[Paladin2]

Horowitz may be somewhat straight forward but not being able to find any intent/bias is totally hackish.

[Maris Crane]

Here’s the way I read this intent thing.

He claims there was no provable “intent” AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION.

As the investigation proceeded and more information arose, the emails between Lisa and Lover surfaced. At THAT point, there was actual words written that showed that THERE WAS BIAS.

Everyone seems to MISS that distinction.

No one on that committee stressed that. If I’m wrong, I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

I think Horowitz looked absolutely disgusted and ashamed that he had to deliver the findings.

JMHO

[lepton]

Horowitz may be somewhat straight forward but not being able to find any intent/bias is totally hackish.

---

Or it’s not going beyond what he can prove. His bias statement is very qualified: no documents declaring political bias, no testimony admitting to political bias.

He cited boatloads of misbehavior - some of it unequivocally criminal - and referred the entire chain for disciplinary review. He flatly stated he was unable to obtain ANY satisfactory explanation on ANY of the identified issues. What he didn’t do is make determinations between malfeasance and incredible misfeasance.

By being conservative in the parts that are judgement, he makes it difficult to assail his conclusions as biased. This it the opposite of a hack.