1. I haven't had time yet to digest all of the report, but the few things I have looked for are much more damning than all the tweets I've been reading this afternoon. I think a lot of people are missing the primary thread so to speak.
2. While #Horowitz is saying he found no single smoking gun that proved the #ClintonEmail case was spiked for political reasons. He outlines lots of political bias & even more bad decisions. Out of policy decisions, decisions by people that should have been recused, etc.
3. So what if OIG had actually said “I our opinion this all adds up to prove bias”?
That would be a judgment call, right? And judgment calls are always questioned by someone with different judgment, especially if they are motivated to reach a different conclusion.
That would be a judgment call, right? And judgment calls are always questioned by someone with different judgment, especially if they are motivated to reach a different conclusion.
4. So now all the Dems go out & sing, see it wasn't political fixing, they just blew the case with bad decisions & incompetence. We've heard them all say it, so they are now on the record that the case was a disaster & incomplete, just not for provable political bias.
5. Now if #Horowitz claimed his judgment found bias, how do you address that? Do you unring that bell on a case tanked for political considerations by restarting the case? Wouldn’t that be open to accusations of political bias too?
6. By focusing on the incompetence of the FBI, we can fix it with a new set of competent investigators making better decisions. A new investigation that is likely already underway. One not tainted by being started because of political bias...
7. Another interesting finding is it looks like none of the central players flipped. Though it looks like they certainly developed selective amnesia. They don’t remember what any of those texts were really about. Yeah, right.
I was wrong on that, I figured Strzok flipped.
I was wrong on that, I figured Strzok flipped.
8. The report does show though that the OIG’s invgtn was to get all of the actors on the record. Denying stuff that is pretty obvious at times, doubting the veracity of their actions & testimony, but then saying they didn’t volunteer any hard evidence to contradict themselves.
9. But everywhere you look in the meat of the report, they is lots of evidence or leads to evidence that contradict them.
10. One note that jumped out at me is the discussion of Strzok sending FBI info to his personal email. Strzok denied them permission to access his non-work email. Then Strzok searched his own private email &told the OIG there was no work email there.
11. But the texts we've seen document emails, document referring those emails to the prosecutors, & another interesting fact. Strzok claimed no one else had access to his email, but the footnote say a non-FBI family member had access to his email. 
12. It seems certain that the OIG was giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Letting them volunteer information rather than compelling it. While quietly handing things off to #Huber & others to seek warrants to prove they lied.
13. Throughout the report the OIG lays out their testimony that conflicts with evidence we have already analyzed. Obvious statements that lack candor to say the least. Be certain those statements did not go unnoted, even if they went unrebutted to get them on the public record.
P.S. Two other advantages getting all the participants to testify to the cover story under oath & on the record. It lulls them into thinking they are going to get away with it. Which will encourage them to take further actions to conceal evidence while your watching them.
If confronted w/ proof up front, they'll all try & shift blame to others in testimony but not volunteer documentary evidence that could hurt them too. The entire case becomes a "he said, she said" between a bunch of liars. Impossible to prove who's lies are most accurate.
But by getting them to falsely testify to the cover story before producing the hard evidence, it changes the game. All of them are now guilty of lacking candor, perjury, & more. When forced to abandon their lies, the prosecutors have leverage as they are then admitting crimes.
Crimes which destroy everyone's carefully constructed cover story. And the subjects now have motivation to produce documentary evidence to save their own skin to prove their new story is true & point the finger at their coconspirators.
Look at the McCabe process, he was interviewed to get him on the record after OIG had the texts & Page saying he authorized leaks. Page was caught, so she offered the texts. The McCabe was already guilty so after he saw the texts, he tried to create a new story & lied again.
Then he waited until he was fired to offer up documents showing Comey knew about the leaks. Destroying Comey's cover story if McCabe has the goods. Now it is a very different game.
