Who's Zooming Who?

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
See, it's interesting to me that you're all happy about Gowdy, when the only one in the room who can provide new information was Horowitz. It's nice that you get to watch someone attack someone else. That's nice. What I want to know is "What did we learn from the hearing?" and what you're telling me is "Gowdy really ripped him a new one." That sounds a lot like nothing except posturing, like WWF.

I'm not going to accept your terms, which are (as always) "read this book or watch this longish video or otherwise spend a lot of time so you can debate with me on a field of my own construction; I'll wait." If I'm a "lesser man" then so is everyone else here since I seem to be the only one even conversing with you about this.

I'll ask again--what did Horowitz say that went beyond the IG's report in condemning something or someone at the FBI? Sounds like the answer is "nothing."

I've tried to call up transcripts and all I get is shorter video clips. I refuse to enter your black box.

Your attempts at obfuscation and diversion are noted. I didn't say any of the things you are claiming. Horowtiz agreed with everything Gowdy said. EVERYTHING.

Horowitz agreed that Comey was biased, and that at least 5 agents were biased. The claim that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey just bit the dust.

You can run, but you can't hide. The only point of dispute between Comey and Horowitz was that the judgments of prosecutors did not reflect that bias.

And Gowdy argued that bias is always bad, but did not attack Horowitz on any level. This hearing only covered the Hillary email report.

The Mueller Russian investigation will be reviewed next. So if you really want to get up to speed, watch the video.
 
Last edited:

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/06/19/trey-gowdy-on-fire-at-horowitz-hearing/


Some highlights:


GOWDY: So Page wrote, “Trump’s not ever going to be become president, right?” with a question mark, then “Right?” with a question mark and an exclamation point in case anybody reading it may have missed the point of her emphasis. Peter Strzok responded, “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Do I have that text exchange right?

HOROWITZ: You do.

GOWDY: Now, Lisa Page was an FBI lawyer who worked on the Clinton email investigation?

HOROWITZ: That’s correct.

GOWDY: Did she also work on the Russia investigation?

HOROWITZ: She did.

GOWDY: How about the Mueller special counsel team?

CALLER: She did for a period of time.

GOWDY: All right. So we’re three for three on her working on the two most important bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond. Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to leak information to I news outlet?

HOROWITZ: She was a special counsel, and as we indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through whom he provided that information.

GOWDY: The same Lisa Page who admonished the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that interview “loaded for bear” because Clinton might be the next president, and it’s the same Lisa Page who said Trump was “loathsome,” “awful,” “the man cannot become president; Clinton just has to win,” and that Trump “should go F— himself.” And we are somehow supposed to believe that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I don’t know how you can win if you’re gonna wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.

snip

GOWDY: Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote, “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on the Clinton email investigation? Do I have that right?

HOROWITZ: That’s correct.

GOWDY: Same Peter Strzok who not only worked the Russia investigation when it began, was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have the right Peter Strzok?

HOROWITZ: That’s my understanding.

GOWDY: Now, is it the same Peter Strzok who was put on the Mueller special counsel team?

HOROWITZ: Yes.

GOWDY: Same Peter Strzok. And this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone, either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said, “Trump is an idiot. Hillary should win 100 million to zero.” Now, Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me, because he’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he can’t think of a single, solitary American that wouldn’t vote for her for president. Can you see our skepticism?

snip

GOWDY: What do you think the “it” is in that phrase “we’ll stop it”?

HOROWITZ: Oh, I think it’s clear in the context it’s we’re gonna stop him from becoming president.

GOWDY: That’s what I thought too. Now, I wonder who the “we” is in the “we’ll stop it.” Who do you think the “we” is?

HOROWITZ: Well, I think that’s probably subject to multiple interpretations — them or a broader group beyond that.

GOWDY: How about “finish it”? When he said, “I unleashed it. Now I need to fix it and finish it,” what do you think he meant by “finish it”?

HOROWITZ: I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August, the prior August that you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation that or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.

GOWDY: But this is 24 hours into him being put on the Mueller probe. There’s no way he could have possibly prejudged the outcome of the investigation. Maybe he did. Maybe that’s the outcome-determinative bias that my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding.

snip

GOWDY: Did you ever have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias?

HOROWITZ: My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values. In my personal view having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents, I can’t imagine FBI agents suggesting, even, that they might use their powers to investigate, frankly, any candidate for any office.

GOWDY: Well, I can’t either. I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?

HOROWITZ: Well, I think, uh, that certainly with regard to the, uh, Russia investigation you mentioned, as you know, we are looking at that in an ongoing way.
Thank God for that. The best is yet to come.
 
Last edited:

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
CNN coverage....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-text-message-ig-report/index.html

an August 2016 text message exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was intimately involved in not only the Clinton email investigation but also the FBI inquiry into Russia interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

PAGE: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

STRZOK: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
What cannot be disputed now is that Strzok, a senior FBI official involved in the investigations into Clinton's email server and Russian interference, wrote a text in the midst of the probes (and the election) that said Trump wouldn't win because "we'll stop it."
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
https://www.c-span.org/video/?44681...horowitz-testifies-clinton-email-probe-report

Gowdy Opening Sattement

We welcome you Mr. Horwitz for what i think is a hearing on your inspector general report and decisions made and not made in 2016.

Inspector general horwitz just for your knowledge, the chairs and ranking members were given opening statement then you will be introducing

What we are doing today does not happen everywhere. We’re taking institutions with long histories and institutions we need and we rely upon and are applying scrutiny, review and inspection. We’re testing, probing and even criticizing or doing it because we need these institutions to be above reproach. We need them to be inspected and we need them to be above bias. We need them to be fair, just, even handed and immune from the vagaries of politics. That's what we expect and demand from the department of justice and the FBI.

The power we give prosecutors of law-enforcement is an awesome power. The power to prosecute, the power to indict, the power to deprive people of their liberty. It is the power in some instances to try to take the very life of a citizen. We give police tremendous powers and there is a corresponding expectation of fairness. This inspector general's report should evoke anger, disappointment and sadness and everyone who reads it.

This report lays bare the bias of prejudging facts by senior fbi agents and senior attorneys. The attempts to minimize and mitigate this bias are so antithetical to what we want and deserve in our law-enforcement officers. It is dangerous to the broader community.

The media efforts and efforts from some of my democratic colleagues to shift the burden of bias onto those impacted by the bias. That somehow the responsibility of those affected by bias to show how it negatively impacted them.

This is dangerous shifting. It is not the public's job to prove. It is the fbi's job to show that the bias -- and bias and fairness cannot coexist. No lawyer seated appeared today would ever allow a biased witness to sit on his or her jury. No citizen would ever allow a biased police officer judged to work on any matter of significance. There's a presumption that bias is bad. And that we should accept in nearly every single facet of life.

As we read the report were reminding of Jim Comey's decision to appropriate the product charging decision away from -- ironically, this inspector general has been accused of softening or watering down his report when the reality is, it was Jim Comey who softened and watered down his press release announcing no charges against secretary Clinton. We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which doj policies to ignore. We see Jim Comey alone to decide if there's sufficient evidence to support each and every element. We see Jim Comey and him alone deciding whether to send a letter to congress. His justification for this he did not have confidence in Loretta Lynch. Whether it was her asking to refer to this case as a matter rather than investigation or a meeting with Bill Clinton when Hillary was under investigation with a matter he was alluded to but cannot discuss publicly.

Clearly he lost confidence in the Doj to handle a case where there should be public trust. That leaves us one thing we saw him not do. He memorialized conversations and admitted he did so to initiate a special counsel because he didn't trust the career prosecutors. When he lost confidence in the Obama department he didn't make special memos to share them with his law professor friends. He didn't lift a finger to get a special prosecutor. He appointed himself FBI director, special counsel, lead investigator and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him. One of the last times i spoke with him was in a committee hearing. We had an exchange on what i thought was the fbi making decisions based on politics. He in his sanctimonious way said that he disagreed and said the men and women of the fbi don't give a hoot about politics. Unfortunately, he was dead wrong. There were agents and attorneys who gave a lot more than a hoot about politics. Mccabe, the former deputy director, an agency which investigates and charges others for making false statements was himself accused of making false statements. I think i recall some of my democrat colleagues falling over themselves when he was let go for making false statements. For lack of candor the same colleagues were not hiring. They didn't have openings when others in a related investigation called Russia were charged with the same offense.

There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the case before it ended. They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before it ended. The same agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before it began. They were prejudging this before it ends. If this is not evidence of outcome determined bias. I don't know what would be. That is textbook bias. That is the definition of bias. Allowing something other than the facts to determine your decision. These agents were calling her president before she was interviewed. They were calling for the end of the trump campaign before the investigation began. They were calling for impeachment because he happened to be elected. That is bias. With all due respect, it's the fbi's job, not mine, to prove it. Bias can never be harmless. I think it is always harmful. We will spend the day on a small but significant leadership group of officials, those who had supervisory roles in the Clinton and Russia investigations and who failed to meet the basic expectations of fundamental fairness. There are tens of thousands of fbi agents and employees who meet our expectations. We will not be calling their names today because we don't do investigations on those who do their jobs with character and professionalism. To those agents who do the right thing, for the right way and for the right reasons, we will get through it. It will be tough and difficult but we will emerge with a stronger FBI and department of justice because we have to. We can’t have a justice system that bases their decisions on anything but facts. To those at home be unrelenting of your expectations of our justice system. Never lower the expectations. Respect for the rule of laws is the thread that holds the tapestry of this country together. It depends on you having confidence on the power to enforce the law. Don't ever accept the notion that those victims were negatively impacted have any burden of proving harm. Bias is intrinsically harmful. It is the making up of your mind based on anything other than the facts. We use a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales to symbolize what we want in the justice system. There's nothing more antithetical than lowering the blindfold and making up your mind on who is standing in front of you. That is not who we are or who we should become. There is a saying in the courtroom that justice be done until the heavens fall. You will not hear that saying in politics. You are more likely to hear let's win at all costs, the heavens be damned. We can survive with politicians we do not trust. We cannot survive with the justice system we do not trust.
 
Last edited:

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
So Rass, you have your transcript.

And frankly I cannot imagine that so many biased folks at the FBI just decided to get Trump entirely on their own.

Should there be a special prosecutor to examine who the "we" were, that our friend Peter referred to?

Or do you trust Horowitz and his people to get to the bottom of it?

Or do you think Mueller should be involved?

Is a conspiracy to overthrow a new President important enough?

We'll stop it
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
As is my way, I will be tracking the reveal to see how close my scenario is to what really happened.
Post 7 noted above

Alternate reality dude is doing keen in 2018.

Now if you think that Mueller and those 5 FBI agents including the lead investigator on both the Hillary and Russian investigations decided to "get Trump" all on their own, I would like to hear the argument.

Seriously. Horowitz is currently doing a deep dive on the entire Russian investigation. All those agent phones and devices are being pulled and messages downloaded. Hundreds of agents are being interviewed and if you watched him cooperating with Gowdy the other day, you must understand that "the fix is off!"

I predict Rod Rosenstien who penned the Mueller investigation authorization letter (phenomenally biased and illogical) will be at the center of this one. Then again, there is Comey who pushed for a special prosecutor for Trump and did not do the same for Clinton or Obama.

Stay tuned for more Zoomin tunes.

There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the case before it ended. They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before it ended. The same agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before it began.
GOWDY: What do you think the “it” is in that phrase “we’ll stop it”?

HOROWITZ: Oh, I think it’s clear in the context it’s we’re gonna stop him from becoming president.

GOWDY: That’s what I thought too. Now, I wonder who the “we” is in the “we’ll stop it.” Who do you think the “we” is?

HOROWITZ: Well, I think that’s probably subject to multiple interpretations — them or a broader group beyond that.

GOWDY: How about “finish it”? When he said, “I unleashed it. Now I need to fix it and finish it,” what do you think he meant by “finish it”?

HOROWITZ: I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August, the prior August that you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation that or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.

GOWDY: But this is 24 hours into him being put on the Mueller probe. There’s no way he could have possibly prejudged the outcome of the investigation. Maybe he did. Maybe that’s the outcome-determinative bias that my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...ion-rod-rosenstein-memo-mueller-probe-limits/

This does not appear to be a "deep state" but rather a small conspiracy of highly placed and influential individuals.
 
Last edited:

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-email-investigation/?utm_term=.24a8e5818f34

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2351b5ece99_story.html?utm_term=.34624cfa5f0c

No formal report , not yet, from Horowitz on the original Russian investigation of 2016. But these two Wapo articles diplomatically lay a foundation that demonstrates that Trump was totally justified in firing Comey and that the possibility of a conspiracy among some FBI operatives suggests sedition of the type I theorized about in the first quarter of 2017.

Trump has cast himself as the target of a “deep state” conspiracy at the FBI and other agencies. The inspector general's report does not suggest anything so widespread.

It does, however, identify five FBI officials whose private communications indicated troubling personal biases.

Two of the officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, already are well known for exchanging anti-Trump text messages. The inspector general's report reveals a previously undisclosed text message written by Strzok that, in Horowitz's estimation, showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Trump from becoming president.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
Time magazine summarized thusly.....

Here's Why the Inspector General's Report Was Such a Blow to James Comey

An 18-month investigation by Inspector General Michael Horowitz delivered a devastating blow not only to Comey’s own legacy, but to the reputation of the FBI and the Justice Department as a whole in the mishandling of critical events in the 2016 presidential campaign
The blistering conclusions in the 500-page report are as notable for the source as for the substance. They came from a watchdog office known for many years for its dogged independence in probing abuses at the FBI and the Justice Department. President Donald Trump had lobbed some of the same accusations at Comey over the Clinton email investigation when he fired him as FBI director 13 months ago. But the president’s attacks were widely seen as a pretext that generated as much sympathy as scorn for Comey. The findings from the Justice Department’s own inspector general will not be dismissed so quickly
This report was issued 14 months after I started this thread.

Apologies and atta-boys will be thanked (that was a joke).
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,311
6,363
This WSJ piece summarizes my concerns pretty well. Here's the legal section of the piece. I have covered the other parts pretty thoroughly in this thread.

The focus is not on Meuller but the assumptions and biases that led to his appointment.

Ian, please review if you have the time.

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,735
42,137
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
This WSJ piece summarizes my concerns pretty well. Here's the legal section of the piece. I have covered the other parts pretty thoroughly in this thread.

The focus is not on Meuller but the assumptions and biases that led to his appointment.

Ian, please review if you have the time.

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Unfortunately, the piece is hidden behind a paywall even in an incognito window, so I cannot read it.