Discussion Spawned from "Political Funny Pictures" thread

[SheepDog4Life]

To be clear, IG Horowitz only said this (no evidence of bias) about the decision to open a preliminary investigation of the report from the Friendly Foreign Government about the possibility of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

What followed after that, he characterized as either gross incompetence or deliberate abuse AND that they found definite bias, but no smoking gun evidence linking it the to the abuses of the FISA process.

 

[Phase2]

What followed after that, he characterized as either gross incompetence or deliberate abuse AND that they found definite bias, but no smoking gun evidence linking it the to the abuses of the FISA process.

I listened to the entire 6+ hour session and definitely didn't recall anything like that. I remember the phrase "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation" (or very close approximations) being used repeatedly, initially by Horowitz and then many times by the Democrats on the panel. One key statement Horowitz made was "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. I’m not ruling it out."

One exchange about 3/4s of the way through the session:

Amy Klobuchar: (01:02:15)
Okay. Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration affected the FBI’s decision to open the investigation into George Papadopoulos?

M. Horowitz: (01:02:31)
No, we don’t.

Amy Klobuchar: (01:02:32)
Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into Paul Manafort?

M. Horowitz: (01:02:40)
No, we don’t.

Amy Klobuchar: (01:02:41)
Did you find any evidence of political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into Michael Flynn?

M. Horowitz: (01:02:50)
We did not.

Amy Klobuchar: (01:02:51)
Did you find any investigation that political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into Carter Page?

M. Horowitz: (01:03:01)
No. No documentary or testimonial evidence or other evidence.

Amy Klobuchar: (01:03:04)
So we are clear, did your report uncover systematic political bias at the FBI?

M. Horowitz: (01:03:12)
As to what we looked at in the openings we did not find documentary testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias.

So, Horowitz was very careful to say that he never found documentation declaring bias and that none of the people that were interviewed admitted to bias. That doesn't mean that it didn't exist, but his statements were very precise on that matter.

My personal conclusion: These are all very experienced people at the highest levels of the FBI/DOJ and would know better than to openly write about their motivations and wouldn't admit to improper biases in interviews. Withholding exculpatory evidence multiple times are not accidental actions and strains credulity that it is anything but bias. However, many of these same people have been caught in multiple lies about their actions. Comey in particular has amazingly convenient memory lapses and gaps in oversight precisely in places that might indicate impropriety.

Here is a complete transcript if you wish to check it yourself.

 

[nonobaddog]

Amy Klobuchar: (01:03:56)
Given five tries, could you find your ass using both hands?

M. Horowitz: (03:48:14)
No, we did not.

 

[rob63]

My take, after reading the IG report, was that the FBI had reason to open the investigation in the first place. I don't think political bias came into play in that decision. The IG report is very clear that the specific examples of obviously biased people weren't in a position to make decisions by themselves, and the decision was based on something that was worth investigating.

I do think political bias explains why they kept it open and they began telling lies to the FISA courts in order to keep renewing the warrants. However, I don't think it was political bias in the sense of "we hate that guy and we are going to get him," even though that was the attitude of some of them. It was probably political bias that lead them to keep believing the nonsense from Christopher Steele long after they should have realized how flawed it really was. However, it would be very difficult to prove that in a way that would lead to a prosecution. Negligence is a reasonable explanation for their behavior as well, even though I don't think that truly covers it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

@Phase2

At IG Horowitz's second appearance before the Senate, on December 18th, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the bias questions were directly asked and directly answered. KY Sen. Rand Paul's turn at 45:17 but one example in the 2 hours, but it's very direct.

"You did find evidence of biased individuals who were involved with the investigation," Senator Paul asked.

"That's correct," Horowitz responded.

And later he asks, you found both bias and malfeasance, answer, yes we found both. (sorry, I've searched high and low for a full transcript of this hearing with no luck)

Many times he indicates that his job is to lay out the facts and evidence... the facts and evidence are that individuals in the investigation displayed bias and those individuals also abused the FISA process, in basic and fundamental stuff, that was either gross incompetence or intentional... and he has a hard time believing that they are that stupid. (my paraphrasing)

[video=youtube;mW8Avfsq3cw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW8Avfsq3cw&feature=emb_title[/video]

 

[Phase2]

And later he asks, you found both bias and malfeasance, answer, yes we found both. (sorry, I've searched high and low for a full transcript of this hearing with no luck)

Many times he indicates that his job is to lay out the facts and evidence... the facts and evidence are that individuals in the investigation displayed bias and those individuals also abused the FISA process, in basic and fundamental stuff, that was either gross incompetence or intentional... and he has a hard time believing that they are that stupid. (my paraphrasing)

Interesting. He said nothing like that at the Dec 11th hearing. He did lay into official bias starting at around 23:30 in the Homeland Security hearing you linked. Sen Johnson also made my point that Horowitz was being very careful in how he used the phrase "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence" which is not the same thing as not finding bias, which pretty much every Democrat in both hearings ignored.

Rand Paul was correct that the FISA process can't be corrected as it applies to Americans (47:25). It was intended to be applied to foreigners who don't have Constitutional protections. Correcting the process implies that people will follow the process (much like gun laws not stopping criminals from using guns). As Horowitz testified, the "mistakes" were basic in nature. They weren't a matter of training, interpretation or difficulty (43:00).

 

[jamil]

I listened to the entire 6+ hour session and definitely didn't recall anything like that. I remember the phrase "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation" (or very close approximations) being used repeatedly, initially by Horowitz and then many times by the Democrats on the panel. One key statement Horowitz made was "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. I’m not ruling it out."

One exchange about 3/4s of the way through the session:


So, Horowitz was very careful to say that he never found documentation declaring bias and that none of the people that were interviewed admitted to bias. That doesn't mean that it didn't exist, but his statements were very precise on that matter.

My personal conclusion: These are all very experienced people at the highest levels of the FBI/DOJ and would know better than to openly write about their motivations and wouldn't admit to improper biases in interviews. Withholding exculpatory evidence multiple times are not accidental actions and strains credulity that it is anything but bias. However, many of these same people have been caught in multiple lies about their actions. Comey in particular has amazingly convenient memory lapses and gaps in oversight precisely in places that might indicate impropriety.

Here is a complete transcript if you wish to check it yourself.

This is pretty much my thinking. The evidence may imply bias that there was bias. After all, all of the “gross negligence” went in the same direction. But implication isn’t evidence.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Interesting. He said nothing like that at the Dec 11th hearing. He did lay into official bias starting at around 23:30 in the Homeland Security hearing you linked. Sen Johnson also made my point that Horowitz was being very careful in how he used the phrase "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence" which is not the same thing as not finding bias, which pretty much every Democrat in both hearings ignored.

Rand Paul was correct that the FISA process can't be corrected as it applies to Americans (47:25). It was intended to be applied to foreigners who don't have Constitutional protections. Correcting the process implies that people will follow the process (much like gun laws not stopping criminals from using guns). As Horowitz testified, the "mistakes" were basic in nature. They weren't a matter of training, interpretation or difficulty (43:00).

I have a lot of respect for Horowitz... lots of fact finding in his teams' reports... and finding the tampered email was some real attention to detail.

And, two things... one, the MSM totally mis-characterized his report, both initially and following the first Senate hearing. It is a very damning report for all involved in the investigation and those signing off on the FISA requests (Sally Yates, Comey and Rosenstein). Also, it's up to the Senators to ask him the right questions, a la Senator Paul.

 

[KG1]

There may or may not have initially been enough discernible evidence to indicate bias to open an investigation but something certainly drove the investigation to proceed when things were proven not to pan out due to exculpatory evidence that was covered up and when evidence came forth that by all indications led to the Steele Dossier being bogus.

Steele himself was proven to be a tainted source driven by bias because he hated Trump and wanted to try and discredit him.

At that point the investigation should have ended but it continued on with a questionable motivation for doing so.

 

[Phase2]

There may or may not have initially been enough discernible evidence to indicate bias to open an investigation but something certainly drove the investigation to proceed when things were proven not to pan out due to exculpatory evidence that was covered up and when evidence came forth that by all indications led to the Steele Dossier being bogus.

Steele himself was proven to be a tainted source driven by bias because he hated Trump and wanted to try and discredit him.

At that point the investigation should have ended but it continued on with a questionable motivation for doing so.

Although you can argue that the reasons for initially starting the investigation were valid, it had already gone well off the rails by the time the first FISA warrant was issued. That warrant had already been denied at least once before the Steele dossier was added to the mix. Think about that. Any initial suspicions were already so weak that they didn't justify a warrant, at a point when there is no defense arguments allowed and in a court with a ~99% approval record. They had to (a) include a known non-verified political opposition research paper and (b) lie about it's verification and (c) obscure is provenance to get a judge to agree with a deeper investigation.

Adding more "procedures" won't fix this. Putting people in jail for lying (and not just one moderate level lawyer) would be a far better deterrent.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just what is the bar for legal evidence of bias? Is it even possible?

When they look at bias(in my opinion) and keep calling it mistakes, it seems like it is impossible to ever find bias.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I would suggest reading the executive summary of the report. There are protocols requiring much higher hurdles to open CI investigations in certain situations, for example if 1st Amendment rights could be jeopardized (reporters and places of worship come to mind first).

However, since there wasn't a rule specifically to use a more stringent protocol for investigating a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN BY THE OPPOSING PARTY, they used the rules for an ordinary, everyday CI investigation... then promptly broke every one of those that might possibly have halted the investigation and the FISA [STRIKE]fishing expedition[/STRIKE] warrant application.

 

[Doug]

I would suggest reading the executive summary of the report. There are protocols requiring much higher hurdles to open CI investigations in certain situations, for example if 1st Amendment rights could be jeopardized (reporters and places of worship come to mind first).

However, since there wasn't a rule specifically to use a more stringent protocol for investigating a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN BY THE OPPOSING PARTY, they used the rules for an ordinary, everyday CI investigation... then promptly broke every one of those that might possibly have halted the investigation and the FISA [STRIKE]fishing expedition[/STRIKE] warrant application.

So, you're saying they acted like Democrats.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, you're saying they acted like Democrats.

I would say "progressives", but the two are quickly becoming synonymous to the peril of both the Democratic party and the nation.

Seems like it's the hallmark of progressives to demand reams and reams of "rules" to prevent those in power from abusing it and becoming tyrants. But then, when they are in power, they promptly ignore any rule in their way... and somehow the dissonance between the two never dawns on them.

Rules for thee but not for me prevails - is this not the soul of fascism?

 

[Doug]

I would say "progressives", but the two are quickly becoming synonymous to the peril of both the Democratic party and the nation.

Seems like it's the hallmark of progressives to demand reams and reams of "rules" to prevent those in power from abusing it and becoming tyrants. But then, when they are in power, they promptly ignore any rule in their way... and somehow the dissonance between the two never dawns on them.

Rules for thee but not for me prevails - is this not the soul of fascism?

It is. It is also important to understand WHY the rules apply to "thee" and not to "me." It is because "me" is good people with correct thinking and "thee," because you disagree with "me," are either stupid or evil.
Since "me" is good and "thee" is evil, the rules apply to "thee" but "me" is above the rules and have no need to follow them.

It is a case of "me" considering "thee" to be sub-human because you don't agree with me.

 

[SheepDog4Life]