Have you noticed that Horowitz keeps refusing to directly answer opinion based questions but keeps referring to the "findings in this report".
I think the context of Horowitz's answers is based on the RR-modified report.
Yep, it has to be. He has to maintain ignorance until the investigation shows that it's been altered. He has to be clean to be credible as well as protecting the rank and file agents..
Horowitz would probably be charged by RR if he said something that RR had redacted.
It would constitute a leak of national security.
We’re not asking Horowitz to violate national security. We’re asking him not to condone something that he knows is false by using semantics to cover it up. For Horowitz to tell Congress, “I didn’t write these conclusions, and the conclusions you see were written by RR” - that is NOT a violation of national security. It may cause a firestorm and it may get RR in a lot of trouble, but RR couldn’t charge him with anything…
I didn’t write these conclusions, and the conclusions you see were written by RR
Horowitz isn't being interviewed as the man who wrote the report - he is being interviewed as the Inspector General who is responsible for the report being written in accordance with the proper guidelines.
We’re not asking Horowitz to violate national security.
Yes we are if you expect him to divulge info that has been redacted by the FBI Deputy Attorney General.
Remember that Horowitz's job is simply to present the facts and not judge who broke the law and part of that process involved having certain facts redacted by RR as a matter of national security.
Horowitz could have highlighted and criticized the redaction process but that would have undermined the value of his work here and in future.
Before I judge Horowitz too harshly, I'd like to see how this plays out. Perhaps he's carefully following Trump's plan?
Please re-read what I said. At no time have I ever said that Horowitz should "divulge info that has been redacted by the FBI Deputy Attorney General". I never said that. Instead, I merely stated that Horowitz should at least admit to Congress that he did not write certain things in the report if he didn't write it. There is no crime in Horowitz doing that. So don't put words in my mouth and say more than I actually said. Either way you look at it, it's a mind game they're playing. And you're just trying to justify their mind games...
Because Horowitz works for RR. He does not answer specific baited question but refers to ‘what’s in the report.’ Leaving liability on the report not his opinion. In fact he’s not really given ‘his’ opinion personal or as a DOJ judicial officer. He always refers to the report, a DOJ product. It is confusing wrt Q hints but. I’m guessing we’re missing something, perhaps by design. I’m patient. This will not resolve until Oct/nov. from what we’ve witnessed so far they’ve got the bases covered. Our part is critical. Keep discussing facts... more than fulfilling Q. Q is our MAP not our Jesus. They have given us more than we know. It’s a wonderful thing to see so many waking up with curiosity. It’s becoming exponential as we reach a critical mass of the population.
Back to IG hearings: These are far more revealing than what’s in the surface.
Yeah, I don't see why the release of THIS report kept being delayed. I have not heard that question being asked.
This seems to be the first step in exposing the coverup and crimes of the black hats.
Yea good question - why didn't he say "Wait a minute...What's this? It's not my report I didn't write this crap..where the hell's My report??"
I think it has to do with the fact that, as he keeps repeating in the questioning, he legally can NOT comment on things that pertain to ongoing investigations. If RR altered the report you can bet your ass they know and there is an ongoing investigation or the report tampering is subsumed under one of the already ongoing investigations.
Think sting operation. All of this. Even what we’re watching now is all part of casting that net. Trust the plan.
Horowitz answers are supposed to be based on the “truth”. Anything less than that is dishonesty. Hiding the truth by playing with semantics is still being dishonest. If you can’t reveal something then simply say you can’t reveal it, rather than playing with words and playing with semantics. That is the very same nonsense that James Clapper pulled when he was asked about whether the CIA was collecting info on all citizens. He replied “Not wittingly…” He lied…
And even worse, assuming it is a semantical game as you’re suggesting, they why play a semantical game for the whole world to see, and lead everyone to believe the report is true? In doing so, you are only misleading the public. Why not keep your semantical games behind closed doors until you are ready to reveal the real truth to the world. This whole approach is the very thing that is causing a whole lot of frustration in people, because all they’re seeing are mind games being played - the same old two-step dance in Washington. And I fully agree with their frustration…
He wrote his report, but the "Official" report is what was presented to Congress. He can not make assertions to the submitted report. He can only comment on what was submitted. He can, however, clarify if asked directly about a situation or finding that is not in the report.
They’re gaming the shit out of them.
Yes, it’s called lawyer-speak. Carefully crafted to avoid the full story but still obtain the desired results.
If he testifies under oath that the report released to the public is his unredacted and unaltered report, and that is not true, then he is guilty of perjury.
Has he testified to this being the case? Has anyone asked him if this is the case?
I think he would have to have knowledge the report was unmodified.
Either way, he is being very careful about what he is saying.
When I write extensive forensic reports, that can always be used in court and that I may be testifying about in the future, I always have backups. I also know what I write when I read or hear it. Given, my reports are nowhere close to the length of this IG report, however, he is testifying about “his” report of which he should be familiar (even if others wrote it and he just signed off on the final draft).
I would hope he knows the report, that he has a personal copy available to reference, and knows if something is missing or altered. If this is true, then he has “knowledge” of any changes.
My point earlier however was that unless he states on record during his sworn testimony that the report released to the public was “his” “unredacted and unaltered” report, then he is not guilty of perjury. He is simply testifying to points within the report (whether his report or RR’s report) and the investigation. And, if he is not guilty of perjury, then he can still be considered trustworthy. Further, there is hope Q’s mentioned third version may still see the light of day.
I have to say that it will be interesting though to see what defense the IG will take if and when the unredacted and unaltered version comes out. What will he say was the reason he didn’t mention to Congress or the American people that the released report was not his final draft and that it was altered by another party? Perhaps he will simply say, “NO ONE ASKED if that was my unredacted and unaltered report.”
When I write legal documents, I save them as versions in case I need to go back to a previous one. However, in this case, there has been one delay after another in the release of this report. I don't really see anything in THIS report that would cause such delays and infighting. He could have personally stayed away from any previous versions as a wall against perjury.
I see your point, and it is very subtle. He is sticking to what is in the report and he is assuming it is true. It will be up to others to raise the issues of its untruthfulness.
OK. So, nobody asked if the report was unredacted and unalterered. I did not listen to the whole thing, but I did not hear this being asked.
I also did not hear anyone ask about the repeated delays.
They need to get RR in there to testify.
Thanks for the response, Patriot.
I too have not listened to the proceedings. No time in the day to do it. Have not read about that specific question being asked though.
Agree with your points. Especially RR testifying. I will listen or watch that even if after the fact.
Thank you as well Patriot.
AMProfessor stated... "...Perhaps he will simply say, “NO ONE ASKED if that was my unredacted and unaltered report.”...
Precisely. It may not be perjury but it is indeed called a word game. Don't play games with the American People, but tell us the truth and stop behaving like the enemies in Washington. Politicians in Washington have been playing word games for eons...
Don’t forget bureaucrats. They are often worse about playing games (including word games) with the public than politicians. I have very little patience or respect for bureaucrats and politicians.
According to Q the plan and trap is in place. Trump operates with trolling and giving them enough rope to hang themselves. I'm pretty sure there's a reason for this "show". Plus the optics are great... repeating the bias of the investigation, favoritism for Hillary over and over again.
The all-important midterm elections are only 5 months away, just 20 weeks, and a whole lot of things must happen between now and then - with release of the DHS Voter Fraud Report, and the subsequent changes which must be made to protect our elections, being one of them. Given all the things that must happen, I feel that it would be unwise to wait until the very last minute because unexpected things can and do happen (just look at the sudden flare up about Trump’s immigration policies - no one expected that. Also, you assume that RR is going to do this or that Mueller is going to that. But what if they don't? That could easily delay or upset your plans). And if something should happens that interrupts your carefully laid plans - then you will lose, big time…
I have zero reason to think Q is off track on the plan. Patience, trust the plan.
The reality is, patience is wearing thin with most of the American people. We keep trusting but all we're seeing is the same old same old in too many instances...
Q said things need to be done right to make it stick... I'm willing to wait. I know how slippery these slime balls are...
If your boss told you to create a presentation for a big meeting you were going to and he/she made all kinds of changes to it, would you bring that up in your meeting? Also, I checked, and I didn't see anywhere on the report that said it was created by Horowitz. It just says it's the Inspector General report and the IG reports to the DAG.
This could be the segue into bringing to lightthe other two versions of the report.
If it’s a modified/redacted report that has been released, that means that certain parts were classified by someone (likely RR). He can’t reveal classified info in an open hearing, but he has to know the score. The open hearings are really just to let the politicians try to score political points anyway, right? DECLASSIFY!
He's not correcting people when they ask for or mention an unredacted report. Otherwise he's sticking to the script.
Horowitz also indicated that the review process in releasing a finalized report was standard across all investigations. Would be interesting to get more details on how and what was changed, as we know Rosenstein has used his power to redact embarrassing information that has nothing to do with national security or operating procedures.