Horowitz Hearing Filled with Bogus “No Bias” BS

RUSH: Well, if you’re watching this fiasco, I know that it’s frustrating to watch, and I gotta tell you, folks, it’s frustrating to have to come here and do this each and every day because every day we’re faced with bold-faced lies, misrepresentations, lawyerly, passionless explanations of things. But that’s what it is, that’s what we get to deal with, that’s what we will deal with.

So Lindsey Graham was great in his opening statement exposing all of this. Then it got to questioning of Horowitz (doing imitation), “I think, well, there’s no bias, no documentary evidence, poor Carter Page, well, we didn’t find, no, ruh, ruh.”

Dianne Feinstein asked one question 10 times. “You didn’t find any political bias in any aspect of the –” “Well, we didn’t find any documentary testimonial evidence.” And then Pat Leahy, Senator “Leaky” Leahy, gets to his turn. It’s obvious that they’re trying to create a series of sound bites for the Drive-By Media that say there was no bias whatsoever in the beginning or the decision to begin the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion.

They’re going overboard on it. They’re making it obvious that there was political and other kinds of bias. There was political bias, there was personal hatred bias, and they’re making it obvious here by harping on it. I mean, Feinstein must have asked Horowitz four or five different times the same question, and he delivers the same dry, dull, boring answer. (imitating Horowitz) “Yes, we found no evidence of any documentary or testimonial bias.” And all that means is that nobody admitted to it.

But let me tell you why there was political bias. Aside from common sense, political bias was delivered to the FISA court in the form of the Clinton campaign’s hit job known as the Steele dossier. The FBI knew what the Steele dossier was. The FBI knew that it was bogus. The FBI knew that it was totally made up, and they used it repeatedly to get warrants and warrants renewed to spy on this poor guy, Carter Page.

The FBI knew where it came from. The FBI knew it was garbage, as Lindsey Graham has specified and has made clear. And there’s no reason to knowingly use something that’s garbage unless you’ve got bias driving you. It is paramountly obvious that bias is what drove this. They know it, the Democrats know it, and the Drive-By Media know it. That’s why this constant harping on the fact that there was no bias.

I’m not kidding. Feinstein must have asked this guy five times as though she had never asked it before. “And your conclusion is that there was no bias at the beginning?” “That’s right, Senator, we have found no bias.” And then Leahy, who can barely speak anymore, (mumbling) “No, Senator, we found no bias whatsoever, no testimonial, no documentary, couldn’t find any evidence.” (mumbling)

They know they’ve been caught, folks. They know they’ve been damned because outside of that, everything in this report is an indictment. And even Horowitz said today that there’s not a single person vindicated in this operation. He was asked this question about Comey specifically. Let me find the bite. It’s one of the last bites that I have here. Yeah. Grab sound bite number 17. This is Lindsey Graham talking to Horowitz. And here is the quick question and answer.

GRAHAM: Former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?

HOROWITZ: I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this.

RUSH: Don’t vindicate anybody who touched this. But there wasn’t any bias. Oh, no, we didn’t find any bias. “You didn’t find any bias in the beginning of the investigation?” “No, sir, no, Senator, we found no evidence of any bias whatsoever.”

Bias is why they did this. Bias is why they used a bunch of garbage, the Steele dossier. Do you realize it has been made abundantly clear here that when the FBI suspected the Russians may have had something to do with hacking or whatever Hillary’s campaign or server, that they went in and briefed her, and it was elicited even from Horowitz himself that the FBI did no such thing when they thought the Russians might be involved with Trump.

They didn’t inform Trump, they didn’t tell Trump, they didn’t warn Trump. Instead, you know what they did? They sent an agent to conduct a 302. That means an investigation. When the FBI was briefing Trump, they sent an agent in to conduct an investigation that nobody knew was going on.

In other words, the agent was just there as part of the contingency and Trump was getting a briefing about something, who knows what it was. There was an agent in there that was ready to copy down anything Trump said that they might be able to use and convert in their non, unbiased effort to destroy him.

But they’re overplaying their hand in this. They’re harping on it so much because it’s all they’ve got, that anybody watching this after a while says, “What is the point? Okay, you got it. You say there’s no bias.” It’s like anybody else who says something over and over again, you begin to get suspicious of it when they don’t let it just sit there and settle after saying it one or two times.

They had a garbage dossier. The dossier is all they ever had. They used it and used it and used it. They withheld exculpatory information from the court. That’s bias. You’ve got evidence that goes against your premise. You found evidence that Carter Page is not a Russian agent. You found evidence that the Steele dossier is garbage. You don’t tell the court that? That’s bias.

There’s nothing but bias in this entire investigation, a bias that derives from personal, raw hatred for Donald Trump. This guy Horowitz is even asked about Page and Strzok and their texts. Lindsey Graham read them. CNN did not cover it, by the way. CNN did not cover Lindsey Graham’s opening statement. They had a panel discussing what they thought Lindsey Graham might be saying but they didn’t cover it.

They didn’t start covering until Horowitz gave his statement, and Horowitz opened (doing impression), “We didn’t find any bias. We found no bias.” The first 10 minutes, “We didn’t find any bias. There wasn’t any bias in our investigation, we looked long and hard and we couldn’t find any bias.” The first 10 minutes then Feinstein’s question, CNN’s right there, “Did you find any bias in the course of the –” “No, we didn’t find any bias. There wasn’t any bias anywhere. Couldn’t find any bias, didn’t find any bias, looked hard, looked hard, we thought we might find some bias. Couldn’t find any bias whatsoever.”

So that is what the Drive-By Media is gonna run with all day long. In fact, let me show you what I think is going to be the bite that you’ll hear on the Drive-By Media all day. This is Feinstein asking questions. Sound bite number 18. “Your report states –” This is like the seventh time she asked the question, by the way. “Your report states that he didn’t find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation played a role?”

FEINSTEIN: Thank you. And you didn’t find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or President Trump?

HOROWITZ: As to the opening we found no — no bias, no testimonial or documentary evidence on that.

HOROWITZ: We looked at — Mr. Priestap, as I noted, was the decision maker and we did not find any evidence in his emails or texts of having engaged in any bias or having any bias.

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, let’s be very honest here. Stupidity doesn’t run in one direction. We’ve seen and we’ve heard testimony about Horowitz’s report. If you look at both sides, some people are saying either that the FBI agents were stupid and incompetent, they made some mistakes, 17 errors all in one direction, by the way, anti-Trump, 17, but no bias.

Seventeen errors that this clown Horowitz identifies. I’ll tell you why I’m calling him a clown in a minute. Seventeen errors. They’re all in one direction. They’re all anti-Trump. “We didn’t find any evidence.” So, what? The FBI agents were stupid? They were incompetent? It’s either that or they were biased for Hillary and prejudiced against Trump. And we know what it was. We know what it is. We know what it all remains. They were biased for Hillary. They were biased for the Democrat Party. They were prejudiced against Trump.

Now, stupidity and incompetence are scattershot. You find it here, you find it there, you find it over there. Bias and prejudice are precise, targeted things, and they are fired by snipers. We know what happened. We know why it happened. The only thing remaining here is accountability. Accountability for McCabe, accountability for Comey, accountability for Strzok and Page.

Did you hear what Trump said last night? We got sound bites of Trump at the rally. He was on fire. And even Katy Tur on NBC News was caught on a hot mic she didn’t know was on saying she had never, ever been to a rally like this, and it was hot, and Trump was on fire, and he was hilarious. And he’s out there, he told people (paraphrasing), “I don’t know if this is true, folks, but I’ve heard, I’ve heard that this Lisa Page babe, that Strzok had to get a restraining order against her. I don’t know if it’s true or not.” And the audience just starts howling. And then he reenacted her having an orgasm.

Have you heard, by the way, she is filing a suit, and one of the reasons she’s suing is she wants financial recovery because she had to go to therapy. And you know why she had to go to therapy? She had to go to therapy ’cause Trump was making fun of her. Trump was making fun of Lisa Page so she had to go to therapy, and she wants somebody to pay her back for the cost.

She had to go to therapy. Trump was mocking her. How has Trump mocked her? He faked her organisms in the texts with Strzok. “Oh, Peter I love you. Oh, Peter.” “Oh, Lisa, I love you.” “Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Please, I love you, Peter. I love you. Oh, we gotta stop Trump, oh, my God.” “We’ll stop him. Don’t worry about it. We’ve got a backup plan. We’ve got an insurance policy.” “Peter, I love you. Oh, my God.”

She’d been made fun of. She went to therapy, and she wants somebody to pay for it. Therapy? She’s an FBI lawyer and agent. She was mocked. What the hell did she and Strzok try to do to Trump? They tried to sabotage his campaign. They tried to destroy his life. They tried to destroy his businesses. They did the same thing with Carter Page. They’re trying the same thing today with George Papadopoulos all over again.

They don’t care. They’re sitting there acting totally void of any emotion. Horowitz discusses and explains the personal destruction that the FBI people in this story enacted against people in the Trump campaign that had not done anything because all of this was made up, and it was made up, and it was started because of fear, because of hatred and precisely because of bias.

You can’t miss the bias when you look at this. To assert that there wasn’t any bias is so ridiculous and absurd that it is obvious to anybody watching that they are lying about it. And you’ll notice Horowitz always covers it, “We didn’t find any testimonial or documentary evidence.” Again, what does that mean? It means that nobody he asked confirmed that they were biased.

He was looking right at bias and claims it wasn’t there because the people he talked to, like Strzok, “No, no, I have no Trump bias.” “Okay. See, no bias.” He talked to Lisa Page, “Oh, no, no, no, I have no bias.” “Okay, no bias. I talked to Bill Priestap, I talked to Comey. No, no, no. At no point did anybody say they were doing anything because of bias. Therefore, we found no bias.”

I wonder why no one is questioning why Horowitz ever brought up the “no bias” BS in the first place. It was uncalled for, useless, a waste of time. The emphasis in an investigation is to determine the facts of the case, not what the perps had on their minds while committing criminality.

It is obviously meant to steer the public mind into a narrow chute that guides their thinking along the lines of “mistakes were made” but their hearts were in the right place.

Wow, people are really getting sucked into and wrapped around the highly intentional and false “INTENT” argument.

Having worked with OIG investigations in a few places, as has been stated many times, it is an IG’s duty to identify various violations of law and agency regulation, as well as to identify those who were in violation.

Those who have violated law and regulation, are then referred for whatever comes next.

*Intent is NOT an IG criteria. They may identify obvious motive in a criminal referral, but “motive/intent” simply does not determine if crime or violations of law have taken place.

Intent (motive) becomes relevant, when determining both scope and judgement.

What we are witnessing now, is a full court effort by the highly motivated, truly guilty, “deep state”, to cause the masses to believe actual crimes were not committed, because there was *NO INTENT*.

It is obvious the Horowitz IG report was carefully/specifically scripted, so as to pervay a false “INTENT” argument.

This is in itself, whether or not “INTENT” existed, is fundamentally NOT his job, and does not determine if violations of law were committed. This is stupid.

The average American trying to follow this, now probably thinks it is.

Additionally, the fact that Horowitz knew, and was very careful not to disclose known information, as to the false HRC/DNC/FGPS purchased Kremlin ops “dossier” information origin, also allowed Horowitz the room to then reinforce the grossly false narrative of “NO BIAS”.

I believe, in this critical national case, Horowitz knew he had to go well out of his way (lane) to sculpt or create a NO BIAS/NO INTENT/NO MOTIVE argument conclusion, and that his “conclusion” needed to both — try and shield the near myriad illegal acts and actors, from possible findings of sedition and actual treason, AND to thwart, slow down, and throw cold water on, or to dissuade the trying to find justice.

ALSO, as we saw today, his insurgent report talking points were purely made to be left wing talking points, which in itself demonstrates Horowitz’s highly political bias, and his effort (his real motive) to protect the flagrantly lawless on the side he is clearly a part.

Something to consider
When the God fearing founders of this nation came up with the Republican vs democratic form of governmental representation. They considered that groups we call political partys once elected to a given political office. Could place their groups control and interest above the common good and benefit of the nation once elected to a legislative, executive or judicial office. Rather than work together for the common interest.

They truly believed that upon election. requiring taking the oath of office which swears loyalty to abide and support the constitution would take precedence and avert any fractious direction super ceding any political position taken by the group that the office holder associated with before entering .It took the democrat convention of 2012 when they attempted to remove any reference to God, “Our Creator,” to clearly demonstrate that belief no longer applied and when one took that oath it meant nothing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.