FBI

Inspector General Michael Horowitz's Testimony on FBI Failures Should Be a Wakeup Call for the Media and the GOP

Republicans were wrong to side with the state on privacy issues, and the media was wrong to lionize anti-Trump G-men.

|

Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, making crystal clear what he wrote in his report: The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated, but agents involved in the probe made significant and appalling mistakes.

These mistakes should terrify all Americans. But more importantly, they should prompt serious reflection among surveillance state–supporting Republicans who placed implicit trust in the nation's top law enforcement agency, as well as all those in the mainstream media who uncritically boosted the top men in that agency as #Resistance heroes.

The IG's report and testimony have exposed the FBI's wrongful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which was based on false and conflicting information that somehow made its way into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant—and was then included three subsequent times as part of the warrant's reauthorization. FBI agents knew that the Steele dossier was unreliable and eventually learned that Steele's sub-sources had contradicted what was in the report, but continued with the surveillance anyway. Here's an instructive exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Horowitz:

The irony, of course, is that Graham has been a full-throated defender of FISA courts, domestic surveillance, and other policies that threaten civil liberties. He conceded this during his comments on Wednesday, saying "I'm a pretty hawkish guy, but if the court doesn't take corrective action and do something about being manipulated and lied to, you will lose my support."

The Cassandra of the hour is Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), who has been one of the only Republicans willing to sound the alarm about the potential for the FBI to violate Americans' rights under the current legal regime. Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) admitted that Lee's skepticism of the FISA courts now seems justified.

It's a shame that it took congressional Republicans so long to realize that empowering a vast and secretive bureaucracy to spy on people could easily go disastrously wrong—and it's telling that they have only finally conceded the point because the abuses have been directed at Trump. Moreover, despite their sudden interest in reforming FISA, "nearly all Rs joined most Ds today to reauthorize intelligence activities without reforms to protect Americans' rights," according to Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.). I'm glad some Republicans are apparently reconsidering their reflexive trust of the FBI, but clearly they still have a long way to go.

That's true as well for the mainstream media, which for far too long has given undeserved credit to Trump-critical law enforcement figures like former FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Both have been lionized on cable news and in newspapers. They were routinely labeled brave truth-tellers who took serious personal risks to call out wrongdoing within the administration.

Many of their criticisms of the Trump administration may have been well-founded. But under Comey's watch, the FBI made major errors. Comey and McCabe were directly involved in the decision to rely on the Steele dossier—a decision that the CIA had serious concerns about. Comey later misled the public about the extent of the FBI's reliance on the dossier. Indeed, many in the mainstream media had previously claimed that the dossier was not the only basis for the FBI's interest in Page, because they uncritically believed what the G-men were telling them. We now know that's wrong—the Steele dossier was the FBI's key piece of evidence.

Comey is still trying to spin the IG's report as some kind of vindication. This is delusional and embarrassing. If the media learns anything from this episode, it should be that the fact that Team Trump has ostracized an insufficiently deferential public servant is not enough of a reason to embrace him as a hero and a savior.

The IG report is a wakeup call: for Republicans who foolishly claimed the FBI's secretive spying process was necessary and unthreatening, for anti-Trump media pundits who uncritically parroted the talking points of top officials, and for any Americans who still think it is worth trading away their liberties. If government agents were this sloppy during a politically charged investigation that they knew would put their entire apparatus under the spotlight, it's safe to assume their normal conduct is even worse.

NEXT: The New York Times Continues to Misreport the Trump Executive Order on Antisemitism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Robby, this is the dumbest spin you could have put on this. The Republicans were the first ones to sound the alarm on this round of misdeeds of the FBI. Republicans were saying since the election that the FISA warrants weren’t properly predicated, and have constantly been calling for further investigation and reform of the FBI ever since.

    It was the Democrat’s and the MSM (but I repeat myself) who were lying about the merits of Crossfire Hurricane. The Republicans have largely been vindicated by this report, and will be further still when Durham finishes his investigation, while the Democrats have been shown to be lying toadies of the state.

    I’d tell you to get your head out of your ass, but Reason these days seems like one large human centipede, and thus the task would never end.

    1. Flatulus the GoP has done that *now*. To protect Trump. Outside of that they’ve been – as this article points out – keen supporters (along with the Democrats too!) of the surveillance state.

      They’re all supporters of the surveillance state, until they (or someone important to them) is being surveilled.

      *That’s* what the man is saying. Not that the GoP isn’t jumping up and down about the misdeeds of the security agencies *now* – they are – but that they were supporting those same security agencies just a few short years ago when (they assumed) they were targeting ‘America’s enemies’.

      1. And the Dems are against it when?

        1. When it’s Muslims?
          Sometimes

        2. Wyden has been the most stalwart opponent of this crap, along with a scant handful of Republicans. Every other member of the uniparty supports expanding the power of the state. That would include Trump, who signed the legislation extending and expanding the power of the very bastards who tried taking him down, seemingly on the theory that it was the few bad apples and not the rotten barrel that was to blame.

        3. My god y’all. Do you realize that defense attorneys face this kind of shit everyday in courtrooms all across. Cases are dismissed for all sorts of prosecutorial actions that violate the Constitution. Warrants are notoriously incomplete. There are entire chapters in books of criminal procedure and constitutional law dedicated to police investigatory misconduct. If you knew the first thing about those books you’d realize conservative judges have been excusing police misconduct and finding ways to look the other way since forever.

          It isnt just FISA. No one gets a defense attorney in the room when a warrant is presented to a judge. What’s so special about FISA. The whole damn system is broken.

          1. Holy shit you’re dumb. Some of the biggest areas of police misconduct are in urban centers dimwit. Yet you call out just republicans? One of the big stories was shooting in Houston, a liberal enclave. Wont even get into NYC or Baltimore.

            You really are fucking ignorant.

          2. Pod, I’m going to take your statements at face value. Reading your posts, I think we agree on the FISA courts: They must be completely dismantled and abolished. Do we agree on this?

            1. Why stop there, friend? Fuck yes

              1. Except you’re still justifying the abusive FISA and any information that is the product of it.

              2. Pod, I know we are on different sides of the political spectrum, but I am interested where we, as Americans, can find agreement. I am pretty sure a lot of commenters feel the same way you and I do. The FISA courts must go.

                I am glad we found this point of agreement. And it is quite libertarian, to boot! 🙂

          3. “”If you knew the first thing about those books you’d realize conservative judges have been excusing police misconduct and finding ways to look the other way since forever. “”

            Why call out just conservative judges? It happens with non-conservative judges too.

      2. They’re all supporters of the surveillance state

        Especially the Ron Paul voters. They were the worst.

        1. You’re right to point that out. There are some rock star conservative constitutionalists and some pretty shitty Democrats on these questions.

        2. I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Not a one of them supports the surveillance state.

          1. SIV was being sarcastic because I accused conservatives of being responsible for most of the police state problems.

            1. Our police state problems are very bipartisan.

    2. “There are significant serious failures here on the operation — particularly in connection with FISAs,” Horowitz said. “Whether it was sheer gross incompetence that led to this versus intentional misconduct or anything in between and what the motivations are, I can’t tell you as I sit here today. I don’t have enough evidence to reach a conclusion.”

      Robby didnt bother watching the hearing yesterday.

      1. The cognitive dissonance must be crippling. I can’t wait until November 2020.

    3. The writers here do write some inflaming articles. Las year one of their “dudes” wrote that senior citizens are virtually useless and a drain on our economy with all the gov’t benefits they collect. The useless “reason” writer, BTW, had NO solution for what “it” was yakking about.

  2. “Mistakes” is what you call crimes before they’re prosecuted.

    Yes, “mistakes” were made.

    One of the things the executive summary of the IG’s report makes clear is that it was three different teams that made the same 17 “mistakes”, and all 17 of those “mistakes” weren’t just made by the three different teams that were working this case and applying for the FISA warrant. The “mistakes” were well supervised by the leadership of the FBI. Because doing surveillance on a presidential campaign was so ripe for scrutiny, Comey and his aids oversaw this whole process personally. If you read the tail end of the executive summary, the IG makes it pretty clear in the report that if the three different working groups of however many FBI agents as well as their supervisors and their supervisors’ supervisors all made the same 17 “mistakes” on multiple warrants–over and over again–then they were “mistakes”.

    They were probably orders.

    Think about it. The bottom people of three different groups all made the same mistake the same way four different times? You probably can’t get four of them to agree on where to go to lunch, but when it comes to something as complicated as a warrant application to do surveillance on a presidential candidate, they all agree?

    Either that or they all had the same boss, and he told them what to do. The report calls for a thorough investigation as to who was guilty of what, and there should be an independent counsel appointed immediately.

    1. ““Mistakes” is what you call crimes before they’re prosecuted.
      Yes, “mistakes” were made.”

      There is only one specific condition under which this “investigation” should have occurred in this manner: That condition assumes Trump was an agent for a hostile foreign nation.
      Absent that, Trump should have been informed by the FBI that someone on his staff was under investigation. PERIOD.
      Further, you’d have to be as dumb as Pod to assume that Obo was not notified of this investigation (and therefore the hag was also), and, by ignoring it, condoned it.
      Once Trump was elected, the “investigation” (again, absent the assumption that Trump was an agent) begins to take on the color of a coup and a couple of FBI agents were honest and stupid enough to suggest that was the case in emails.
      That swamp smells of sewage from end to end.

      1. I’ll go further. I don’t know about Brennen or McCabe, but Comey absolutely would not have a bottled water without a CYA memo. There is no chance at all that Comey took on spying on a presidential campaign without authorization from high above. I really doubt he would have accepted the AG’s word on it either.

        No, Comey has the smoking gun in his back pocket, just waiting for the right moment to whip it out. If they were to come after him like they did Manafort, using the threat of decades in jail to force

      2. We already have confirmation Obama was kept in the loop. Horowitz:

        “When we asked Comey about meetings with the White House concerning Crossfire Hurricane, he said that although he did not brief the White House about the investigation, he did mention to President Obama and others at a meeting in the Situation Room that the FBI was trying to determine whether any U.S. person had worked with the Russians in their efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI’s efforts without providing any specifics. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with ‘some association or connection to the Trump campaign.’ Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. Comey did not recall specifically when this meeting took place, but believed it may have been in August 2016.”

        1. We also know that the AG and deputy AG were also in the loop on all decisions. Obama knew and approved.

          1. I’m not sure that is the case, yet = We also know that the AG and deputy AG were also in the loop on all decisions. Obama knew and approved.

            Durham’s criminal investigations will clarify this.

            1. The report says Yates was definitely in the discussions of the FISA applications. There is no reason to believe Lynch didnt know as well.

              1. Perhaps Jesse = here is no reason to believe Lynch didnt know as well. But there is no documentary evidence….yet.

                Personally, I think both AG Lynch and POTUS Obama knew WTF the FBI was doing. What I believe they might not have known was how badly off the rails this investigation went. They probably had people telling them a version of, “Blue skies, green grass”, and they deliberately did not ask questions about it.

                1. So you’re going with incompetence over maliciousness. I’d agree if there wasnt so much repeated pattern on this. Stevens, perry vs texas, Flynn, process crimes instead of crimes, IRS, Yates whole grandstanding after the inauguration, etc. Then you watch political entity after political entity dismissed after findings of violations.

                  At this point they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Too much has been documented in books like Three Felonies a Day.

                  1. And then there’s Obama’s unmasking eo 5 minutes before leaving office

                2. Given the whole “unmasking” scandal going on at the time, basically EVERYBODY was in the loop, because they were getting intelligence reports on the results of the surveillance with the targets identified by name. So, how could they have not known it was going on?

                  1. Like I said….I think they knew about the investigation. How much they knew is up for debate. But this makes me want to give Durham 40 million bucks to find out.


        2. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with ‘some association or connection to the Trump campaign.’

          This is the same Comey that had ‘meticulous notes’ about things Trump said in an informal meeting, right? Curious that he can’t recall exactly what he said when it involves some other U.S. President or their staff.

  3. P.S. President Trump would have to be an idiot to trust the FBI with an investigation of Biden, Biden’s son, and the Ukraine if he knew what we learned in the IG report.

    1. Which is something that needs to be hammered home to Sullum (along with several commenters here) when they talk about how he should have gone through the DoJ for that investigation.

      Its like saying Snowden should have gone through the appropriate whistleblower channels and accepted whatever they did.

      1. Does the DOJ have jurisdiction in Ukraine?

        1. We have a treaty with Ukraine to assist in investigations. But what dumbasses like mike and jeff ignore is that on the transcript Trump tells the PM to contact Barr and work with him. Trump was trying to get Ukraine to work with his DoJ. Dont know why the useful idiots of Reason keep ignoring this point.

          1. Come on, that’s like Horowitz saying he doesn’t know why the FBI kept making all these mistakes.

            1. Fair point.

          2. Well gee Jesse, maybe it’s because I don’t have any objection to Trump working within legitimate channels to pursue an investigation, such as working with the Attorney General.

            What do you want me to say? “PRAISE TRUMP FOR NOT FUCKING IT UP ENTIRELY”?

            1. That would be a first for you. It would show a possibility of the start of some self awareness. But alas, you can’t even go that far in good faith.

            2. Weren’t you on here justifying the impeachment hearings because of the Ukraine call?

        2. “”Does the DOJ have jurisdiction in Ukraine?””

          Actually a fair question. Does any law enforcement agency?

          If the answer is no, then what Rudy is doing over there cannot be prosecuted over here.

        3. No. But that hasn’t stopped some people from insisting that Trump should have assigned them to do the investigation rather than work with the sovereign government that has jurisdiction.

      2. That talking point is but partisan cover.
        Orange man bad
        End justifies means

        1. TDS works both ways, you know.
          You seem to have a terminal case of it.

          1. Lol
            Psychoticjeff flailing away
            Meanwhile, reality is going to keep smacking you around

            1. When you dismiss legitimate arguments as “partisan cover” only because they cast doubt on Dear Leader Trump, then that is YOU with a case of TDS.

              1. If you actually offered legitimate arguments (and didn’t ignore all contrary evidence to your talking points) you might have a point.

              2. i think it’s been well demonstrated that the Bureaucracy will relentlessly fight anything that goes against its wishes.

      3. So Trump cannot trust the DOJ and, moreover, can’t do anything about it, even though he is supposedly “the guy in charge”. He is powerless to exert any executive authority whatsoever over the departments in the executive branch. Therefore he had NO CHOICE but to send his *personal lawyer* to traipse around Europe. Is that the story you’re really going with?

        And it’s interesting that you compare Trump with Snowden. Snowden was a powerless cog facing off against a huge bureaucracy. Trump is not powerless. Trump actually has power to exert his will. So why didn’t he do so?

        1. I don’t have confidence in you surviving the next 5 years

        2. // Is that the story you’re really going with?//

          Did you read the IG report?

          1. So I’ll take that to mean “yes, that’s the story you’re going with”.

            So Trump is a powerless figurehead within the government. Got it.

            1. Did you read the IG report?

        3. What happened when Trump actually fired McCabe and Comey? That should answer your question. Didn’t it result in an insistence that he was obstructing justice and the appointment of a special counsel?

          1. And hasn’t Nadler also referred to these incidents during the impeachment hearings (yes, he did).

  4. Not politically motivated? Then that makes them unprofessional, incompetent and/or stupid.

    De-fund and abolish the FBI and the FISA court.

    1. And every police department in America. This kind of sloppy police work is normal. You fuckers are finally seeing it because it’s politically expedient to see it and hype it. But you still don’t understand the bigger picture. There are no cases to dismiss because these alleged cases. No arrests were made. The part of investigation affected by these mistakes never got off the ground. Unlike most mfers who get arrested on trash warrants and have hope they win on some pretrial motion. That never happened here.

      1. There are no cases to dismiss because of these alleged *mistakes* because Page was never prosecuted and the mistakes were immaterial to the other parts of the investigation.

        1. You literally just argued illegal warrants are fine as long as they arent used in trial. Holy shit.

          It was fine his rights were abused because orange man bad. We get it pod. You’re a joke of a person.

          1. I didn’t argue it was fine only that normally the recourse for the police mistakes and misconduct that happens all the time is you get your case dismissed and maybe a civil lawsuit rarely if it’s atomic bomb bad and super obvious misconduct but conservative have built up through legal precedent all sorts ways for cops to get away with their mistakes and misconduct.

            1. Again… you day republicans and ignore the rampant corruption of every major democratic controlled city. You really are a useful idiot.

              And yes, you are arguing the rest of Mueller was fine even though Mueller began on a false prediction. You are a joke.

              1. No I don’t ignore it when it happens in the “big cities”. I just know this story. “Soft on crimes Liberals” have been demonized for trying to reform criminal procedure but here we are in Trump bizarro land and now the FBI is bad. FISA is bad. Surveillance is bad. Police bad. Whatever though. I’m glad Republicans are taking notice.

                1. But Trump still deserves it, right? Love the deflection.

        2. The entire Mueller investigation was predicated on the Dossier and Page dimwit. We now know all that was bullshit. 2.5 years and 40 million dollars for an investigation predicated on false evidence. And you’re fine with it. Are you fine with police planting drugs in Hope’s of finding other crimes as well? Where does your corruption end Pod?

          1. The Mueller investigation was first about the Russian crimes which happened and secondly about whether anyone in Trump’s campaign were involved in the election interference. Those are pretty narrow questions. I wouldn’t have expected the Russian govt to directly involved Americans in every aspect of their plotting. The Russians didn’t need any assistance hacking and trolling. They would have exposed the very people they were trying to help win the election had they involved them in the hacking.

            Now amazingly we did learn that Trump’s campaign manager was passing polling data to a Russian spy, working for a Russian oligarch, changing the Republican platform to benefit Russia and that he had done the same kind of work for Russia’s benefit in the Ukraine.

            1. It’s like you see the FISA investigation and how bullshit the Dossier is… but you refuse to actually see it. Your whole defense ignores what we have witnessed this week. Literally everything you wrote is predicated on Steele. Mueller found no coordination between Russia and Trump. Thatbwas his report. Then on top of that you push a false narrative on Manafort calling his Ukraine connections russian spies. My God man, you are a dishonest joke. polls are now sensitive information that most not be published! Alert the news media!

              Wow…

              1. Manafort’s guy was a Russian agent and his oligarch patron is a Russian Putin oligarch. You really should know that by now.

                1. You’re laughably wrong. But keep up the narrative like the useful idiot you are.

                  Based on your description of russian agents, many democrats are in bed with Russian agents as well.

        3. By the way Pod… I can tell you didnt even bother to read the report or even venture outside of Vox for analysis. Because the report actually discusses the use of CHS and investigatory techniques on at least 4 individuals, not just page. Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Trump were all spied on per the report. The first two contacted by CHS and the latter two were investigated under the pretense of defensive briefings but were actual meetings that attempted to gain investigatory information as 302s were written after.

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaign

          So no it wasnt just page you ignoramus.

          1. I was talking about surveillance, spying. They should have done more and looked at Manafort sooner but then again I can see now why they were hesitant because of the politics. It’s a hell of a thing when the President is a crook.

            1. “”They should have done more and looked at Manafort sooner “”

              Done by what agency, with what warrant, under what court?

            2. Manafort was investigated(along with the Podesta brothers) in 2015. For some “unknown” reason, investigators decided to stop the investigation into Manafort (and the Podesta brothers). They restarted the investigation into Manafort (an not the Podesta brothers for some “unknown” reason) when he joined the Trump campaign. Everything Manafort was convicted of he did during his work with the Podesta Group( own by the Podesta brothers).

              1. “”an not the Podesta brothers for some “unknown” reason””

                Unknown is not how you spell Hillary.

      2. Pod is so stupid he thinks all officers are republican and ignores the corruption from cities like New York, chicago, baltimore, etc.

      3. What about the black guys that just committed hate crimes against Jews in jersey city? Tell me about that.

        1. Local news story. Nothing to see.

        2. It’s a big world filled with all kinds of crazy.

          1. Lol. He actually did go with the local news story dismissal. Fucking hilarious.

            1. Oh I guess you wanted me to say that we found some of the 5% of black people who support Trump.

              1. Making shit up again.

      4. Imagine being such a partisan hack you accuse LIBERTARIANS of not knowing about the rampant abuses, misconduct and shitty police work that has gone on for at least as long as I’ve been alive.

        Go eat a bag of dicks, that has been in our wheelhouse for at least 40 years.

        1. I never accused libertarians of not knowing about this. Do libertarians even comment here l?

          1. Obviously not in your case, nor ChemJeff’s, nor Mike L, etc.

  5. “ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, making crystal clear what he wrote in his report: The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated”

    Sen. Crapo: “But if someone were to characterize what you are telling us to be that you’re telling us there is no bias here, that’s not what you’re telling us?”

    Horowitz: “That is not, as to the, operations of these FISA’s what I’m telling you.”

    Just can’t stop lying, can you Robby?

    1. In fairness, that is the only thing that any of the major networks are covering. They all say the same thing, and go further to conclude that Trump should admit that he has been lying about the FBI and apologize to everyone he has lied about.

      CNN has been especially big on this point, to the exclusion of all else for long stretches of time.

      1. What Horowitz actually said is he couldnt find documented evidence of bias and nobody admitted to it. He said the opening of the investigation required such a small bar to pass and no bias for that could be proved. He then goes on to talk about how they made the wrong choice to keep the investigation open every step after the opening, and he wont say there was no bias there, he just had no proof.

      2. In fairness? So to be fair, we must accept that the standards for reporting at Reason is the information being provided by other media sources, and not the actual, public information available?

        That’s what CNN is reporting, so what’s poor Robby to do?

        1. Then again yesterday ENB had to make a correction on the EO story after she treated the NYT reporting as fact, so I guess that is their standard.

    2. Horowitz WAS crystal clear… Reason is just STRAIGHT UP LYING about it.

      He was asked, point blank, about such a characterization of his findings and he said, quite directly, that such a characterization is wrong.

      1. As long as it convinces even one dimwit, it is worth insulting the intelligence of everybody else.

        1. Sadly it seems that such tactics are convincing more than one dimwit… and that the body of people that would be considered “everybody else” in your statement is a shrinking, tiny fraction of the population.

          While hope may spring eternal in my mind that all this can be made better, my life expectancy will most likely not keep up.

          1. I think it the dimwits online, like Jeff, Laursen, Pod, etc., are over-represented. Everyone sees them as the idiots that they are and, overall, they are tiny percent of the eligible electorate. Still, they are crucial and if you don’t pander to the insane asylum, you probably can’t win.

  6. Yes, we should be appalled at this yeah but Trump? Eh, he’s ok.

    I’d tell Reason to wake the fuck up along with all the cultist commenters but it’s a waste of breath.

    To act as if Reason, a Koch funded magazine, is at all above the fray is laughable.

    1. When the next civil war starts up (and the Dems trying another impeachment might just be the turning point), I really hope you end up eating your own shoe leather to try to keep from starving to death.

      1. Pelosi admitted yesterday that this impeachment has been happening for 22 months… but Reason is still going with the Ukraine bad angle. Another Democrat is already talking more illegal warrants on trump and more impeachment after 2020 ..

        Reason has done a shit job and looks like part of the State with their coverage here.

        1. Reason has every incentive to support Trump’s removal from office since he threatens, at least with his rhetoric if not his actions, the flow of cheap, illegal labor upon which Koch industries relies. Let’s not forget who really pays the bills around this place.

    2. wearingit
      December.11.2019 at 10:13 pm
      “Yes, we should be appalled at this yeah but Trump? Eh, he’s ok….”

      Fucking lefty ignoramuses like you keep trying guilt-by-innuendo and succeed in proving you are fucking lefty ignoramuses.

  7. Reason has disappointed on this article. How can any objective journalists believe these whopping 17 omissions and mischaracterizations were just “accidental mistakes”, any one of which would have invalidated the entire investigation? It’s a rather convenient, strategic, large set of “mistakes”.

    It’s clear what happened. The IG had to take people at their word, everyone was smart enough not to send emails with too much detail on the “insurance policy”. But it’s plainly obvious this was an intentional and politically motivated abuse of unconstitutional snoop powers.

    What I read into this is the FBI can start an investigation on anyone in the country for the flimsiest of reasons, the IG called this the extremely “low bar”. The FBI can then conveniently ignore exculpatory evidence and other findings that might invalidate the investigation, and have this malfeasance only ever considered to be “accidental mistakes of omission”.

    It’s disgusting and even more disappointing Reason is towing the MSM line on this one.

    1. Taking an email and editing it to mean the exact opposite of what was written and using that in an affidavit is not a “mistake”. It can’t even be seriously argued as a mistake. That is a deliberate deceptive act that is a direct violation of the law.

      The same goes for the “verification” of the Steele dossier. They went to interview Steele’s main source. The source cooperated and they found the source to be credible. Problem is, the source version did not match what Steele recorded in the dossier. So it completely undermines the Steele Dossier.

      So what do they put in their affidavit to the court? “We interviewed the source and found him to be credible and reliable”. No mention that he credibly and reliably refuted the Steele dossier, giving the impression that this interview confirmed the veracity of the dossier.

      That ain’t a mistake. That’s a felony.

      1. “”That ain’t a mistake. That’s a felony.””

        Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. That’s the problem with secret courts. The rules are often in secret.

  8. “I’m a pretty hawkish guy, but if the court doesn’t take corrective action and do something about being manipulated and lied to, you will lose my support.”

    Lindsay is going to huff and puff for a bit longer then get reassurances that important and high-ranking people will get special exemptions, and thus assured he’ll keep supporting the surveillance regime. Prove me wrong!

  9. IG: The FBI didn’t treat Trump any different from Joe Blow.

    JOE BLOW: Oh, man, I’m screwed now.

    1. Trump was never looked into. They never surveilled him. He was never the subject of anything warrant. And Page wasn’t even on the campaign when he was surveilled and he was the only person they ever surveilled. No one else was under heighten surveillance (I realize we’re all subject to low grade surveillance at all times.) Manafort obviously should have been and had he been they might have caught his conversation with the Russian spy but they didn’t even surveil him. Y’all are fucking stupid.

      1. You keep rationalizing illegal surveillance buddy.

        1. I’m understanding it. I understand it. I understand that Page was never charged. I understand that Page would never have even known he was looked into in the normal course of these things. Page got special consideration and treatment because of politics but I’m glad the attention was put on the FBI no matter the motive.

          1. Now do the whole Ukraine thing with the same justifications you partisan hack.

      2. Did you read the IG report?

  10. Team Trump has ostracized an insufficiently deferential public servant”

    Oh Robbie… not you too.

    1. The corruption of those living in deep blue urban centers is strong.

  11. These people could fuck up a bowl of cereal. I mean, how long do we allow this incompetence to go on? What the hell is going on down there? I was raised to believe these are the cream of the crop – these people couldn’t fucking find their way out of a Chinese finger trap! These fucking idiots had the intel on 9/11 and fucking dropped it! It’s just money down a fucking hole! What the fuck??

    1. Thank you for sharing the executive summary of the report.

      1. I’m a reasonable guy, and I’ve just seen some unreasonable things. How long before we look into the soup bowl and see enough? The TSA, CIA, NSA, DEA, ICE… who can keep track of all this shit? When does the federal bureaucracy become a direct threat to the constitution? We crossed the rubicon ages ago – these fuckers covered
        hoover’s Tracks and fed misinformation to the House Select Committee on Assassinations! The FBI crime lab lied on hundreds of hair analyses over a decades long time frame, many in capital murder cases! I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog to take a shit.

        1. Question is: what’re you (we) going to do about it?

        2. You’re right. Things need to change but I’m afraid we’re up against human nature and it’s going to take some smart and insightful mfers to straighten this shit up.

          1. “”it’s going to take some smart and insightful mfers to straighten this shit up.””

            So I guess there hasn’t been any of them since 1978?

    1. Random shit that happens not so randomly.

  12. For a person who is skeptical of those with power in the government, it’s rather odd Robby seems to swallow the whole “no bias was found” conclusion rather easily. It would be nice to find a Reasonable outlet that wasn’t suffering from TDS just as it would be nice to find one that isn’t a cheerleader either.

    1. I think it’s clear from all the evidence there was absolutely no political bias.

      1. Subtle. Good work.

      2. And the mistakes never served any real purpose other than to discredit other parts of the investigation that don’t deserve criticism.

        1. So you don’t think these “mistakes” served a purpose of aiding the investigators?

      3. Love the parody accounts.

        1. He got me yesterday
          Well done

      4. “”I think it’s clear from all the evidence there was absolutely no political bias.””

        Uh, no. It’s not clear at all.

  13. Once again, he did not say the FBI investigation was “Not politically motivated”. He said he had no evidence that it was politically motivated.

    This is a huge distinction.

    He also said he had no evidence that it was not politically motivated.

    I think the standard of proof he was looking for was a confession.

    One question that wasn’t asked….. what did “everyone know” about the investigation. Because they say “everyone knew” that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and was holding the aid because of that. But nobody ever heard it said.

    I’m gonna go ahead and guess that “everyone knew” that the point of the investigation was to get Trump. Otherwise, they are a bunch of insane people. Their actions make no sense at all if they are taken at their word that they “had information regarding a threat from the Russians to infiltrate the Trump campaign”. But if the mission was to spy on the Trump campaign… well, then they make a lot more sense.

    1. Actually, what he said was that he had “no documentary or testimonial evidence” that things were politically motivated. IOW, nobody confessed.


    2. Because they say “everyone knew” that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and was holding the aid because of that. But nobody ever heard it said.

      They heard the New York Times say it in their pages, and like Reason they took that as the gospel truth. True story.

  14. One of the many things exposed by this is the idiocy of no accountability for false warrants. It ought to be perjury for those who wrote it, the judge who signed it, and those who executed it.

    But somewhere along the line, violating the 4th amendment was handled by excluding the evidence as fruit of the poisoned tree. Those who poisoned that tree get off scot-free, ready, willing, and eager to poison more trees, with no accountability whatsoever. Even defense attorneys have to fight just to find out if the cops involved in their case have a history of lying.

    And then you end up with blatant nonsense like drug dealers with hundreds of pounds of contraband getting off because the evidence was obtained falsely, which is fine for the immoral and unconstitutional war on some drugs, but all it really does is piss off the public, who ignore that the cops were at fault because all they hear from prosecutors and cops is how criminals are getting away with heinous crimes.

    It’s a lose-lose-lose situation, and all because judges and prosecutors and legislators don’t want to hold cops and judges accountable for lying on warrants.

    1. Amen you nailed it.

    2. +1

    3. If the public is pissed off because bad acting LEOs abuse the system. Fuck em. I would rather have people held accountable and a pissed off public than a system running amok just to keep the sheep from being upset.

  15. The media aren’t going to turn on the FBI over the Horowitz report. All it reveals is that the FBI adheres to the same standards the media themselves use: Do whatever it takes to advance the narrative, claim anything you did wrong was an innocent “mistake”, and never admit you’re biased.

    As for the GOP and the FBI, the intelligence services in general? I suspect that we passed some tipping point a while back, where the intelligence services got so much power to spy on Americans, politicians included, that they’re now the untouchable guardians of the nation’s blackmail files. And not enough members of Congress are clean enough to survive challenging them.

    1. Well said.

  16. Inspector General Michael Horowitz (Obama appointee) said their was no political bias, and as evidence, he introduced his statement that their was no political bias!

  17. “…Team Trump has ostracized an insufficiently deferential public servant….”

    No, Team Trump ostracized a vacuous, conceited jackass.

  18. I have to say, what I heard yesterday was frightening.

    The FBI lied to the FISA court no less than a dozen separate times in order to obtain warrants to spy on a presidential campaign. Lied to the Court? A dozen times?! Are you serious? Ordinary citizens are jailed for years for far less. Something just short of complete dismantlement of the FBI is warranted.

    Apparently, nobody across these three FBI investigative teams ever stopped to think, “You know what, this is some pretty heavy duty shit spying on a presidential campaign. Maybe we should check with the Attorney General and the current President”. What an appalling lack of command judgment! Considering the function of the FBI, that is just fucking dangerous. And Christopher Wray just sounds like a total boob. I’m sorry POTUS Trump, you made a mistake putting him there. Now please, fire his ass and get somebody else. The man is a stunod.

    After 41 years of existence, I think the jury just came back on the question of even having FISA courts. Um….NFW. The consistent and egregious abuse of our individual civil rights absolutely mandates dismantlement of the FISA courts entirely.

    Now I generally like Soave’s articles but he missed the mark when he wrote, The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated, but agents involved in the probe made significant and appalling mistakes. That is not what Horowitz testified. What Horowitz testified was there was no documentary evidence (like an email or memo) or testimonial evidence (like a person telling the IG that Peter Strozok or Lisa Page was biased). That is a very important distinction, and Soave should have had the intellectual honesty to say that. Durham’s investigation will be illuminating on this point.

    Final point. Our country has been irreparably harmed by these clearly illegal actions. At each point, there was a process to follow (or no process). The FBI would like you to believe that each process step was done fully in accordance with established guidelines. It is when you look at them in the aggregate that it becomes much more clear what was happening here.

    I can only hope that our elected leaders take a step back, and fix this shit.

    1. Robby just demonstrates how the useful idiots can push a narrative faster than the truth. See pod, jeff, Mike, etc all saying the same ignorant bullshit.

      It has been clear over the last 2 weeks that the Reason editors dont actually read source material but simply scan summary reports or concurrent narratives as the basis of their facts. Billy and Sullum constant filled articles on testimony only using the written opening statements as an example. And even after the testimony continued to only utilize the written testimony. They arent real journalists, they are lazy hacks. They also tend to live in urban centers that are extremely biased to Democrats, which also taints their analysis.

      This impeachment has exposed Reasons editors as not actual libertarians, just the classic drug and sex authoritarians that mask leftists who dont want to pretend to not like the DNC. Notice the lack of any article here quoting even a single democratic statement on impeachment as an example. It is always Republicans Pounce. It is a joke.

      1. I think you’re going in the right direction here, Jesse.

        I would add that Reason’s inability to print the truth is because the writers don’t wish to run afoul of their corporate masters, nor their acquaintances in those “urban centers” they haunt. Thus, every essay so far about the IG report comes out as, “The FBI sucks, but Trump does too.”

      2. //Robby just demonstrates how the useful idiots can push a narrative faster than the truth. See pod, jeff, Mike, etc all saying the same ignorant bullshit.//

        They are banking on the fact that there are probably millions of Pods, Jeffs, and Mikes eager to swallow the nonsense and ask for seconds.

        //This impeachment has exposed Reasons editors as not actual libertarians, just the classic drug and sex authoritarians that mask leftists who don’t want to pretend to not like the DNC.//

        Bingo. Well said.

      3. LOL that’s rich.

        ALL YOU DO, Jesse, is cite right-wing sources. If it’s not in the Daily Wire or Breitbart, it doesn’t exist. ALL YOU DO. Every day. It is a little bit rich to see you complaining about others that they “aren’t real journalists” because they aren’t writing pieces friendly enough to Republicans.

        1. Neutral Jeff, with his neutral analysis. Fucktard.

          1. He just can’t help himself from confirming all the criticisms made of him

  19. I’m sorry, but I am skeptical that this was not politically motivated. There are two possibilities. One is that they wanted to get Trump and were willing to break laws to get at him. The other is that this is routine, and the very people in charge of upholding the law brazenly and repeatedly flout it at every opportunity to get at any offender.

    To be frank, saying that it was political is the lesser of the two problems. If repeated perjury is routine, then this is even more concerning.

    1. YES! the possibility that it was not politically motivated is far more concerning. Abolishing the FISA courts is the only thing to do at this point, although it will never happen.

    2. Ben, I was making this point yesterday.

      If it’s not politically motivated we have a much, much larger problem.
      The FBI is a rogue agency that feels no need to follow the rules.
      However, some of us have believed that for decades. CONINTELPRO being one example.

  20. Has someone, anyone…given valid reason the FBI would lie and falsify records, other than political bias? Go on, and do have it make sense, yeah?

    1. What purpose did the lies serve? The investigation of Page never resulted in his prosecution or the prosecution of anyone else. There’s no fruit of the *alleged poisonous tree. Ironically though these alleged mistakes may now bear fruit for Trump politically.

      1. //What purpose did the lies serve?//

        Oh, just harmless white lies. Not like this bullshit cost millions and drove the nation into a divisive and false investigation of the President all because the elite talent in the FBI decided they didn’t like the results of the election.

        Unbelievable.

        1. I know… I mean, it’s not like it didn’t create a narrative that anything POTUS does is tainted. It didn’t create a context of “Well… since we already established Trump is foul, even the smallest things must be considered as crony at best, criminal at worst.”

          It didn’t help support the claim that Trump is illegitimate, or unfit, or deserving of being removed from office.

          Nope… didn’t do any of that.

        2. Do a search for Cater Page on Reason and look as some of the previous articles. It’s interesting.

          1. It’s obvious that the purpose Pod does not was to admit was to spread propaganda in the media. Even Reason fell for it.

      2. 1. The investigators were on a fishing expedition to get unknown actual offenses to hurt Trump with. (Turns out, the guy is remarkably clean since they didn’t fine anything.)

        2. They were trying to entrap Trump and anybody associated with him in the old standbys: lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice.

        3. Once the investigation moved out into the open, they used it to sabotage his presidency, by leaking, making biased public disclosure, and harassing anybody who worked with Trump politically or in business.

        1. “Mistakes were made.”

        2. “Turns out, the guy is remarkably clean since they didn’t fine anything.”

          And this might be the most amazing thing of all – dude has to be the cleanest high level politician of the last century, otherwise they’d have found something with the incredible amount of dirt digging and straight frame-ups they’ve been doing

          1. The very fact that the FBI had to actively fabricate evidence in order to obtain a warrant from a court that, in practice, rubber stamps warrant applications belies the oft repeated canard that Trump is a preeminently corrupt individual with a myriad skeletons in his closet.

            //dude has to be the cleanest high level politician of the last century//

            Certainly seems to be the case and it is driving the zombies in beltway absolutely bonkers.

          2. That’s my take away, too. Never in my wildest dreams did I think they could throw this many resources into looking into Trump, and not find SOME crime. Yet, here we are, they haven’t even nailed him on a parking violation.

            1. Brett….you have to wonder. Two hundred years from now, what will our descendants say about this time in our history?

          3. Think about this–with all the ridiculous real estate shenanigans and hob-nobbing with political and entertainment celebrities, the worst thing they’ve ever found on Trump is that he fucked a porn star and had her sign an NDA to not talk about it. Several years of his taxes supposedly being under an audit, and no one in the IRS “resistance” is leaking anything from that.

      3. “”What purpose did the lies serve?””

        To get warrants they would not have gotten through lawful means. To create an investigation that would be hinted by unnamed people to the media to provide a narrative of corruption by Russia of an incoming president.

        Google Carter Page and look at the article you find.

  21. What Happened?

    The conclusion in IG Horowitz’s report explicitly whitewashes the black misdeeds within the so-called Department of Justice. His words speak for themselves as follows:

    “Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted NSD’s Office of Intelligence (01) in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information.”

    Then, in his testimony before the U.S. Senate, he implicitly indicted the perpetrators of apparent treason within the DoJ. What happened in between?

    As described n Retribution Fever, Big Government has become way too big with self-serving bureaucrats having created a fourth branch known as “The Administrative State”. Consequence? Tyranny.

    It must end! Who will end it? Only we the people. How?

    “Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

    1. The report actually whitewashed the opening. Horowitz states there is basically no bar to open an investigation and they were responding to a report from an ally. He claims from there on out he cant say whether bias exists.

      It will be fun, however, when Durham’s investigation shows the investigation started before the August date the fbi claims.

      1. The whole plot started in December 2015

      2. As someone who’s worked in and with government for awhile, I don’t think the IG “whitewashed” their report so much as did what IG’s almost always do…put out a report that is favorable to the organization for which they work by giving the interpretation most generous to the organization.

        I think it’s helpful to understand that the IG is basically just another version of HR. HR isn’t there to protect employees, it’s there to protect the company. If the employee is right and the employer did something wrong, and it’s better for the company to find a way to throw the employee under the bus, that’s usually what HR will do.

        In the IG’s case, they’ll do an investigation, they’ll make harsh observations and assign blame or malicious intent when it benefits the organization for which they work, but when it is exceptionally damaging to an organization for them to do so, they’re going to look for the most favorable and low-conflict interpretation. In a case like this, where you have obvious criminal behavior, they’re just going to punt and let the criminal investigators (Durham in this case) deal with the punitive actions, because the IG isn’t suited to deal with that level of misbehavior anyway. Is it b.s.? Sure…but that’s consistent with what normally happens with Inspectors General. Righting wrongs isn’t really their job. That’s where the criminal investigators come in.

    2. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
      -Thomas Jefferson

      1. Comey, McCabe, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and many others, should have their heads put on fucking pikes for this shit.

  22. The IG report is a wakeup call: for Republicans who foolishly claimed the FBI’s secretive spying process was necessary and unthreatening, for anti-Trump media pundits who uncritically parroted the talking points of top officials, and for any Americans who still think it is worth trading away their liberties.

    For Americans, it also means that we should never trust the media, because they simply parrot talking points made my government officials and do most of their “research” by reading twitter.

  23. I’ve been very skeptical about whether anything will happen to these folks and the ridiculous conclusions of the Horowitz report confirm that skepticism.

    However I can’t see where Barr/Durham can conclude “nothing to see here” after all of this based on their reactions to the IG report.

    But its not just some low level “viva la resistance” attorney here. It goes all the way to Obama. Do they have the guts to take it there?

    1. Doubt it.
      They might go up to Brennan… though I’m skeptical as to even that

    2. Not if they aren’t planning to commit “suicide”.

  24. There is some analogy to Watergate, which was a robbery to illegally obtain information about a political opponent. Government agencies were not used, it was the campaign that did the break in, and the evidence we have seems to suggest Nixon didn’t authorize the break in but attempted to cover it up.

    Here government agencies were used and I really doubt that underlings including Comey did this on their own.

    1. I mean, the CIA is a government agency isn’t it?

  25. I take exception to the first sentence, “The FBI investigation … was not politically motivated, …” The 17 errors could only be explained by gross incompetence or persistent malfeasance. That the errors were all in the same direction (i.e. anti-Trump), seems to eliminate incompetence as a sole purpose. After all, what are the chances that 17 random errors all support the FISA application? Let me suggest an answer, not good! In his report, as well as during the December 11 hearing, Mr. Horowitz claimed he didn’t have testimony or documents to prove political bias. Yet, he admitted that because of his mandate, he couldn’t determine motive but remained suspicious. So, ‘the jury is still out’ regarding political bias. Perhaps Mr. Durham will clarify the situation.

  26. The author is incorrect and misleading, just like the MSM… Horowitz did not imply that there was no political motivation, in fact, he suggested that there is much more to find out, that it is very odd that the mistakes were just poor judgement… his scope was limited, and came to the conclusion that much more needs to be discovered to discover the evidence of true motivations… which we already know from the hearing in the senate yesterday with Lindsey Graham. There was tremendous bias along with an anti-Trump fervor.

  27. It should be a wake-up call to Reason’s Robby Soave for dismissing this as simple “mistakes” when clearly there was no way to “accidentally” make so many “mistakes” (including the “mistake” of editing an email to say the opposite of what it said) that all had the effect of keeping an illegitimate politically motivated investigation going. I call on Reason to do a more objective analysis of the IG’s report and not take part in white washing this terrible situation. We come here for journalism that’s a cut above the crap we get on MSM.

  28. The challenge facing the media was identified as a possibility early on (in a book IRRATIONAL MAN by Wm Barrett published in 1962): “Journalism has become a great god of the period, and gods have a way of ruthlessly and demonically taking over their servitors.”

    For over three years now, the media has demonically demonized Trump (and those who voted him into office) … proving beyond dispute this prediction from 57 years ago. And this not only on account of their demonizing, but in actually acting as ruthless gods.

  29. “FBI agents knew that the Steele dossier was unreliable and eventually learned that Steele’s sub-sources had contradicted what was in the report”

    What part of it is unreliable? Last I checked, not a single aspect of it had been disproved, and many of the claims had been proved.


    1. What part of it is unreliable? Last I checked, not a single aspect of it had been disproved, and many of the claims had been proved.

      So, you’ve never checked? You certainly haven’t checked today, that much is certain.

  30. Everybody seems to miss the most likely reason that smart J. Edgar Hoover FBI soldiers would make these errors. They were following orders. Calling them agents rather than soldiers is nice but we all know the type. They are good, patriotic people; they follow orders because they believe those issuing the orders are protecting America. So, who had the power to issue those orders?

  31. I don’t think Michael Horowitz had all of the information he needed to dismiss the political nature of The FBI’s malfeasance. When everything comes out it will show that the obamanation administration spied on numerous people before President Trump, abused their positions and power.
    The only crimes committed here have been the ones by Democrats and Anti-Trumpers, mostly from obamanation administration officials involved in the Seditious and Treasonous Illegal Spying, FISA abuse, Insurance Policy, and attempted Coup. We are now in Coup 2.0 or 3.0 depending on how you look at it.
    All of these corrupt officials and folks involved need to be held accountable for their crimes. All of Them: barry soetoro ( aka: obama ), hillary clinton, joe biden, john brennan, jim comey, jim clapper, andrew mccabe, nancy pelosi, adam schiff, rinat akhmetsin, edward baumgartner, sidney blumenthal, gregory brower, john carlin, thomas catan, kevin clinesmith, elizabeth dibble, marc elias, noah feldman, jonathan finer, peter fritsch, michael J. gaeta, tashina gauhar, mary jacoby, daniel jones, colin kahl, kathleen kavalec, neil king jr., david laufman, lewis lukens, robbie mook, mary mccord, robert mueller, shailagh murray, victoria nuland, lisa page, joseph pientka, rod rosenstein, cody shearer, glenn simpson, peter strzok, jake sullivan, michael sussmann, george toscas, thomas williams, jonathan winer, and many more.
    18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States…” Treason has ever been deemed the highest crime which can be committed in civil society; since its aim is an overthrow of the Government and a public resistance by force of its just powers, its tendency is to create universal danger and alarm, and on this account, it has often been visited with the deepest public resentment. Attempting to overthrow a sitting President is considered overthrowing the government.
    “If that f’ing bastard [Donald Trump] wins, we all hang from nooses.” ~ Hillary Clinton after the Commander-In-Chief Forum on September 7, 2016 when moderator Matt Lauer went “off script” and asked Hillary about her using an illegal, private email-server when she was secretary of state. She knew what they were doing was wrong and what the punishment is. Just remember, there was 4 Conspirators that were hung over The Lincoln Assassination.

    1. There has to be an exchange of power for a coup.

      1. “There has to be an exchange of power for a coup.”

        There is no such requirement for an attempted coup; nice try, fail.

      2. BTW, new sock, which lefty ignoramus are you trying to hide?

  32. “The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated”
    That’s utter bullshit. Why are you repeating it?

  33. “At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.” ~ Joseph Sobran

  34. Mueller says he cannot clear or convict Trump on collusion = Republicans are innocent!

    Horowitz says he cannot clear or convict the FBI on bias = Democrats are guilty.

    Good stuff. They are all screwing us. Allegiance to either of the parties means you are one of the tools they use.

    1. “Mueller says he cannot clear or convict Trump on collusion”

      Bullshit. His claim was he did not have evidence enough to charge Trump with “obstruction of justice”.
      Lame apologists should at least get their facts straight.

  35. Robby. Robby, Robby, you fail to add things up historically. who is Lois Lehner? who was in charge in 2016 when this occurred? who got a pass on revealing state and Intel secrets through an unauthorized server? who got a free pass on explaining and lying about Benghazi?, so much is involved in this huge cover-up. and you miss it. Reason is becoming a shadow of itself, because of rookies like you.

  36. the impeachment attacks started before Trump got elected, Why? Because he’s a disruptor, and a reformer, he is not a politician, but ran on cleaning house, the bureaucratic state is running scared, so they go on the offensive, it’s as plain as plain can be. and the dems stand to lose their bureaucratic constituency, why you think the 4 richest counties in America now surround DC??

  37. “Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, making crystal clear what he wrote in his report: The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated, but agents involved in the probe made significant and appalling mistakes.”

    Beyond “too kind”; call it a white-wash.
    Someone was kind enough to link a National Review article, and the lefties here are more than welcome to whine about the source. But not about what was factually reported:
    “Worse, most of the media had buried the lede. An honest headline would have read something like: “Obama’s FBI cooked up evidence to keep rickety investigation into Trump campaign going.”
    From yesterday’s hearing:
    Senator Ted Cruz: “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?”
    Horowitz: “That’s correct.”
    This isn’t a matter of “sloppiness,” as so many of the FBI’s defenders had insisted. A lawyer for the nation’s top law-enforcement agency, run by the Obama administration, concocted evidence and modified emails to use in warrant application, which was the “basis” of a sworn statement in court. All of it to keep open, during an election season, a “low threshold” counterintelligence investigation into the opposition party’s political campaign….”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-obamas-administrations-fisa-abuse-is-a-massive-scandal/?amp

  38. This is exactly why I am no longer a subscriber of reason magazine. It’s authors only call out Republicans, when it’s Trump and other Republicans who are the only politicians fighting for our liberties. I’m beginning to suspect that reason is full of LINOS (libertarians in name only) who are really radical liberals posing as libertarians in order to help keep us in chains. It’s time to wake up and realize who the real enemy is, the Democrats. I can’t help but think that Katherine Mangu-Ward is leading the liberal takeover of reason. Cancel your subscription, until reason runs out of money and they are forced to replace their top brass.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.