Jump to content

12/11/19: Senate Judiciary Hearing w Michael Horowitz


Recommended Posts

Dianne Feinstein - she's going to go with the "no evidence of anti-Trump bias".
 

She has to. It is all she's got to make this less horrifying.  She's never going to explain that they  (the OIG) needed someone to confess to it being politically motivating in order for that conclusion to be drawn by the report.  I wonder who will ask Horowitz to explain this? 
 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Dianne Feinstein - she's going to go with the "no evidence of anti-Trump bias".
 

She has to. It is all she's got to make this less horrifying.  She's never going to explain that they  (the OIG) needed someone to confess to it being politically motivating in order for that conclusion to be drawn by the report.  I wonder who will ask Horowitz to explain this? 
 

someone better ask him to explain that. however, i won't be surprised if no one does.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Dianne Feinstein - she's going to go with the "no evidence of anti-Trump bias".
 

She has to. It is all she's got to make this less horrifying.  She's never going to explain that they  (the OIG) needed someone to confess to it being politically motivating in order for that conclusion to be drawn by the report.  I wonder who will ask Horowitz to explain this? 
 

How could the text messages between Struck and Page be interpreted as anything other than political bias? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just said something I hadn’t heard before, that he did not find political bias for opening the CH investigation,

 

a decision that was made by Bill Priestap, Strozk’s boss. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that says Priestap was politically biased.

 

He was the boss of people who were, but who hasn’t presented something to their boss without fully disclosing their own thoughts about it?

 

“Documentary or Testimonial Evidence” means no one we talked to admitted to it, provided any written proof of it, or was willing to testify that someone else did it.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

How could the text messages between Struck and Page be interpreted as anything other than political bias? 

They cant.

 

But since none of these cast of characters at the FBI were stupid enough to voice or write down their bias during the course of their official FBI duties relating to this matter, and none were stupid enough to admit to it when interviewed by the OIG...then Horowitz has the cover to "correctly" say that they found no evidence of political bias in the course of their investigation. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...