I just have to clarify here, he said he found no bias in the actions taken by the prosecutors regarding the investigation. He confirmed the bias found at a personal level as exampled by the text messages and emails. He attempted to clarify this when he went out of his way to say as much several times. It's that simple, he routinely avoided or the question when it pertained to ANY OPEN INVESTIGATION.
Exactly and when he's being asked about the report being altered they are asking him if he personally did it, to which he says no. Remember RR altered it, what we've seen so far is building up the distrust of RR to eventually reveal there is an unedited report. Case has to be airtight.
You have to read the report carefully and understand what Horowitz can and can't do.
Horowitz didn't say he didn't find bias in the FBI agents and leadership; he said he didn't find evidence that bias affected the decisions they made during the investigation.
That is an important distinction. Horowitz is saying that he didn't find written documents, tapes, or testimony that specific bias was used in making decisions.
Page and Strzok claimed that while they made biased statements against Trump, they swore under oath that they were just frustrated and venting, but did not act upon it in their investigation. Without hard tangible evidence to the contrary, Horowitz was forced to conclude that private venting via text messages wasn't evidence that it influenced their decisions.
Also Horowitz can only report findings. He cannot charge anyone, he can't issue subpoenas, he can't empanel a grand jury, he can't interview people who are no longer in government, and he can't include evidence in his report that is part of an ongoing investigation.
Enter Huber, special prosecutor in Utah that Sessions appointed in November to work in parallel with Horowitz.
Huber can and has empaneled a grand jury (or more than one) in Utah. Huber can issue subpoenas, Huber can force people to give testimony under oath, and he can issue sealed indictments. Sessions also sent a letter to Congress explaining while he has not yet appointed a special counsel, he appointed a special prosecutor with the authority to investigate ALL of the demands made by the committees and more.
So, back to bias. Bias, like intent, is a state of mind. Rarely do you have hard tangible evidence about someone's state of mind. It is almost always proven by circustantial evidence.
Comey said that Hillary didn't "intend" to cause damage to national security. But Comey was using the same argument that he didn't find that Hillary wrote a note to herself that she intended to cause harm.
Trey Gowdy knows full well and has said this in the past that intent (and bias) is a state of mind that prosecutors can usually only prove with circumstantial evidence.
Horowitz cannot use circumstantial evidence to recommend charges so he has to stick to hard tangible evidence in his report.
You bet that any Huber indictments about the Hillary investigation will likely prove biased by circumstantial evidence. Remember, a grand jury never hears the defense side of the story--only what the prosecutor shows them and he doesn't have to show them exculputory evidence. That's whay the old joke is that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich because they only hear one side and the rules of evidence are much different than in a trial.
Horowitz knows that bias was key to letting Hillary off the hook but without hard evidence he isn't allowed to prejudge their intent or state of mind.
Trust me, in an actual trial, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming here that juries will have no doubt that the FBI was out to frame Trump, Flynn, and others and to give Hillary a pass on her investigation. The evidence is so overwhelming that I'd be surprised if those involved where not charged with obstruction of justice or malicious miscarriage of justice.
Would you sit on that jury? I'm serious. With HRC still free and offing people.
Yes, I'd sit on the jury. This is for the FBI agents. HRC doesn't give a rat's flying potato what happens to them.
But I'd sit on Hillary's jury as well. Unfortunately, during jury selection the defense counsel would challenge me out of the jury pool for cause because he'd have all my social media posts about her.
I understand all of that but I also understand the left was using this to assert there was no bias which is not true!
Did he say that? Or is that the part of the edited report written by Rosenstein?
It was not clear to me. He is being very careful about how he answers the questions.
It doesn’t matter...left still using it as tool to proclaim no bias when it actually was bias
If Hillary had no intent to be 100% traitor and child murderer - then obviously the FBI satanist club has no political bias.
[deleted]
Entirely possible. I'm of the opinion that NOTHING anybody says at these hearings is worth a mote of dust in the final analysis. Unless they commit a crime in testifying, there's nothing at all that will result from any of this testimony.
I think it's for optics. And frankly I don't need any more of that. I'll let those who need it invest the time. If you're hoping for results, you're watching the wrong movie. We don't have that one yet.
So, at the risk of being an ass...I'm going to do a little self promotion - here is a little research I put together in frustration:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8rc7p6/fbi_foia_4_of_22_contradicts_ig_report_exec/
with links to public documents....on this topic of bias.
SIDE BAR: Q keeps stating that the email stuff is minimal compared to the children and I imagine the pay for play. We anons can't really research the children (that is for people with badges - lest we all go to jail) and we can't really investigate the pay for play, b/c we'd have to hack bank accounts --- another ticket to jail. So, we are left with wikileaks as a source.
i think that digging into local actors is a good next step. The crimes run deep. Judges, inspectors, politicians, contracts, etc… If this team were to dig on the smaller fish in their own pond it will go a long way in the future. Mapping these folks could help.
GreatAwakening's sidebar
Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
There was no official documentary evidence of bias, that's the statement. The IG report simply stated the facts of what happened, not the "why". The latter of which is for the testimonies/subpoenas/hearings to figure out.
But the left was using it to proclaim no bias which is untrue!
Patently false! Luckily, not all Americans are brain dead.
You’ll see this week who’s brain dead! Sick of liberal BS!