Stand by for an instructive example of how false narratives and talking points are amplified by inaccurate media coverage. I will chain the tweest as replies to this one for those who are interested. #Wray#Horowitz#NoBias
It’s more reason you cannot necessarily believe what’s reported and repeated, no matter how many are reporting and repeating it. Make up your own mind. You can see for yourself.
Here’s a link to today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I’ll include time code notes on the subsequent tweets. c-span.org/video/?446804-…
#1 IG Horowitz was asked whether he indeed found “no bias” among FBI officials in their decision making, as widely claimed. Horowitz: (1:13:34) We were not saying that for every single decision…there are hundreds of decisions being made.
#2 (read carefully): Horowitz: (1:13:34) We did not find no bias with regards to the October events.
#3 (read carefully): Horowitz: (02:25:30) What we say here is not that there was no bias...
#4: Horowitz (referring to FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok focusing more attention and energy on Trump-Russia collusion and away from Clinton email probe):(1:18:56) We were not convinced that was not a biased decision.
#5: (3:00:09) Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware): …your investigation found fault in an exchange of text messages that you identified that demonstrated some political bias. Is that right?
Horowitz: Correct.
#6: Horowitz: (3:02:12) The one area where we were concerned about bias was in the Oct. time period, and the weighing of Agent Strzok between focusing on the Russia investigation versus the Weiner laptop [Clinton emails] and our concern about his decision given the text messages.
#7 (2:05:15) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) What you’re telling us is you found bias…those who you found the bias among said ‘well, we didn’t let it bleed into our work performance and you don’t have evidence to disprove that.’
Horowitz: Correct.
#8: (2:02:46) Horowitz: When we got October we had concerns that there may be bias impacting the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation…
#9: (2:02:46) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): You’re not saying you didn’t find bias…
Horowitz: …I think it’s clear… Strzok had, as we say here, a biased state of mind.
And yet--FBI Director Christopher Wray: “The [DOJ IG} report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations.”
All of that aside, there's nothing magical about somebody--even Horowitz-- stating certain words that makes it true or untrue. The IG report is rife with examples of bias even Horowitz hadn't explicitly said so. (But he did.)
Also curious that Horowitz settled on repeated use of confusing double negatives rather than clearer direct statements.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's convenient (for them) that Clapper, Brennan, Morell are hired at national news organizatns where they can give their spin & monitor media on matters that directly implicate them in *possible* improprieties. 1/? (cont.)
There was a time when this placement wd have been considered an ethics problem. 2/? (cont.)
A fmr. top intel official I asked about this said, "It also gives them an opportunity to correct the record and possibly influence others in the industry including editors and management..." 3/? (cont.)
Comey memos have been reviewed by several Repub members of Congress: Judiciary Comm Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), House Oversight and Government Reform Comm Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and House Permanent Select Comm on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) (cont)
3-"The [Comey] memos also made clear the "cloud" President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier." (cont)
4-"The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened... he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation." (cont)
Re: Trump interview w/special counsel, perhaps all can agree it should be under same terms @TheJusticeDept gave Hillary Clinton: 1. An exoneration letter is drafted in advance. 2. Immunity is given to top Trump aides (and they’re allowed to sit in on interview). (Continued)
3. Interview isn’t recorded. 4. Lead official (Mueller) doesn’t attend. 5. #2 official’s family has received large donations from Trump political friends. 6. Prior to the interview, lead official meets privately on plane tarmac with Trump's wife (to discuss grandchildren). (Cont)
7. Main interviewer has expressed disdain for Trump’s opponents, such as discussing an “insurance plan” with higher-ups to undermine them. If the same terms aren’t offered...Was Clinton’s interview process unfair? Or is the one proposed for Trump unfair? #FairIsFair
A growing question over appearance of conflicts of interest. Who investigates the investigators when they're implicated in some of the alleged misconduct but also remain in charge of the evidence and prosecutions? (Continued)
The senate's criminal referral of Christopher Steele in essence asks the FBI to investigate a source with whom FBI officials collaborated, and whose evidence they used in a fashion that’s under congressional investigation. (Continued)
The criminal referral was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein-- who himself signed at least one of the questionable wiretap applications using the Steele dossier. (Continued)
Yes, I think the memo (or the info it summarizes) is a big deal. What's "the bigger story" I refer to? It's not that some in the intel community allegedly conspired against Trump-- but *why*: he was the only candidate they feared would threaten the 1/5
2/5 system that has quietly been built below the radar for 10 yrs+ doing questionable things with players that have persisted from administration to administration. They feared he would expose what they've done. How's my computer intrusion lawsuit vs. govt going? Good.. it's
3/5 very tough to sue the govt but we have survived so far despite Obama & Trump @TheJusticeDept fighting us every step of the way. Fri. the judge told DOJ that the intel agencies must comply w/our subpoenas/depositions. Do I think the text messages are "lost"? I believe they