Monday, June 18, 2018

Is Horowitz a Walking Dead Bureaucrat Swamp Creature Who Cannot See Its Evils

THE IG REPORT LEAVES A LOT OF QUESTIONS. We discussed on Monday the denials documented in the Horowitz Hillary email Report -- Lynch never talked to Obama or the White House -- "I never spoke to the President directly about it" -- except Lynch did speak to the White House Counsel. -- White House press secretary Josh Earnest apparently just decided on his own to downplay the FBI criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton : "What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending..." -- Obama spoke publicly not once but twice, telling the world that Hillary's use of a private email server was a "mistake," but stating that it did not "pose a national security problem" and was "not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered," and Obama later used the same word, "careless," that Comey would use on July 6, 2016, when he exonerated Hillary. • The Hillary email investigation by the FBI was POLITICAL -- from the White House through Lynch to Comey and the FBI investigators in the trenches. They were all scurrying to save Hillary. • • • DESPITE ALL THIS, HOROWITZ FOUND NO POLITICAL BIAS. In CHAPTER SIXTEEN : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Horowitz offered "I. Conclusions [pp 497-498] : Second, in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decisionmaking. In so doing, we found that Comey largely based his decisions on what he believed was in the FBI’s institutional interests and would enable him to continue to effectively lead the FBI as its Director. While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice. Moreover, these decisions usurped the authority of the Attorney General and upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions and the accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United States. As we further outline in this report, there was a troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication between Comey and then Attorney General Lynch in advance of both Comey’s July 5 press conference and his October 28 letter to Congress. With regard to the July 5 events, Comey affirmatively concealed his intentions from Lynch. When he did finally call her on the morning of July 5 -- after the FBI first notified the press -- he told her that he was going to be speaking about the Midyear investigation but that he would not answer any of her questions, and would not tell her what he planned to say. During that call, Lynch did not instruct Comey to tell her what he intended to say at the press conference. With respect to the October 28 letter, Comey chose not to contact Lynch or then Deputy Attorney General Yates directly; rather, he had FBI Chief of Staff Rybicki advise Yates’s senior advisor (then PADAG Axelrod) that Comey intended to send a letter to Congress and that Comey believed he had an obligation to do so. Given these circumstances, Lynch and Yates concluded it would be counterproductive to speak directly with Comey and that the most effective way to communicate their strong opposition to Comey about his decision was to relay their views to him through Axelrod and Rybicki. We found it extraordinary that, in advance of two such consequential decisions, the FBI Director decided that the best course of conduct was to not speak directly and substantively with the Attorney General about how best to navigate these decisions and mitigate the resulting harms, and that Comey’s decision resulted in the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General concluding that it would be counterproductive to speak directly with the FBI Director." • Horowitz offered no explanations of Comey's or Lynch's actions. He simply found them "extraordinary." And, Horowitz' recommendations reflect his inability or refusal to draw the serious conclusions from all he had learned, that had filled 500 pages of the Report with damning evidence of political bias at every turn in the investigation. Instead, Horowitz trifled : "II. Recommendations [pp 499-500] : For these reasons, and as more fully described in previous chapters, we recommend the following : 1. The Department and the FBI consider developing practice guidance that would assist investigators and prosecutors in identifying the general risks with and alternatives to permitting a witness to attend a voluntary interview of another witness, in particular when the witness is serving as counsel for the other witness. 2. The Department consider making explicit that, except in situations where the law requires or permits disclosure, an investigating agency cannot publicly announce its recommended charging decision prior to consulting with the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, US Attorney, or his or her designee, and cannot proceed without the approval of one of these officials. 3. The Department and the FBI consider adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of Department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements. 4. The Department consider providing guidance to agents and prosecutors concerning the taking of overt investigative steps, indictments, public announcements, or other actions that could impact an election. 5. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General consider taking steps to improve the retention and monitoring of text messages Departmentwide. 6. The FBI add a warning banner to all of the FBI’s mobile phones and mobile devices in order to further notify users that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. 7. The FBI consider (a) assessing whether it has provided adequate training to employees about the proper use of text messages and instant messages, including any related discovery obligations, and (b) providing additional guidance about the allowable uses of FBI devices for any non-governmental purpose, including guidance about the use of FBI devices for political conversations. 8. The FBI consider whether (a) it is appropriately educating employees about both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules pertaining to the acceptance of gifts, and (b) its disciplinary provisions and penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct. 9. Department ethics officials consider implementing a review of campaign donations when Department employees or their spouses run for public office." • That's it !!! A total absence of any condemnation of FBI investigators' political bias or actions that favored Hillary. No indication that FBI or DOJ leaders were aware of the political bias. They were aware but did nothing to stop it. No iota of blame expressed for AG Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. No political flag raised about her "call it a matter" directive to Comey. No mention of the fact that Lynch's actions must have been at least tacitly approved by the Obama White House -- she was Obama's AG after all. • All 9 Recommendations are directed at lower level FBI employees, as if Horowitz had been assigned the task of reviewing the FBI procedures manual and making recommendations about improving it !! • • • THE FLAGRANT IMPROPRIETIES HOROWITZ FOUND BUT IGNORED. Even the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY pointed out the flagrant improprieties. • Look at Page iv : "Comey said he also told Yates that the closer they got to the political conventions, the more likely he would be to insist that a special counsel be appointed, because he did not believe the Department could credibly announce the closing of the investigation once Clinton was the Democratic Party nominee. However, we did not find evidence that Comey ever seriously considered requesting a special counsel; instead, he used the reference to a special counsel as an effort to induce the Department to move more quickly to obtain the Mills and Samuelson culling laptops and to complete the investigation." Why would Comey say that after Hillary's nomination, the FBI could not close the investigation and so he wanted to end it before it became obvious that the solution was to appoint a special prosecutor -- the logical answer is that Comey knew a special prosecutor would find incriminating evidence against both Hillary and the FBI. • Again on Page iv : "Although Comey engaged with the Department in these 'endgame' discussions, he told us that he was concerned that involvement by then AG Loretta Lynch in a declination announcement would result in 'corrosive doubt' about whether the decision was objective and impartial because Lynch was appointed by a President from the same political party as Clinton. Comey cited other factors to us that he said caused him to be concerned by early May 2016 that Lynch could not credibly participate in announcing a declination : An alleged instruction from Lynch at a meeting in September 2015 to call the Midyear investigation a 'matter' in statements to the media and Congress, which we describe in Chapter Four of our report [see Monday's blog]; Statements made by then President Barack Obama about the Midyear investigation, which also are discussed in Chapter Four; and, Concerns that certain classified information mentioning Lynch would leak, which we describe in Chapter Six and in the classified appendix." Why was Comey so afraid to be open with AG Lynch? The logical answer is that he suspected her of operating out of political motives directed by her boss, President Obama. This is made clear, also on Page iv, when the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY states : "As we discuss below and in Chapter Six of our report, the meeting between Lynch and former President Clinton on June 27, 2016, also played a role in Comey’s decision to deliver a unilateral statement. Comey did not raise any of these concerns with Lynch or Yates. Rather, unbeknownst to them, Comey began considering the possibility of an FBI-only public statement in late April and early May 2016. Comey told the OIG that a separate public statement was warranted by the “500-year flood” in which the FBI found itself, and that he weighed the need to preserve the credibility and integrity of the Department and the FBI, and the need to protect 'a sense of justice more broadly in the country -- that things are fair not fixed, and they’re done independently.' ” Whatever we may think of Jim Comey, this was at least on the surface an effort to keep politics out of the FBI decision -- for his own future image, because up until that point, Comey had either ignored or participated in those political decisions and biases. Comey is not the Good Guy here, but in trying to extricate himself from the political miasma in which the Hillary email investigation by the FBI was drenched, he tried at the last minute to say in a deluge of lies -- I was not part of the politics. EVEN THAT did not move Horowitz to find political bias. Instead, he recommended that "the Department consider making explicit that, except in situations where the law requires or permits disclosure, an investigating agency cannot publicly announce its recommended charging decision prior to consulting with the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, US Attorney, or his or her designee, and cannot proceed without the approval of one of these officials." Horowitz conveniently tossed the ball back into the politcal court of the Deep State FBI. Horowitz did this again and again -- recognizing the horrendous errors in judgment and political bias -- only to step back from condemning any of it. • • • ATTACKS ON THE HOROWITZ REPORT ABOUND. • The Canada Free Press asks : "Why did the FBI negotiate the terms of Hillary’s interview on the e-mail matter, while it used an informant planted in the Trump campaign to chase down evidence of Russia collusion, without anyone telling Donald Trump?" The CFP points out that the media is shouting about the IG Report finding "no evidence of bias" in Hillary investigation. But, says the CFP, that’s not what Report says. Dan Calabrese wrote last Friday : "ll admit that when the headlines emerged yesterday about the release of the IG Report, I felt a bit deflated at what I was seeing. The MSM basically told us the report had faulted James Comey and Loretta Lynch for handling the whole thing clumsily and making it all look bad, but had ultimately concluded that bias played no rule in the decision not to indict Hillary. How could that be true, I wondered, given everything we’ve heard the way evidence was handled, the way witnesses were treated, the way attorney/client privilege was defined, the way the FBI eschewed the use of grand juries in favor of Clinton-friendly negotiations about how and when information would be forthcoming? Did IG Horowitz really just dismiss all these things as mere 'judgment calls' that were beyond criticism? The initial headlines certainly seemed to suggest that he did. James Comey may have been guilty of insubordination against Loretta Lynch, but that didn’t mean there was anything untoward about the decision to let Hillary skate." Calabrese then highlights some of the Horowitz findings : "There’s Loretta Lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an 'error in judgment.' Mr. Comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI 'resources' were dedicated in October to spinning FBI 'talking points' about the Clinton investigation -- rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September. We even find that Mr. Comey used personal email and laptops to conduct government work. There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the Clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who 'failed to strictly adhere to [his] recusal' when he finally stepped away. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not 'fully comply with his recusal,' and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media. Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire 'volume of communication' between FBI employees and the press. Not only did these folks have 'no official reason to be in contact with the media,' but they also 'improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events....the bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely 'hostile' to Candidate Trump. It’s in Ms. Page’s freak-out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Mr. Strzok’s reply: 'No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.' It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had 'lied,' it doesn’t matter since 'no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.' To which a second agent replies. 'Rog—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.' It’s in the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements. The report is largely neutral on all this, giving officials the broad benefit of the doubt on 'discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation.' But it immediately follows that statement by noting that its job of evaluating the integrity of decisions was 'made significantly more difficult' by the obvious bias among key players, which 'cast a cloud' over the entire 'investigation’s credibility.' ” Calabrese then hits the bullseye : "Still unspoken in all this is the one thing that matters most : That all of this happened because Barack Obama wanted it to." Calabrese provides chapter and verse : "Comey’s handling of the investigation was indefensible, and he should have resigned rather than allow such a serious matter to become such a farce. But we know the FBI was shackled by orders from higher up in the DOJ in terms of how it was allowed to approach the investigation. Ordinarily you would never allow Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to sit in as Hillary’s lawyers when they were also material witnesses in the case, and anyone with more than a week’s experience at the FBI knew this. But the DOJ wanted it done that way, so it was done that way. Ordinarily you wouldn’t eschew the use of grand juries to compel testimony, but in this case Loretta Lynch and her DOJ staff engaged in their own negotiations with Hillary’s team about the conditions under which they could interview witnesses. The FBI agents in charge were given their marching orders based on these negotiations, and that’s how they had to do it. If you want to say this is 'not evidence of bias,' go ahead. What it clearly is, however, is the subject of an investigation being given very special treatment because that’s how the Obama Administration wanted it. And by the Obama Administration, I don’t mean Loretta Lynch. I mean Barack Obama." • In, we find this condemnation of the FBI and more so, the DOJ : "On July 2, the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton about her use of a private email server as Secretary of State and the presence of classified information on emails that she sent through this server. But, according to the IG report, the FBI had already decided not to prosecute Clinton prior to this interview -- unless she confessed or lied. 'By the time of Clinton’s interview on July 2, we found that the Midyear agents and prosecutors, along with Comey, had decided that absent a confession or false statements by Clinton, the investigation would be closed without charges,' says the IG report. Three days later, FBI Director James Comey unilaterally announced that the FBI would not be recommending that charges be brought against Clinton -- despite 'evidence of potential violations of statutes. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,' he said." • Breitbart on Saturday said : "Not only is the IG Report rife with evidence of outrageous political bias and actions based on that, but it also reveals evidence that warrants independent counsel to conduct a thorough, criminal investigation of everyone involved in the farcical Clinton email investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI for their conspiracy and obstruction of justice." Breitbart points out that the August 8, 2016, text message of Page stated, "[Trump’s] not ever going to become President, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it." Breitbart says : "This hugely important response was not revealed to Congress until they received the Inspector General’s report June 14th. WHY? They have been asking for all of these text messages for months. For the answer, you must read the footnote on page 404 -- 'Although we received Page’s August 8 text message to Strzok from the FBI as part of its production of text messages in 2017, Strzok’s response to Page was not among those preserved by the FBI’s text message preservation software, and therefore was not produced to us. The OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office recovered this text message, along with others, in May 2018 through forensic analysis of a folder found on Page’s and Strzok’s Samsung S5 devices.' IF that is true, that may be because Lisa Page and Peter Strzok quickly deleted it from their phones. That deletion could be evidence of knowledge and intent. If it is not true, then did someone at the FBI tamper with the production of evidence to the Inspector General and to Congress? Why didn’t the FBI, which is supposed to be the best law enforcement operation in the world, find the message itself? Who is covering for whom? If the FBI had it and didn’t produce it, that is also obstruction of justice." Breitbart's conclusion : "It is now painfully apparent that we cannot trust the Department of Justice or the FBI to investigate themselves. As much as I dislike the idea of any special counsel, we either need a substantial hosing out of both agencies or a special counsel appointed to conduct a thorough criminal investigation of both -- and it won’t be by using 'consent agreements' and handing out immunity like Halloween candy -- Clinton style." [Sidney Powell, the author of the Breitbart article, is a former federal prosecutor and appellate section chief, lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals, author of LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (2014), a Senior Policy Advisor for America First, and a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research.] • Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Kimberley Strassel took to Twitter to say what many Americans are thinking about Thursday’s release of the DOJ Inspector General’s report, that something’s amiss because what’s in the Report does not match the summary of the Report. Strassel tweeted : “Don’t believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn’t find bias. He very carefully says that he found no ‘documentary’ evidence that bias produced ‘specific investigatory decisions....It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: 'Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President." Strassel added in another tweet : "Meanwhile this same cast of characters who the IG has now found to have made a hash of the Clinton investigation and who demonstrate such bias, seamlessly moved to the Trump investigation. And we're supposed to think they got that one right?" • Social media user Brian Wilson tweeted : “But I’ll just go ahead and say it: The IG pulled his punch just like Comey did with Hillary. I’m stunned by the gathered evidence of bias...and shocked the IG doesn’t think the bias impacted the investigation....The IG report is only a 'nothing-burger' to people who know nothing about the case. It’s a devastating report which will damage Obama, Comey, Hillary, Page, Strzok, and more. Read it and you’ll clearly see the troubling pieces of it." • Fox News wrote last Friday about its interview with former Trump personal attorney John M. Dowd, who told Fox News that the Justice Department watchdog's report on the FBI's actions in the Clinton email investigation wasn't nearly tough enough on fired FBI Director James Comey : "The clear evidence of his usurpation of power, violation of his oath of office and material false statements to the public and the Congress all to conceal his own misconduct warranted a criminal referral of Comey’s conduct. The finding of no bias was ludicrous. The OIG findings support the President’s decision to fire Comey." Dowd also told Fox News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller "allowed their relationship with Comey over the years [to] blind them to his obvious appalling behavior. I was shocked that Mueller chose not to investigate the President’s accuser before investigating the President, who you will recall was 'not under investigation' according to the sworn testimony of Comey. As a result, the authenticity and legality of the Mueller investigation is in serious question and should no longer be honored." President Trump himself told Fox News' Steve Doocy, "I think Comey was the ringleader of this whole den of thieves." Fox News said that "letters newly obtained...written in the summer and fall of 2017, revealed Dowd and another Trump attorney, Marc Kasowitz, had deep reservations about Comey's credibility as the main witness, called Witness #1, in the ongoing Russia collusion probe that started shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017." Fox News says : "In a blistering 13-page letter hand-delivered to Mueller on June 27, Kasowitz elaborated his concerns about Comey, whom he called 'Machiavellian,' after the former FBI director testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Kasowitz wrote Comey was an 'FBI director unbounded by law and regulation, driven by his own interests and emotions, willing to provide embellished and incorrect testimony...' Pushing back on Comey's promise to the President of 'honest loyalty' as FBI director, Kasowitz wrote that Comey was 'surreptitiously leaking to civilians his privileged and confidential conversations with the President, or misappropriating and disseminating his confidential FBI memos or their contents about those meetings." Fox noted that new details of Comey's reliance on his friend and go-between leaker to the media, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, were revealed in a footnote of the OIG report. Fox News reported about Richman's rare approval for special government employee clearance by Comey in April. Dowd told Fox News that Comey's relationship with Richman "deceitful" and "a complete disrespect and subversion of the normal processes we rely on the govern the FBI/DOJ." In the Dowd letter to Rosenstein on September 1, 2017, Dowd wrote, "It appears the fix was in, a cover-up is in place and the reputations of the FBI and the Department of Justice are tarnished and hang in the balance." Specifically, Dowd charged in in the letter that "Director Comey drafted his unauthorized, improper and dishonest conclusion to the Clinton e-mail investigation three months before the clearly superficial and inadequate investigation was conducted." • • • TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS FIGHT BACK. President Trump says he is fighting a war with agencies like the FBI, citing their “very dishonest” behavior in their investigations : “I’m actually proud because I beat the Clinton dynasty. I beat the Bush dynasty, and now I guess hopefully I’m in the process of beating very dishonest intelligence.” He said the FBI betrayed both Republicans and Democrats in the 2016 presidential election : “What they did was incredible and a real insult to millions of people that voted in that election on both sides.” Trump repeatedly attacked Comey, calling him “the ringleader of this whole den of thieves” at the FBI and said his actions were likely “criminal.” He also mocked Comey for using a private email address to conduct business on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email to conduct business : “He had a private e-mail. That was of all the things, that wasn’t to me maybe the most interesting. But it was probably the funniest.” The President said that the Inspector General report released Thursday was “pretty good” but “blew it at the very end” by saying that the investigations were not tainted by bias. And, again, President Trump noted he was only criticizing the corrupt leadership at the top of the FBI, not the rank-and-file agents. He said that Comey’s replacement at the FBI would fix the problems in the agency : “I think Christopher Wray’s a very different from Comey. Which is what you need...and he’s moving step by step. And you’re going to see a whole new very proud FBI.” American Thinker's Ed Timperlake was on the President's side, calling the Horowitz Report "evidence of a cabal in the FBI conspiring to obstruct Congress by withholding factual evidence from congressional oversight," and suggesting that the Secret Service be called in to investigate such a threat implied in "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Timprlake said : "It is not over the line to take Strzok at his word and find out exactly what he means....Having the Secret Service investigate the FBI on all this would send a powerful message to everyone that external diligence is mandatory in cleaning up such a lack of integrity and judgment." Timperlake pointed out that : "One FBI lawyer texted that he was 'devastated' by Trump's election and declared 'Viva la Resistance!' and 'I never really liked the Republic anyway.' The same person became the 'primary FBI attorney assigned to [Russian election interference] investigation beginning in early 2017," Timperlake quoted the Report as indicating, adding that the Reisstance said "From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It's time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it -- because they do." Finally, said Timperlake : "People empowered with badges and guns should be asked by the Secret Service exactly what they mean and whom they plan to shoot. Again, words have meaning. The agents also suggested in text messages on Election Day that there would be riots if Trump defeated Clinton. 'You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesn't,' Agent 1 wrote. 'She better win...otherwise I'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns,' Agent 5 responded. I suggest that the Senators questioning IG Horowitz ask him if he made a referral to the Secret Service, and if not, why not?" • On Fox News Justice w/ Judge Jeanine on Saturday evening, Jeanine Pirro described the IG Report as a “whitewash” and in putting it in the broader context of the ongoing power of the Deep State to protect the guilty : "There are great people in the FBI, men and women, and I have had the honor of working with them. But they’re embarassed, because they know how bad Comey and company destroyed America’s confidence in that esteemed FBI. And there are great people in government, many of whom you have seen on this show. Congressmen Mark DeSantis, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Devin Nunes, Lee Zeldin, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs and Senators Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson, and Chuck Grassley. These people are fighting the Deep State as obstructionist Democrats like Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff stare into the cameras and turn truth on its head. They’re not real Democrats -- they’re demon rats. That’s what I said -- demon rats. And until the Republicans learn to fight like they do, and go with a narrative that no one veers from, they [the Democrats] and socialism will run amok in this country....This is not a banana republic. This is the United States of America with a justice system that needs to be protected. And it’s time for those people who are not interested in supporting President Trump to get out of his way. And that means you, Jeff Sessions. It’s time for you to put on your big boy pants and start acting like the AG. And if you can’t get on board with this President, then get the hell out of his way. And let me be clear to all of you critics : I’m not looking for that job. I’m an ordinary American who was brought up to believe in truth and justice. And like thousands and hundreds of thousands of men and women in law enforcement, we’re just damned embarassed and hang our heads in shame with the likes of Comey and his cabal as well as the impotent Inspector General’s report which is nothing more than proof the Deep State is alive and well in Washington, DC." • • • DEAR READERS, Fox News reported last Saturday that : “The country is still digesting Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s scathing report on the FBI and the DOJ’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but more bombshells could be looming from the same team of investigators. Horowitz, a former federal prosecutor, announced in March that he is probing allegations of government surveillance part of its Russia investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has also said US Attorney John Huber is investigating claims of FBI and DOJ misconduct related to these actions....Horowitz’s review found ‘no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.’ But the report made clear it was only speaking to the Clinton investigation. Most of the officials criticized in Thursday’s report also played significant roles in the early days of the Russia probe, which is looking at whether anyone on the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.” • And, so we wait -- for the American rule of law to function -- for the Swamp to be cleared. There is no way to know whether DOG Inspector General Michael Horowitz is a Deep Stater or just a Walking Dead bureaucrat who cannot see or feel the Swamp because he has lived in it for so long. We are once more left with only Congress to right this grevious FBI / DOJ politically-motivated wrong.

1 comment:

  1. When the man doesn’t understand the meaning or implications of the word bias, he may well haves stayed at the Swamp Party far too long.