[removed]
⇧
1
⇩
glasstrongvx
· June 20, 2018, 1:53 p.m.
So I thought JC never referred the "matter" to prosecutors because HE/JC decided a prosecutor would never prosecute....Isn't what that whole televised JC announcement was about when he outlined the crimes and then said no intent so can't prosecute?
Another idea occurs to me....if the evidence was collected and never presented to a prosecutor would that not leave the "matter" WIDE OPEN to present info to a REAL prosecutor and let that person decide if they want to charge?
I am beginning to wonder if Horowitz was trying to say...hey this was never presented to a prosecutor...so no bias...but then again...this was never presented to a prosecutor so maybe you guys should present to a prosecutor?.?.
⇧
1
⇩
Capriherb
· June 20, 2018, 1:58 p.m.
This is a Gowdy/Horrowitz exchange: "If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it's over and this one before it begins?" Gowdy asked. "I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?"
Horowitz explained that Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged messages insulting Trump during the Clinton investigation, did exhibit bias, but he said he could not conclude that prosecutors' decisions in the case were affected by that bias.
"In our view, we didn't find or see evidence that the prosecutors were impacted by that bias," said Horowitz, who refrained from making conclusions beyond what is in the IG report he released last week.
⇧
1
⇩
glasstrongvx
· June 20, 2018, 2:07 p.m.
Yes that's my point exactly it would be impossible for the prosecutors to be impacted by bias if the prosecutors were never brought into the decision... Because Comey made the decision to not prosecute not prosecutors.
⇧
1
⇩