Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Inspector General Found No Political Bias?
The FBI IG did a deep dive into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation and concluded, “we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.”
On Monday of this week, the FBI IG released its report into the FBI’s handling of the Trump campaign. Again, it concluded, “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
Yet if you read the Executive Summary of the two reports and compare and contrast the treatment the FBI gave the Democratic Presidential candidate and the treatment it gave the Republican Presidential candidate, the disparity is glaring and obvious.
Hillary Clinton was treated as innocent even after being proven guilty and exonerated on a crime that requires no intent on the basis of lack of intent. Clinton was treated with kid gloves and given every courtesy plausible during the investigation. Trump and his campaign were treated as guilty, even as evidence piled up that both were innocent of the accusations and that the FBI put people in jail for not remembering dates of various meetings in a strong-arm technique to intimidate witnesses.
You have two concurrent investigations into the two major party nominees for President of the United States, but one investigation was in the extreme left tail of investigatory concession and the other was in the extreme right tail of investigatory aggressiveness, including falsifying evidence submitted to the FISA court to justify a wiretap. No rational person could read those two reports together and conclude there was no political bias in the disparate handling of the two investigations. No rational person.
One wonders what type of “documentary or testimonial evidence” would have been required for the IG to conclude there was political bias.
Published in Politics
This is exactly the very limited purpose. It usually focuses on improper management behaviors or failures since problems in line operations will be taken care of if management acts properly and efficiently.
But I thought he concluded there was no bias . . .
No difference to the rest of the world (general public).
Or look for, knowing what the outcome would be (dirty rotten behavior at highest levels of government, particularly the FBI).
That’s amusing. The DoJ IG Report is for DoJ management not the world (general public). It is supposed to help FBI Director Wray fix some problems.
The general public should be interested in the Durham investigation.
To justify government abuse of power with a veil of respectability and fairness.
Horowitz testifies today that he was unable to conclude whether there was bias which is different than finding there was no bias. He also stated that his report did not vindicate anyone involved in the FISA warrant process.
The IG is sophisticated and experienced enough to understand his published, not private, report, especially the executive summary, would be at the center of public attention. Further, questions of incompetence or bad conduct in this incredibly powerful agency are not just for DOJ leadership and not the public, whose election, whose franchise, was allegedly messed with by said agency.
I didn’t mean to diminish the importance to the public of these events and I agree that this particular IG Report is on public notice. The Durham Investigation could yield real fireworks if it reveals serious crimes were committed during these same processes. And the Durham Investigation will involve more individuals, at higher levels, and beyond the DoJ/FBI.
A-Squared, you’re focusing on only one narrow issue in the current IG report — whether there was political bias or improper motive in the decision to open the investigations (there were five — the main one, called “Crossfire Hurricane,” and four later individual investigations into Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, and Flynn). On the decision to open the investigation, Horowitz did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence” of political bias or improper motive.
The decision to open Crossfire Hurricane was made by a guy named Priestap — Strzok’s boss — and there apparently wasn’t any evidence of impropriety in that decision. There were texts by Strzok “that included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton.” But Strzok wasn’t the decision-maker in opening the main investigation.
Strzok was the one who approved the four individual investigations in the formal documentation, but the Horowitz report says that this was a consensus decision reached by the Crossfire Hurricane team, with Priestap involved.
Basically, it looks like there was no evidence of impropriety on the part of Priestap in opening the investigations, and he was the real decision-maker. Fair enough, in my view.
The Horowitz report was very critical on other issues.
I’m always a fan of cynicism–especially yours–but I hope that we really know that this is just that.
But he found documentary evidence of bias and concluded it had no impact on either investigation. That is a conclusion beyond documentary evidence.
Good point.
On the other hand, the duration of the FISA warrant also matters. The longer it was authorized and the more times it was reviewed, the less likely that nobody noticed its problems.
I freely admit the IG’s conclusion would bother me less if the media wasn’t portraying his conclusion as the investigation being completely free of bias.
I admit I’m also somewhat bothered by his apparent knowledge that Durham had reason to disagree with his conclusion and he didn’t bother to at least acknowledge that elephant in the room.
I’ve heard (probably from McCarthy) about the IG’s limited scope, but even with the limited scope, he seems to go out of his way to write executive summaries that give the Dems what they want and buries the lede rather deep in the report.
I have heard some reports today that imply that the 17 errors may be more independent than I thought. I am trying to find a complete list.
EDIT: @aaronmiller – I found a good description here :https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-comey-fbis-17-worst-failures-inaccuracies-and-omissions-flagged-in-the-russia-fisa-report/ and take back my original concern that there were repeats.
On top of that, the column by Solomon after the one linked has a more extensive list.
Is it? Did anybody really expect the government to find corruption in its “investigation” of itself? Most expected about what we got. Everything is great but a few things could have been better. That was the starting point. The rest was just spending money and time on window dressing to make the plebs doubt and lose interest. Which it did. This is the government, it can destroy anybody it wishes as it wishes.
He largely made up for that in the hearing today, which was, of course, not televised.
I find the reactions to the Horowitz’ report by most conservative pundits to be based on ignorance. The depth of knowledge seems to be just slightly better than CNN talking points. Maybe they will get better in the next few days, but I am shocked how little self-education these “experts” have done.
You’re very welcome. You might be unique in finding my presentation calm, but clarity is my idol. Made my day.
I found this, which doesn’t move the needle much for me.
“The inspector general acknowledged that he couldn’t pinpoint the motivations behind the “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the FISA applications for warrants to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
Horowitz’s report didn’t find any evidence to support Republicans’ claims that they were due to political bias. Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said that means he can’t conclude that no bias occurred, and Horowitz agreed.
“On the FISA side, we found, as you noted, a lack of documented testimony evidence about intentionality, but we also noted the lack of satisfactory explanations and in fact leave open the fact that, for the reasons you indicated, it’s unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionality? And where in between? We weren’t in a position, with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but I’m not ruling it out.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/inspector-general-report-michael-horowitz-testimony-justice-department-russian-investigation-today/
So the FBI wasn’t biased. Just stunningly, immeasurably incompetent.
Well that’s a relief.
But he had tweets and emails from for example the FBI Lovebirds that showed incredible bias it would take Helen Keller to miss.
And this is why we need to hope Barr and Durham produce something soon.
Nobody said the FBI wasn’t biased. It’s just that bias is hard to prove, unless you use something like the disparate impact theory that the left favors in certain cases.
A) Plenty of people are saying the FBI wasn’t biased. Literally everyone in the Democratic party is saying that.
B) I don’t have a problem with the disparate impact theory conceptually. If not a single African-American was able to pass a test even with an IQ three standard deviations above the mean yet white people with an IQ three standard deviations below the mean had a 100% pass rate, I’m comfortable saying that there is a disparate impact there that is probably caused by some racist aspect of the test. The problem with the disparate impact test as applied by the left is when you argue that any difference in the pass rate between the races (especially without controlling for differences in IQ) must be due to the test being inherently racist.
Here we admittedly have a small sample size of two investigations, but we have hundreds (if not thousands) of individual decisions across the two investigations, all of which went one way in one investigation and the other way in the other investigation. I’m quite comfortable saying that disparate impact is incredibly strong evidence of bias by the investigators. If you disagree, I would love to hear your argument.
I understand your point, but I’m actually making a broader point across the two reports.
I think it is entirely plausible if you narrowly focus on one investigation or the other that it is impossible to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was bias in the investigation. I also think it is entirely implausible when you compare the two largely concurrent investigations that something other than bias explains the diametrically opposed investigative techniques applied to the two major party nominees in a single election year.
I agree totally.