As we’ve addressed recently, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on how the DOJ and FBI comported itself while investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails security violations demonstrated an estrangement with the Queen’s English.  While acknowledging multiple examples of bias, Mr. Horowitz has insisted that said bias had no impact on the investigation.  However, Mr. Horowitz seems to have undercut that contention with his own recent testimony on Capitol Hill while answering some of the questions from House Government Reform Committee Chair Trey Gowdy.

After being repeatedly pressed about FBI Agent’s Peter Strzok’s revealed intentions, Horowitz sputtered some accidental unvarnished truths by saying that, “I think a reasonable explanation of that or a reasonable inference of that is that he (Strzok) believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.”  So during this hearing we witness even Horowitz taking issue with his own findings that Strzok’s bias had no influence over his decision-making process.  Score one for Schizophrenia!

Hasn’t this Horowitz observation handed us the smoking gun he otherwise ignores?

But there were some additional gems by Gowdy in reference to the tag-teaming Peter Strzok and Lisa Page duo:

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.

How can empirically verifiable biases during an investigation be demonstrated on one hand without those same biases having influence over that same investigation on the other hand?

Horowitz never illustrates how the first doesn’t equal the second.  He doesn’t provide that bridge at any time during the entire hearing and not once throughout his 500+ page report.

Horowitz merely asserts that he doesn’t think one led to the other, but never shows one singe example of mitigation.

Gowdy continues to look for answers:

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?

HOROWITZ: She did for a period of time.

And yet, despite Lisa Page’s already proven “outcome-determinative bias” (to use Gowdy’s valid term), we’re supposed to swallow the masturbated sophistry of DOJ and FBI defenders insisting that these two organizations were not in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

When did it become ok for Democrats to be held under different laws than non-Democrats.

When did it become ok for Democrats to (at the very least) become less accountable to the law in general than for non-Democrats?

To paraphrase Gowdy, when did it become ok for investigators to be exonerating Hillary Clinton months before her investigation was finished while assessing Trump to be guilty before his investigation technically even began?  When did that inequality under the law become permissible?

The exchange continues:

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?

Does anyone really believe that Page can first be influencing an interviewer in the investigation not to be aggressive with Clinton, and then accurately be judged not to have been trying to influence said investigation?  Don’t you have to be functionally illiterate to buy such crap?

The exchange continues:

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: 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?

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.

Here’s my question, if you’re going to use your official status to stop or interfere with someone’s campaign to win elected office, how is your bias not impacting your decision-making process?  Doesn’t one have to be imbecilic and brain-dead not to see that Strzok’s and Page’s bias were most assuredly impacting their decision-making process?

In order not to see the connection between the two, wouldn’t one have to be of the view that language is no longer tethered to the meanings of the words that comprise it?

How can we trust Horowitz’s judgment on his pending investigations over the legitimacy of the FISA Warrants of Carter Page based on the DNC/Clinton financed Trump Dossier after this BS report?

How can we trust the judgment of US Attorney John Huber and DOJ IG Michael Horowitz on their pending investigations over the legitimacy of the DOJ and FBI Trump-Russian Probe?

Some things are simply too self-evident.

Share us on: