themarketswork

a common sense approach to a liberal world

Bombshell Moments from Day Two of the Inspector General’s Testimony

by

Day Two of the Inspector General’s Testimony proved far more crucial than Day One. Many new details were revealed.

The following are testimony highlights (tweet source links below):

  • IG Michael Horowitz has confirmed, under oath, that he is reviewing if FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump bias impacted the launch of the Russia probe.
  • Horowitz noted significant political bias “Almost everything we found was…anti-Trump”
  • FBI Agents were taking bribes from Reporters. “Over 50+ agents with 300+ interactions. We wanted to make this public.”
  • Horowitz noted the FBI was refusing to allow Anti-Trump Agents to be named, citing their employ by Counterintelligence. Horowitz later showed this to be false.
  • Obama’s email contacts with Clinton’s Server was noted.
  • Hillary Clinton was Not formally under FBI Investigation at any time in 2015-2016.
  • FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe.
  • Horowitz noted that Bias may have influenced outcome of Clinton Investigation. “It could have and we don’t rule it out.”
  • Horowitz testified that the two unidentified biased FBI investigators assigned to the Mueller investigation have been removed. At least one of them was removed due to anti-Trump text messages.
  • Horowitz confirmed that an original draft of his 568-pp report was subsequently redlined by DOJ/FBI higher-ups.
  • Horowitz stated he’s no longer convinced the FBI was collecting all of Strzok’s and Page’s text messages. Many texts may be missing. An investigation into this is ongoing.
  • FBI Director Wray would neither confirm nor deny that AG Sessions has asked him to reopen some aspect of the Clinton email case.
  • Horowitz noted that one of the unidentified pro-Clinton FBI investigators referred for discipline was one of the agents who interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016, along with Strzok.
  • Mark Meadows noted possible editing of 302 summary reports. See Video towards bottom.
  • Horowitz confirmed that he is investigating allegations that FBI officials “edited” 302 summary reports of interviews with witnesses and suspects in the 2016-2017 investigations. This could include 302s involving Michael Flynn.
  • Meadows outed two of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by Horowitz. Both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in counterintelligence as the FBI claimed – as an excuse to w/hold their names. They are Sally Moyer and Kevin Clinesmith.
  • Meadows noted that both FBI attorneys work/worked for Trisha Anderson, then Office of Legal Counsel, FBI – not Counterintelligence.
  • Following the IG’s testimony it was reported that FBI Agent Strzok was escorted out of the FBI Building on Friday. See bottom.

Trey Gowdy led the questioning of IG Horowitz off for the second day. The following video contains Horowitz’s opening statement followed by Trey Gowdy’s questioning. A transcript of Gowdy’s questioning is provided.

Gowdy begins at the 8:00 mark:

GOWDY: Inspector General Horowitz, I want to go back to a couple minutes on the issue of intent. I mean am I correct, is that your understanding from what Jim Comey said that the missing element was — was some element of intent that he was reading into the statue?

HOROWITZ: That’s what he said. I think what the prosecutors were looking at was knowledge and–

GOWDY: Knowledge that the wrongfulness of her conduct or knowledge that — that her arrangement with herself may have allowed classified information to traverse her server?

HOROWITZ: Knowledge that classified information actually did transit through her server.

GOWDY: All right.

HOROWITZ: Because of the absents of markings.

GOWDY: Well, the questions I have for you are equally applicable, whether the missing intent is knowledge or intent. Can you think of a better way to determine what an actor knew than to ask the actor what he or she knew? Am — am I missing some better repository of evidence than to actually interview the target or the suspect yourself?

HOROWITZ: I would say there could be instances where there would be better evidence like contemporizing recordings as opposed to the interview where the person might not be candid but…

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I’m not aware — I’m not aware of those in this case. But perhaps you know something I do not?

HOROWITZ: No I’m not. But I’m just saying you asked hypothetically is there a better way to get evidence of someone’s state of mind…

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: Given the evidentiary restrictions in this case, can you think of better way to — to resolve that issue of knowledge than to actually interview the target herself?

HOROWITZ: No, I think you would want to interview the target herself.

GOWDY: All right. And what would you ask the target? You — you were a highly decorated federal prosecutor from one of the most prestigious districts in the country, what would you ask the defendant if you were trying to determine whether or not that person, that suspect had knowledge.

HOROWITZ: Well you’d certainly want to start at the beginning, which is why did the server come to be set up? What was the rationale behind it? What did you understand it would be used for? Questions like that because so much of it would be focused on what the intent rationale thinking was behind creating the — your own separate server or domain name from the outset.

GOWDY: You have multiple explanations have been given in the past on that very issue. Would you ask the suspect or the target to reconcile those different explanations?

HOROWITZ: Presumably, you would ask the subject during the interview, in any area where there might be differing reports of testimony or recollections.

GOWDY: If there had been false exculpatory statements made in connection with fact pattern, will you ask the target or the suspect to explain those false exculpatory statements?

HOROWITZ: I think if you were interviewing any witness you would want to ask them about information that was out there that would suggest there was a false exculpatory.

GOWDY: When I use the phrase consciousness of wrong doing, what does that mean to you?

HOROWITZ: That means you have an awareness, perhaps unstated, that the conduct that you’ve engaged in is wrongful in some way.

GOWDY: What about concealment?

HOROWITZ: Well that can mean, I guess, different things depending upon the nature of the concealment. It can be active. It can be passive at some level. But it’s keeping something from somebody else and we have a concern here about concealment on what happened in connection with July 5.

GOWDY: How about the destruction of evidence?

HOROWITZ: Again, that can be personal or it can be knowing that someone else is going to do it, but it is, obviously, destroying evidence or information that’s — has (inaudible) value.

GOWDY: I guess what I’m, kind of, struggling with a little bit — I was asked over the weekend whether or not I think she should’ve been charged. I can’t answer that question because I don’t think she was interviewed properly. And it’s very difficult to go back and conduct a proper interview after one has already been botched.

Did you see all of the questions that you and I just went over in the 302? Were all of those asked of her during that July interview?

HOROWITZ: I think one of the concerns that’s been raised is that a 302, only being a summary of what was said, that there isn’t a transcript or other more definitive report on, precisely, all of the questions and answers. So, we have a summary and that’s what we’re working off of, that. It’s an extensive summary, but it’s still not a transcript.

GOWDY: Well, given the fact that you and I agree that actually talking to the witness, the suspect, the target might be, absent of contemporaneous recordings, some of the better evidence on knowledge and intent. How in the hell was Jim Comey able to draft an exoneration press release, six weeks before that interview took place?

HOROWITZ: I — you know, I think it — it’s clear from looking at what we uncovered that by that point in time, they had largely concluded what they had concluded. And as you–

GOWDY: But my question is, if what you’re missing was knowledge and, or intent and the single best repository for that evidence is the person you’ve yet to talk to, how in the hell can you make that conclusion?

HOROWITZ: I think — I’ll give you what the answer was that we got back which was, of course we kept open the possibility that we would find some evidence that would change that — that view. That was the explanation we were given.

GOWDY: If that were true, did you find drafts of inculpatory press releases?

HOROWITZ: No, we did not.

GOWDY: You found no memos or drafts where he had decided to charge her?

HOROWITZ: That’s correct. We were told, by the way, by the prosecutors, as you see here, that they did not draft anything until after the interview, precisely because they wanted to wait before making a final judgment for the interview.

GOWDY: Isn’t that we normally do? Wait until the last interview is.

HOROWITZ: Correct.

GOWDY: This is my last question I’ll have for you. Back when you did trial work, do you remember the judge ever admonishing the jury that you are not to make up your mind until the last witness has testified and the last piece of evidence has been introduced? Do you remember you remember a jury ever being told that by a judge?

HOROWITZ: Not only do I remember that as a prosecutor, but I actually served on a jury last year. So, I remember that from the judge’s instruction.

GOWDY: It’s kind of one of the basic precepts of our justice system is that you wait until it’s over before you draw a conclusion and I am just dumbfounded that Director Comey would draft a press release and cite the missing element, when the single best repository of potential evidence on that element had yet to be talked to. I just – I find that stunning, but I’m also just stunningly out of time.

I’m somewhat time-constrained so please forgive the source tweets without accompanying commentary.

Both the Meadows video clip and notes on Strzok are towards the bottom. As is Rex’s Thread which is very much worth the read.

This short clip with Mark Meadows is highly worth your time:

As is this Twitter Thread by @_ImperatorRex:

One final bit of news:

The Conservative Treehouse has a good article on the matter – with two important distinctions:

My guess/supposition would be that Strzok was a cooperating element during the IG investigation as it pertains to the Clinton-email probe (w/ perhaps immunity therein); however, Strzok was not a cooperating element in the current IG investigation of the Trump-Russia probe and FISA abuse.

In reality it could be likely that Peter Strzok is a target as an investigative outcome of the ongoing IG probe and the OPR referral.

Day Two of the Inspector General’s Testimony was quite the day indeed.

newer post  Mulvaney’s Plans for Government Reform

older post  Four Moments from Day One of the Inspector General’s Testimony