task0778
Diamond Member
Let's clear up a few things about Horowitz's IG Report and why it says the FBI's decision to investigate Trump's supposed collusion with Russia was not politically motivated.
1. The FBI is given the widest of berths to enforce the law and protect national security, with the expectation that management will ensure that each case/allegation in question is legitimate before action is taken.
2. It wasn't the IG's job to review discretionary judgments by government officials, only to determine if laws, rules, policies, or procedures have been violated.
3. Therefore, when the Report declares that the the investigation was properly predicated, they're simply saying there was no reason for them to conclude there was no political motivation because they couldn't find any physical evidence or 1st person testimony to support that conclusion.
4. So - if an allegation is made that is deemed to be legitimate, the FBI will check it out and in fact is duty bound to do so. Again, reviewing discretionary decisions is not in his purview; the IG is not there to tell us whether a decision was appropriate, much less prudent, or at least carefully considered. I am hopeful that Durham's Report will delve into that more closely, and his statement the other day about the Horowitz Report kinda indicates that.
5. So - was the decision to open an investigation into Russian collusion on Trump's part legitimate? Answer: Obviously not, and I suspect that Durham's investigation will not be as delicate as Horowitz's report was. It was primarily based on the Steele Dossier, a political hit piece paid for the the Hillary campaign and the DNC and written by a confirmed Trump-hater. But it wasn't Horowitz's job to determine that. He did say that there is no requirement to get approval from top-level management, even on a case involving a major party presidential candidate. Somebody made that call - I dunno who it was. Does the IG Report tell us? Don't know.
I suspect the highest-ups in the FBI didn't want to to be told - plausible deniability - "I didn't know that"! Nobody believes it, but if there's no proof then what're you gonna do? Fire them? Some got canned and others resigned, but I think we should determine who's left in that chain of command that knew or should have known what was going on.
1. The FBI is given the widest of berths to enforce the law and protect national security, with the expectation that management will ensure that each case/allegation in question is legitimate before action is taken.
2. It wasn't the IG's job to review discretionary judgments by government officials, only to determine if laws, rules, policies, or procedures have been violated.
3. Therefore, when the Report declares that the the investigation was properly predicated, they're simply saying there was no reason for them to conclude there was no political motivation because they couldn't find any physical evidence or 1st person testimony to support that conclusion.
4. So - if an allegation is made that is deemed to be legitimate, the FBI will check it out and in fact is duty bound to do so. Again, reviewing discretionary decisions is not in his purview; the IG is not there to tell us whether a decision was appropriate, much less prudent, or at least carefully considered. I am hopeful that Durham's Report will delve into that more closely, and his statement the other day about the Horowitz Report kinda indicates that.
5. So - was the decision to open an investigation into Russian collusion on Trump's part legitimate? Answer: Obviously not, and I suspect that Durham's investigation will not be as delicate as Horowitz's report was. It was primarily based on the Steele Dossier, a political hit piece paid for the the Hillary campaign and the DNC and written by a confirmed Trump-hater. But it wasn't Horowitz's job to determine that. He did say that there is no requirement to get approval from top-level management, even on a case involving a major party presidential candidate. Somebody made that call - I dunno who it was. Does the IG Report tell us? Don't know.
I suspect the highest-ups in the FBI didn't want to to be told - plausible deniability - "I didn't know that"! Nobody believes it, but if there's no proof then what're you gonna do? Fire them? Some got canned and others resigned, but I think we should determine who's left in that chain of command that knew or should have known what was going on.
