1) Don't believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn't find bias. He very carefully says that he found no "documentary" evidence that bias produced "specific investigatory decisions." That's different #IGReport
2) It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: "Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President." #IGReport
3) But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they "cast a cloud" on the entire "investigation's credibility." That's pretty damning. #IGReport
1) The fallacy here--stated by Sally Yates--is that the "investigators" are beyond reproach. The Founders rightly believed the public would/should be skeptical of power, and gave tools (checks/balances) to bring to light.
2) The notion that the most powerful people in the land--law enforcement and intelligence services--should never be questioned, that their version should be accepted as fact, is antithetical to our system.
3) And especially knowing the facts we do--FISA warrants, spies/informants, dossiers paid for by a rival campaign--we should absolutely ask the investigators questions. The notion that the White House can't do this, because it was the target of said investigators, is nonsense.
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos)--making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them
2) You've surely now read the Strzok-Page texts. Is this appropriate FBI behavior? Is this common FBI behavior? Can or how should the American public have confidence in a bureau that employs senior players with that behave in such a way?
3) What was the "insurance policy" to which Strzok and Page referred? Anonymous sources claim it meant simply the need to aggressively probe Russia, but it could also be read as a plan to harm Candidate Trump. Was it?
1)A few questions @Comey should have been asked--but wasn't:
2)You repeatedly note the "source" of the dossier (Steele) was "credible." Does the FBI routinely view as "credible" sources hired by political operatives? You say Steele had a "track record" but did fact he was now working for politicals--in an election year--not concern you?
3)Did you know Mr. Steele had been hired by Fusion GPS? Did FBI do any due diligence on Fusion, and discover its long record of being hired to dirty the reputations of its clients' political foes? If not, why not?
1/ Mr. Eisen, actually, no. Wrong on all counts.
Pruitt travel/security costs for 2017: $160k
Gina McCarthy travel/security costs for 2013-16: $630k
Lisa Jackson travel/security costs for 2009-12: $332k
Coming up next, the breakout for their trips...
1) Whoops. Just saw some typos! Retweeting for clarity.
1) One obvious takeaway from the Grassley referral: The FBI got utterly USED by the Clinton campaign. Steele and Fusion had barely handed off the dossier before they were out flagging the FBI's work to the media, ginning up headlines helpful to their client (Clinton campaign).
2) This is beyond dispute; Steele and Simpson have admitted to the media briefings. It's an embarrassment for the agency, and i'd wager that even those agents that support the overall investigation can't be happy their leadership allowed the FBI to be a pawn for a campaign.
1) I've covered politics a long time. I've never--never--seen anything approaching the desperations Ds have to keep this memo quiet. And as we know that worry about law enforcement (Snowden/Manning) is not their biggest worry, this memo must be damning to the core.
2)Have been in journalism all my life. Have never--never--seen the press corps fight so hard against transparency. Same media that after election wondered if it was out of touch with avg Americans, now ignoring the legit worries so many have about govt. accountability.
3) Every journo should be asked if they'd be fighting this hard against disclosure if it was a Bush DOJ/FBI accused of wiretapping abuses. Of course not. They'd be leading the charge to put it all out. 4th estate is supposed to enlighten the people. Not cover for govt. officials
Another thought on Simpson testimony: 1. Testimony stands or falls on witness credibility. 2. With that in mind, go read page 44, in which Simpson accuses a target, Bill Browder, of dodging Russia questions, and describes his own efforts to force said testimony in heroic terms
3. With that mind, remember that Simpson dodged two invitations to testify in public setting next to Browder. And after Simpson was subpoenaed, responded that he'd plead the 5th to every question rather than testify in a public setting.
4. Now remember that Browder himself did accept the Committee's invitation, and answered all their questions, under oath, in public. So who is hiding and who is dodging? 5. And with all THAT, now reread the Simpson transcript--with that sense of his credibility in mind.