That’s what flat earthers and anti-vaxxers say.
he always was. He’s a member of the SES as is Huber and Sessions and Rosenstein etc etc etc.
This thing could have been 50 pages or so, and basically just a summary of several Hannity monologues and it would be the truth.
It doesn’t seem he is even going to address the IG report. He’s going straight to “We know what Hillary did, but let’s cover it again!”
No hypocrisy in your posts or anything
He knew a few weeks ago. This was all prepared …
Except I don’t believe in flat earth and I believe vaccination saved hundreds if not billions of lives through the years.
Okay but it’s the same thing with a different subject. “Question everything” is always the argument of last resort.
If it turns out to not be true will you admit you were wrong or will you double down on hypocrisy?
The IG also said the meeting on the tarmac with Clinton and Lynch were about grandchildren, lynch doesnt have grand children. LOL! Horowitz is an Obama appointee do remember that.
So you take everything at face value.
Sorry. Quoted wrong person.
Still getting used to the new site
Conan, I get the frustration here, but the IG report was a dud, you know its a dud when the IG actually admits tha the tarmac meeting was about grandkids. Your telling me Clinton held his plane at lynch’s exact tarmac to talk 30 minutes about grand kids? Lol what a joke.
I haven’t read that part yet, getting sidetracked ATM.
Keep in mind we are talking about 1 grand kid…just one between both of em.
An FBI attorney who worked on the special counsel’s Russia investigation until earlier this year sent anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, including one exclaiming: “Viva le Resistance.”
The attorney’s comments are revealed in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Thursday.
The lawyer is not identified, but he worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and was the FBI’s lead attorney on the investigation into Russian election interference. He was assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation soon after it began in May 2017 and left in late February of this year after some of his private messages were shared with the special counsel.
Worked on Mueller until late Feb of this year.
Yup! That is correct
We all know Strzok was a crook, but Horowitz cant even admit the Lynch/Clinton Tarmac meeting was improper, we really are becoming an Oligarch.
I’m pretty sure you’re supposed to provide a link, when you cut-and-paste from the Gateway Pundit.
Apologies. Daily Caller.
Same difference, anyway.
The IG basically agreeing with the decision to not prosecute Clinton:
"As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
“talk around” classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
We further found that the statute that required the
most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section
793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has
been the focus of much of the criticism of the
declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two
and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case
law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the
statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely
required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost
suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or
“something that falls just short of being willful,” as well
as evidence that the individuals who sent emails
containing classified information “knowingly” included or
transferred such information onto unclassified systems.
The Midyear team concluded that such proof was
lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section
793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s
historical approach in prior cases under different
leadership, including in the 2008 decision not toprosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for
mishandling classified documents.
We analyzed the Department’s declination decision
according to the same analytical standard that we
applied to other decisions made during the
investigation. We did not substitute the OIG’s
judgment for the judgments made by the Department,
but rather sought to determine whether the decision
was based on improper considerations, including
political bias. We found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or
other improper considerations; rather, we determined
that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice.
We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy
judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that
were for the Department to make.