The Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, said his report on the DOJ’s and FBI’s Clinton email investigation would not second-guess their conclusions, but would rather only examine their conduct in the investigation.
If you’re not going to second guess conclusions, then how can you second guess the conduct leading to said conclusions? But we’ll leave that for now.
Horowitz recognizes that there were FBI and DOJ personnel who made “improper considerations,” had unambiguously exposed their own “political bias” through text messages and ultimately concluded that, “the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.”
However, he also stated that, “Our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed.”
I’m curious; how can Horowitz sever their openly acknowledged bias sentiments from the results of their investigations given that the results of those investigations were the naturally preferred conclusions of their collective bias?
Bloomberg News Analyst, Steven Dennis, and White House Correspondent, Jennifer Jacobs, seem as perplexed as I in their commenting on this component of the IG’s report. Dennis tweets the following:
“IG: Peter Strzok & Lisa Page exchanged anti-Trump texts, BUT “we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed”
Soon after, Jacobs tweets:
“Several FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages,” IG report says.
It cites Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it!”
Horowitz’s other similar assessment on this bears repeating: “Our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed.” Huh??
How can the IG Report on the Clinton email investigation acknowledge political bias on one hand, while credibly denying its investigative impact on the other?
Isn’t that a bit like saying, ‘Hey, we know they’re cheering for one team over the other, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be fair umpires.’
Give us all a bloody break!