse is on defense.
An interesting read by of all people “Rolling Stone”.....It smacks Journalists and news reporters HARD!....that the Horowitz report show ‘years of breathless headlines were ‘wrong’ (fake news) and what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was.