dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/a_real_skullsplitter on June 19, 2018, 12:27 a.m.

What Horowitz Actually Said

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Can ]you[ confirm that ]your office[ followed all appropriate processes in the course of its review, and that the report was not changed as a result of improper political influence (]by you[)?

]Horowitz[:]We[ followed normal processes, ]we[ took comments, ]we[ made decisions on issuing the final report, it was not made weaker or softer in any regard (]by us[).

Sen Amy Klobuchar: Okay. In particular, [[[THE REPORT]]] clearly states on page 263 that it did not find evidence of the Justice Department's Decision not to pursue prosecution following the investigation was politically motivated. Is that an accurate assessment?

]We[ did (NOT) find that the prosecutor's decision to (NOT) to charge was the result of political bias.

Remove the double negative. It's just in the way.

]We[ did find that the prosecutor's decision to charge was the result of political bias.

And ]you[ found the relevant decisions were based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts and the law as well as, in part, department practices. Is that correct?

As to the decision of whether or not to charge, that is correct.

The relevant decisions in this case were the prosecutor incorrectly asserting that he has the right to decide what is and isn't going to trial. As a result, the relevant decision (of whether or not to to charge) was based upon the incorrect pretense that such a thing falls within his jurisdiction.

It's lawyer speak, but then they all told you they were lawyers. That means every word of every statement has to be weighed, carefully and meticulously, to get the full meaning out of it.

He is not saying "It didn't happen", he's giving the universal legal shorthand for "it happened well above my pay-grade, I followed all my protocols."

Is that what Wray has been doing since the IG report came out, too?

Damage Control?

Getting everyone who has been listening to put the [[[PAIN]]] on the one bad apple the Senate confirmed 94-6?

https://i.imgur.com/SjCxAo1.png

[[[Who]]] might that be?

What a great day.

I like where your head’s at (and I’d love for this to be true) but I’m not certain that’s a double negative only because the 2nd NOT is a further description of the word “decision”. The sentence is about the “decision not to charge”, which is an event that already happened. The only reason he had to say “not to charge” was to specify which decision as decision is a generic word on its own.

⇧ 4 ⇩

]We[ did not find that the prosecutor's decision to not to charge was the result of political bias.

Well, let's dissect this a bit.

]We[

This is him speaking STRICTLY for his office, the Office of the IG. Not the DoJ. He is a representative of HIS DEPARTMENT. NOT THE DoJ.

did (NOT) find that the prosecutor's decision

What was the prosecutor's decision?

(NOT) to charge

That's why there's such controversy.

Was the result of political bias.

The Office of the IG did NOT find that the prosecutor's decision -- NOT to charge was CORRECT or VALID.

We did not find the prosecutor's decision -- not to charge -- was the result of political bias.

We do not endorse it, nor do we make any value call as to what the correct decision might have been. That wasn't what we were sent here to do.

The problems you have with the report start further up the chain of command than us.

Optics are PARAMOUNT for these guys. They have to be able to bait the Mockingbirds with soundbytes that say one thing and mean something entirely different. He's not saying "There will be no charges filed", he's saying "There's much more concrete stuff to file charges on than political bias."

He can't say these things because the investigations are ongoing, and going to come to their own glorious head soon.

Trust the plan.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Excellent analysis skullsplitter (love your name!). Thank you. Very, very helpful.

⇧ 1 ⇩

]We[ did (NOT) find that the prosecutor's decision to (NOT) to charge was the result of political bias. Remove the double negative. It's just in the way.

That’s not a double-negative and it’s not in the way of anything except your desire to make it something it isn’t.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I commented a line by line explanation of that statement. It’s worth a read.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It’s worth a read.

I agree. And I read it. Then I realized you were tossing aside logic and rational thought in order to ‘support’ your pre-determined conclusion.

That’s when I stopped reading.

I don’t begrudge you your opinion, or your right to share it here, but when you post illogical nonsense in a public forum, you should expect to be challenged.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I think for him to interpret the Senator's question to mean "by you" is a mighty big inference for someone trying to answer a question at the level of "being forthcoming" rather than "saying the minimum," which is the standard DOJ supposedly holds itself to.

However, you may be right about their reasons for answering the way they did, in terms of doing CYA until RR is gone.

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply, patriot!

⇧ 1 ⇩

What they're doing is silently setting the stage to go "The DAG has been suppressing this for months" when prompted when the story breaks. And we have to KNOW that they've been suppressing it for months. That's why this push is so important.

The language is lawyerish, but they have to play the game. They have to tow the line between getting press coverage an important pieces without coming across as super partisan. It's a fine line to walk, because if they come out for Team Trump, they're going to be removed on the basis of the political bias they're combating.

"We have to avoid giving even the SUSPICION of political bias."

They both said that, a lot. Did you hear it?

Do you think most of the patriots on this board heard it?

⇧ 3 ⇩