Inspector General Glosses Over Some Ugly Truths About The FBI

The Justice Department Office of the Inspector General’s report released Aug. 29 clearly stated that James Comey violated and abused FBI policies in managing memos in which he supposedly documented confidential conversations with the president. This is a revelation that most of us have known for quite some time.

However, Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz has yet again glossed over some major problems.

It appears that the main reason Horowitz concludes former FBI Director James Comey only violated his FBI Employment Agreement and DOJ/FBI “policies” was because the documents he kept, disclosed, and leaked to improper parties were not considered truly classified. That apparently keeps them from being serious enough to prosecute. So, who made the decision that they were not classified? The answer would be outrageous if it were not virtually farcical.

In the early pages of the report, Horowitz repeatedly tells us that “the FBI reviewed,” “the FBI designated,” and “the FBI determined” (four times on page 2 alone) that these memos or documents “did not contain classified information.” Who was making these critical determinations at “the FBI” that helped save Comey? You would have to flip over forty pages further into the report to get to that information.

Horowitz tells us at page 42 and 43 that there were four people involved in that review and decisions, but the two of those four who were most experienced in making those determinations were named Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. If you will recall Horowitz, in his previous report, found basically hundreds of pages to document appalling bias against Trump, as well as monstrous love for and desire to see Hillary Clinton elected president.

There were no more devoted Clinton fans and Trump haters than Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In that prior report though, Horowitz concluded those hundreds of pages of bias by telling us that the unmitigated love for Hillary Clinton and unbounded hate for Donald Trump fortunately did not affect the outcome of any of their investigations.

In law school, we were taught that some things are so clear and blatant between cause and effect that no direct proof is needed of causation. It is called the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: “the thing speaks for itself.” It would seem that when there is the unfathomable love for Hillary Clinton and hate for Donald Trump, and every conclusion from the investigations are completely consistent with those biases, there IS powerful evidence that the biases affected the outcomes and speak for themselves. But our paragon of virtue, Horowitz, found the outcomes were not affected by the biases. How convenient.

Read the rest from Rep. Louie Gohmert HERE.