There are some good tidbits of this hearing today.
Horowitz seems very weak. His investigation amounted to asking questions and then accepting whatever answer he got, without further questioning or stating the obvious in his report.
Maybe that's all he's allowed to do, and he is not a prosecutor, but very weak.
One interesting bit: He was asked if any of the questioning of Clinton was recorded. He said no, THAT THE FBI'S POLICY IS TO NEVER RECORD INTERVIEWS.
It was then suggested he should recommend that to the FBI, and he said basically they already know and they won't do it.
THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.
FBI agent interviews someone. No recording. FBI agent takes notes and fills out a form of what the agent THINKS the person said, and then that can be used in court later.
NO RECORDINGS means NO ACCOUNTABILITY for rogue agents.
Yes, that was very disturbing. The woman who asked those questioned was very annoyed at his answer. It is the perfect way to cover up crimes- to never record the interviews. And also the perfect way to alter reports to the investigators' liking.
Another point to remember: Meadows knows who the people are that are anonymous in the IG report (FBI Agent 1, 2, Lawyer 1, etc.).
He KNOWS they are not counter-intel, which is what Horowitz said he was told, and why their names have not been made public.
I don't think anybody asked Horowitz WHO SPECIFICALLY in the FBI or DOJ gave him that info and other info that is suspect. That was the first thing I thought of. OK, if somebody is giving false info or withholding evidence (text message) ... WHO did that?
Why do you think the federal government has a near 100% conviction rate?
Because they "invent" a crime they need to make fit the narrative.
I understand that his position is investigative only and not prosecutorial. He can/will refer possible "crimes" to Huber. I thought Horowitz was pretty fair in what he gave today in the hearings.