Bombshells at IG Horowitz hearing on second day


 

Believe it or not, I endured the entire hearing yesterday. My big take away was that there were at least 15 IG staff members as well as Horowitz that “together” came to the stated conclusion of the report of no bias that many of us find unbelievable. It appears there are drafts.

My other take away was that Horowitz only had access to those individuals available. No subpoenas were issued. Thus how could any conclusion be determined as to bias? It was pointed out that those questioned could have had the same bias of that of Strzok and Page.

YouTube has the full Gowdy hearing statements. Well worth going there and listen to the full thing. He did good. Zero Hedge has some good highlights, wander over to their place for the goodies, here are a few:

While Monday’s testimony by Horowitz and FBI Director Christopher Wray was certainly eye-opening – Congressional Investigators uncovered several game-changing bombshells on Tuesday that will re-frame the entire discussion. Hat-tip to Paul Sperry for reporting these stunning developments in real time.  Zero Hedge

    • There were no actual subjects of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, meaning that neither Hillary nor any of her top aides – including Huma Abedin and the IT guys who set up her illegal server and then used “bleachbit” to destroy evidence (for which they received immunity) – were ever under any direct FBI scrutiny. Horowitz found this “surprising.”

There is at least one and possibly more original drafts of the OIG report, which were subsequently redlined by DOJ/FBI higher-ups.

  • Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has sent a formal letter to Horowitz requesting “the various drafts of the report, particularly the draft provided to the DOJ and FBI, before those agencies made any changes to the draft report.”

 

  • Horowitz is investigating allegations that FBI officials “edited” agents’ 302 forms – which doument an interview with a suspect or a witness.

A highlight of the hearing:

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Bombshells at IG Horowitz hearing on second day”

  1. Steve Dennis Says:

    Interesting point! He only had access to the insiders he was investigating, how can we expect any other conclusion than what we got? The whole conclusion was a joke based on what was in the report and of course the Dems are going to glom on to just the conclusion and that is what it was designed for.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Sad to say, but right you are……anyway, we are on to the next topic, immigration. Interesting how all of a sudden it was life and death..typical Alinsky…keep everyone jazzed up.

      Like

  2. Kid Says:

    Couple things I read today: Peter S was escorted out of the FBI building – reason as yet unknown, FBI tampered with witness statements before giving them to DOJ, FBI Dir Wray told congress that anything they don’t want to talk about will hide behind the cover of ‘it is an on-going investigation’ and they don’t have to tell you which investigation, no bias! Ha. Several others who are biased will not be revealed by the FBI, 2 or more heavily biased anti-Trump people are still on the mueller team. Mueller team has no evidence to present to defend their indictment of the Russians.

    No confidence? ha ! Regards the FBI and DOJ, I have this image of hetero and homosexual rats having sex with each other while eating rotten apples, everything covered with cockroaches on a fluffy bed of steamed maggots.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Well that is quite a visual… picking up your habits from Peter??? 🙂 Nope going nowhere other than a crisis with the courts.

      Like

  3. Mustang Says:

    Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. That said, I suppose we should wonder if a lead-investigator in the FBI is a de facto prosecuting attorney. It seems to me that if a prosecuting attorney pre-judges the result of an investigation or forms a conclusion of the matter under investigation before the investigation has run its course, and the reason for making such a conclusion is political, then we aren’t talking so much about prosecutorial discretion; we’re talking about prosecutorial misconduct. It probably doesn’t matter if there are one set of laws for the likes of Hillary Clinton and another set of laws for the rest of us. On the other hand, if we are a nation of laws, and if the nation’s laws apply to everyone equally, then it certainly does matter. What we are left with, unfortunately, is a gaggle of good-old-boys within the Justice Department who are looking out for one another, including the present Director of the FBI and the present Attorney General of the United States (whose tactics, so far, involve recusal).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

      You make a very good point about prosecutorial discretion.

      I question whether there should even be such a thing. It really boils down to un-elected persons who are not judges making decisions about the law and justice.

      If a prosecutor can decide not to prosecute, then the ‘crime’ really wasn’t that bad and there probably shouldn’t even be a law against it. So, in that way the prosecutor is acting as a legislator.

      Looking at it another way, one could say prosecutorial discretion usurps a judge’s authority to decide if there’s enough evidence to prosecute someone.

      Or, it could be looked at as stealing the People’s power to engage in jury nullification – the right to voice opinions on potentially unjust laws.

      Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Best said Laura….We like to think we have the best legal system and we do…but in the end its down to how much money you have to mount a defense…to get experts…and the judges are in cohoots with endless delays of month after month to drag it out so the lawyers can get their ounce of flesh. Think O.J… as a case in point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kid Says:

        Prosecutors and plaintiffs really need to have skin in the game. Lose the case, it costs them. That would fix a lot of things. Imagine how it would lower healthcare costs.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Kid you nailed it….It would stop much of the civil litigation… especially in the medical field…Settlements are often done to minimize risk of a jury going over the edge and bestowing unfounded wealth upon the plantiffs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kid Says:

        Yearas ago, a hospital in Texas went form spending 100 mil just defending themselves (not payouts) to 2 mil a year after Texas passed a no frivilous lawsuits law. Imagine 98% of that across the country. A friend of mine was sent to the hospital, and spent 5 minutes getting a shot – that could have and should have been done in the doctors office. The hospital sent a bill to to the ins company for $4,300. 00 !

        It’s insane. Why ios no one talking tort reform. Trump was until after the election. The lawyers have one hell of a lobby anr/or a squad of hitmen on staff.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        Holding plaintiffs and prosecutors liable for frivolous prosecutions/lawsuits would go a long way to cleaning up the system.

        Bunker made a good point — we have the best system that is available. We don’t have the best system, I think humans are just too flawed for that, but the US has the best system available.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kid Says:

        I can buy that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Kid, the last year I was working– a few years ago… we paid 30 million a year in malpractice insurance with a 3 million deductable. For each ob doc is was close to $300,000 a year as well as Neurosurgeons.

        Like

    • bunkerville Says:

      Laura and Mustang…. it is time for plea deals and squeezing people to take lesser charges so not to have a trial to end. I recall in paralegal school that over 90 percent of cases are settled before trial . Criminals take a lesser charge. Our courts would be overrun if everyone insisted on a trial. But very unfair…innocent people take a plea, a civil cases settle with much pressure by the judge.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        We just have too many darn laws. It should be a big deal when someone breaks the law, but it’s not cause there are just so many frivolous laws. Stupid ones, ones that just make no sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Laura.. I could not agree with you more!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      True, Bunks … but before a prosecutor could squeeze the rat, he would need to have powerful evidence that the rat did some serious crime. Now from the rat’s perspective, turning state’s evidence is one avenue, a bullet through the brain from a member of the Clinton Cartel is another. Makes one think that the byword for the day is “Mum’s the word.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Thinking of Flynn,, some people just don’t have the money or emotional what have you to go through a protracted legal fight… In Flynn’s case, going after his children as well. If one looks hard enough one can find a sin…. meanwhile years go by.
        I once was involved in litigation, and it went on for years and took every ounce of joy out of life.. Not sure I agree with you on they have to have a serious crime….not with today’s world.
        We were in business and we had about 15 inspectors always looking for something – wrong or for something in their pocket.

        Like

  4. geeez2014 Says:

    “I assume ‘Andy’ is ‘Andy McCabe’, but you see, Lisa says she said that ‘in Andy’s office’, but we don’t know if Andy was IN his office and actually heard that.” Lucky Andy…BFFs are helpful, aren’t they?
    The fun never quits. EVERY possible excuse to make them look FINE……….every possible slam to anything that doesn’t. Let’s hope the Republicans actually get somewhere….. Go, Jim Jordan, GO! 🙂

    Like

    • bunkerville Says:

      Jim is about all we have left. I no longer trust Gowdy….his ego has gotten ahead of himself and I am not sure what his game is all about….. yea, good ole Andy.

      Like

      • Kid Says:

        I think Gowdy is basically alright. I just don’t believe Congress has the power to do jack when it comes to DOJ activities. I will more easily accuse others in Congress of being strictly lip service people. My doubt on Gowdy being a bad guy is that he wants to get back in the game as a prosecutor where he can make a difference.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        i guess…. it will end in the courts and we will lose.

        Like

  5. Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

    Yep, several bombshells. No one was a ‘subject’ or ‘target’ — how can the FBI conduct a criminal investigation when there is no subject or target of the investigation? That’s what many people are asking. Guess that’s why Lynch said not to call the investigation an ‘investigation’ — she said to call it a matter.

    Comey’s being investigated. Comey — and a myriad of other g-men/women — used private email accounts for government business. Could be why the FBI didn’t think anything about hillary using her own server for government business. Shrug.

    Strozk was escorted out of FBI headquarters Friday — his employment status is unknown.

    The OIG is investigating whether agents changed the 302s on different interviews — Flynn particularly.

    Interesting things — we’ll see…

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Well Laura, I think you got to the nub of it… pure nonsense..watching the unprepared GOPers as well as the Dems posturing on immigration would take most people over the edge. Most of them didn’t even listen to it but came back for their few minutes of fame asking the same dumb questions. When Horowitz asked to repeat the question they had to read it back. It is enough to make one despair.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        Also read that two of the people whose names were still being redacted to ‘protect’ ‘intelligence’ methods – yada, yada, yada – actually work for the General Counsel and aren’t part of counter-intelligence. So, the redaction of their names was just more CYA from the conspirators trying to hide their wrong-doing…again.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. petermc3 Says:

    Had a police officer tried to fix a traffic ticket for his/her brother in law the full force of municipal, state and possibly federal law enforcement would have come down upon him/her ruining his life, forfeiting his/her pension etc etc. Meanwhile it would be safe for us to assume Hillary, Abedin, FBI officials and any and all other parties to this debacle will keep scuffling along unscathed. Additionally, is there any doubt McCabe wins back his pension?

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      But of course this week the immigration issue comes full force to distract and obfuscate. How in the world they could say there was no bias when Horowitz never talked to anyone of any import? Yep… on to the next scam….apparently he looked into the foundation as well…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

      McCabe didn’t lose his pension, it was only delayed.

      Liked by 2 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: