This morning our DLH called it as regards the Horowitz report. Whitewash and coverup and maybe setting up sacrificial snakes is how to describe the report based on what is well established. Decision makers will not suffer for their wrong-doing and illegal behavior. Mere misjudgements. It was hoped the report would set the establishment / deep state Obamnistas/ Clintonistas back on their ears for what were actual crimes by any standard other than corrupt standards. Read Gary Bauer’s initial report below. There will no doubt be additional worthy analysis to come.
The Cover-up Continues Thursday, June 14, 2018*
The long-awaited report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz was finally released this afternoon. It is 500 pages and will take time to fully dissect.
To be clear, this report is about how then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-FBI Director James Comey and other top officials handled the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of national security secrets. It is not about the FBI’s Trump/Russia investigation.
According to Bloomberg, which obtained excerpts of the report, Horowitz blasts Comey for “dramatically departing from department norms,” but finds no evidence of political bias. That is difficult to accept given that Comey essentially admitted his bias.
Speaking of bias, there was at least one big bombshell in the Horowitz report: Newly revealed text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page suggest that they somehow intended to “stop” Donald Trump from becoming president.
How much more evidence of political bias could you possibly need, especially given all their other biased messages?
Let me remind you again of several facts, none of which are in dispute:
- Hillary Clinton evaded State Department policy and violated federal records laws.
- Hillary Clinton and her aides regularly exposed national security secrets.
- They destroyed evidence, smashing cell phones with hammers.
- They erased hard drives with a special product called BleachBit.
- A laptop was “lost in the mail.”
- The IT aide who set up Clinton’s secret server refused to testify and was charged with contempt.
Yet what we ended up with from the “experts” at the Justice Department was Clinton’s exoneration and an obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. In what world does that make any sense?
And don’t forget that Comey drafted his statement clearing Clinton before she was even interviewed. And Peter Strzok helped him write it! Bias, anyone?
That is why a significant percentage of Americans have lost confidence in our top law enforcement agency. This was not an investigation. It appears to have been a cover-up from start to finish.
Another Bombshell
Fox News reports that congressional investigators have discovered evidence that foreign powers did in fact access classified information from Hillary Clinton’s emails. This information is verified in a May 2016 email written by . . . FBI agent Peter Strzok.
But that is not what James Comey said in his July exoneration statement. Instead, he hedged his remarks, saying, “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”
In addition, congressional investigators suggest that Comey “misinterpreted the Espionage Act” with his excessive focus on “intent,” and appears to have “predetermined” the outcome of the investigation.
Revisiting Rosenstein
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was on Sean Hannity’s show last night discussing reports that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened congressional investigators during a January meeting. Here’s what he said:
” I can tell you that my patience has run out. I have none left. . . We’ve had many . . . altercations with the deputy attorney general and his staff. . . So look, the staff definitely have felt threatened.
“What people should be concerned about the most right now is obstruction of a valid congressional investigation by the Department of Justice. . . This is totally unacceptable. It’s a classic case of obstruction of a congressional investigation. The problem we have here is, who’s going to investigate the investigators?”
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy also writes about this allegation. McCarthy suggests, correctly in my view, that Rosenstein has a gross conflict of interest and that his behavior is evidence of it.
I have seen reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is defending his deputy. But with all due respect to the attorney general, there is no way he could with certainty know what Rosenstein said. He wasn’t there.
I know Jeff Sessions. We celebrated together on Election Night in New York City. I was thrilled when he was appointed attorney general. We spoke the other day at the White House.
Yet, it is totally inexplicable to me that he would publicly defend Rod Rosenstein, the man responsible for the Mueller investigation, at this juncture.
*re-posted as permitted
Mr. Bauer “knows Jeff Sessions” (we thought we did, too); however, we would say to the AG, “we knew Jeff Sessions. And, you, sir, are no Jeff Sessions”