Posted on 12/12/2019 7:00:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The long-anticipated Inspector General Report, aka the Horowitz Report, was finally released on December 9th. After two years of investigation, the report was probably a disappointment to some, a thrill to others, and misunderstood by most.
The liberal media immediately latched on to the report and claimed that it validated their breathless reporting of evil doings by the Trump administration when it said the FBI had adequate cause to open its investigations and that there was no documented political bias evident. Conservative media noted that the report proved the whole investigation was a farce from beginning to end. The reality is that this is an inconclusive report because of the limitations of the inspector general.
The Department of Justice inspector general works for the department he is investigating. His job is to keep order in the house. His task was to see if FBI guidelines were followed. In many cases these guidelines were not even written guidelines. He was tasked with determining if there was sufficient basis for opening an investigation. The threshold for opening an investigation is so low there is not much to find.
The question of political bias, from the IG investigation perspective, is almost a non-issue since it pertains almost exclusively to the decision of whether to open the case or not. Since the threshold is so low, it’s hard to imagine anything keeping them from opening a case if they wished to -– and they did wish to. Anything that followed shared the stain of bias.
The key to the IG report was not whether it explicitly said there was or wasn’t reason to open the four investigations. The really important part was the 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and the many additional errors contained in the Woods Procedures
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The many errors and omissions were never satisfactorily explained to the Office of Investigations. The report stated that it appeared agents were substituting their own judgements in place of the OI judgements. If this isn’t investigatory bias, what is?
The FBI knew that the Steele Dossier contained many errors and much questionable data but never asked Christopher Steele who funded the dossier, even though there was fairly open speculation that it was the Clinton campaign. Why not, other than political bias?
I think the only “error” Horowitz made was saying there was no proof of bias. He didn’t need to put that in if he is looking at the facts. For instance, “Oh by the way, there was also no proof that the coke machine had run out of cokes.” Like this example, the “lack of bias” statement is an unconnected thought to the process which was to discover the FACTS (not opinions, motivations or misc “weather reports”). The report did this, it found the errors and the facts. Had he left out the “opinion” of no bias found ... it would have been a perfect report.
After digesting the furor in the media, I’ve come to what I think is an understanding of what the Horowitz report presents.
IG Horowitz seems to have tried to take an even hand, while finding some very disturbing wrongdoing. The IG didn’t say there wasn’t bias, he said there was no documentary bias. That is, no written statements like: “We must do whatever it takes to make Crossfire Hurricane bring down Trump”.
Clearly, even a blind idiot could see that there was, and is bias in the FBI. Horowitz found wrong doing, documented it, and now, it is up to the Congress to fix or ignore.
Watching Horowitz testify, he struck me as someone genuinely concerned and upset by what was going on at the FBI.
In a fair and reasonable world, John Brennan and James Comey would be hung for treason.
The purpose of the Horowitz Report was to provide shade for the deep state. What part have I misunderstood?
Horowitz also said that the people claiming to be exonerated, should be celebrating because he has forwarded this information to the Justice Department.
“The IG didn’t say there wasn’t bias, he said there was no documentary bias”
Apparently he didn’t read the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts.
“The IG didn’t say there wasn’t bias, he said there was no documentary bias”
Apparently he didn’t read the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts.
As BJ CLinton famously said “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Horowitz very deliberately framed that issue that way to give Democrats their “no bias” talking point. It seems to me he was intent on giving both sides what they wanted and he did.
Did you mean to say “should not be celebrating”?
Steele was classed as an FBI confidential source, so anything he gave them didn’t need to be verified according to the Woods procedure and the FISA application rules. If they had tried to verify any of it, then they might be on the hook to try and and verify all of it, or throw it out.
It’s like if a cop wants to search your house and gets a CI to say he bought drugs from you. It doesn’t matter if the cop knows the CI is a liar, the point is not whether the story is true, the point is only that the story gives the cop an excuse to get a warrant and search, and then the cop has the opportunity to find some real evidence (or perhaps plant some).
Correct. Not celebrating.
bkmk
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.