Long-awaited I-G report on FBI/DOJ lawbreaking was a magnificent con
As all Americans over the age of 22 should know by now, Michael Horowitz is Inspector-General for the Department of Coverups pardon, "Department of Justice." Three weeks ago he issued his long-awaited report on charges that the FBI (helped by the corrupt DOJ) tried to sabotage the campaign of candidate Trump.
When that sabotage didn't have the desired result--that is, Hilliary lost--the corruptocrats in the FBI and DOJ kept trying to sabotage his presidency by falsely claiming that he was elected because of "Russian collusion." The FBI and DOJ claimed that the only reason they were investigating Trump was to find evidence of this alleged collusion.
Seriously, that's what former FBI director James Comey, and former FBI director turned special counsel Robert Mueller and others have claimed for two years.
Now, as many have noted, naive Americans believe Inspectors-General exist to pinpoint wrongdoing by the organization that pays their salaries. While this is certainly the "nameplate mission"--the Narrative, if you will--the truth is that regardless of what really happened, most IGs issue reports that clear their organization of all but the most trivial wrongdoing/lawbreaking.
Lawbreaking by the organization is explained away with phrases like "Mistakes were made." "We found no evidence of intent to act illegally."
Sound familiar? Sure. That's essentially what FBI director James Comey said when he "cleared" Hilliary of all blame for setting up a private, unencrypted email server in her home in Chappaqua, New York, and using it for all government business--including sending and receiving beyond-top-secret emails.
Obviously Comey wasn't an IG, but his treatment of Hilliary accomplished the same whitewash that Horowitz did.
In his report, and later testimony before the senate, Inspector-General Horowitz pulled off a huge con-job on the American public, certain that the Trump-hating Mainstream Media would echo every carefull-crafted word of the con—as they did.
The con was Horowitz’s claim that he could not conclude that there was even a hint of "improper motivation" in the FBI/DOJ invesgation of Trump, because he did not find any "documentary or testimonial evidence" of any of the parties admitting such.
It'll take a minute for that to make sense (or non-sense): The "logic" here is that Horowitz would only conclude illegal motive if he'd found a document admitting it, or if one of the corrupt agents had admitted “We acted with improper motivation.”
Is there a single American so naive as to think anyone in on the illegal spying would admit it? Or in the alternative, create a document admitting the real motive? Of course not. Such a fable insults your intelligence. But it's what Horowitz implies.
To paraphrase Andrew McCarthy: Horowitz said “It looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a
duck, but we were unable to conclude with certainty that it was a duck because we didn't find documentary or testimonial evidence that it was a duck.”
What Horowitz did was a huge coup for the Deep State: He got Americans to ignore the common-sense conclusion that overwhelming evidence demanded.
H/T Robert Curry
When that sabotage didn't have the desired result--that is, Hilliary lost--the corruptocrats in the FBI and DOJ kept trying to sabotage his presidency by falsely claiming that he was elected because of "Russian collusion." The FBI and DOJ claimed that the only reason they were investigating Trump was to find evidence of this alleged collusion.
Seriously, that's what former FBI director James Comey, and former FBI director turned special counsel Robert Mueller and others have claimed for two years.
Now, as many have noted, naive Americans believe Inspectors-General exist to pinpoint wrongdoing by the organization that pays their salaries. While this is certainly the "nameplate mission"--the Narrative, if you will--the truth is that regardless of what really happened, most IGs issue reports that clear their organization of all but the most trivial wrongdoing/lawbreaking.
Lawbreaking by the organization is explained away with phrases like "Mistakes were made." "We found no evidence of intent to act illegally."
Sound familiar? Sure. That's essentially what FBI director James Comey said when he "cleared" Hilliary of all blame for setting up a private, unencrypted email server in her home in Chappaqua, New York, and using it for all government business--including sending and receiving beyond-top-secret emails.
Obviously Comey wasn't an IG, but his treatment of Hilliary accomplished the same whitewash that Horowitz did.
In his report, and later testimony before the senate, Inspector-General Horowitz pulled off a huge con-job on the American public, certain that the Trump-hating Mainstream Media would echo every carefull-crafted word of the con—as they did.
The con was Horowitz’s claim that he could not conclude that there was even a hint of "improper motivation" in the FBI/DOJ invesgation of Trump, because he did not find any "documentary or testimonial evidence" of any of the parties admitting such.
It'll take a minute for that to make sense (or non-sense): The "logic" here is that Horowitz would only conclude illegal motive if he'd found a document admitting it, or if one of the corrupt agents had admitted “We acted with improper motivation.”
Is there a single American so naive as to think anyone in on the illegal spying would admit it? Or in the alternative, create a document admitting the real motive? Of course not. Such a fable insults your intelligence. But it's what Horowitz implies.
What Horowitz did was a huge coup for the Deep State: He got Americans to ignore the common-sense conclusion that overwhelming evidence demanded.
H/T Robert Curry
posted by SF at
11:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home