Horowitz report

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
howdy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Katy

Horowitz report

#1

Post by howdy » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:45 pm

The first 19 pages of the Inspector General Horowitz report is a summery of the full 435 page report. On page 2 of the summary, I found this paragraph that really bugs me.

"As detailed in Chapter Two, the Attorney
General's Guidelines for Domestic Operations (AG
Guidelines) and the FBI's Domestic Investigations
Operations Guide (DIOG) both require that FBI
investigations be undertaken for an "authorized
purpose"-that is, "to detect, obtain information about,
or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats
to the national security or to collect foreign
intelligence." Additionally, both the AG Guidelines and
the DIOG permit the FBI to conduct an investigation,
even if it might impact First Amendment or other
constitutionally protected activity, so long as there is
some legitimate law enforcement purpose associated
with the investigation.
Texas LTC Instructor
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Life Patron Member TSRA Member
USMC 1972-1979


Grayling813
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:18 am

Re: Horowitz report

#2

Post by Grayling813 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:56 pm

Republic, Banana


K-Texas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: Horowitz report

#3

Post by K-Texas » Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:17 pm

Unfortunately, Horowitz was the DOJ IG at the time the events transpired. So damming Comey and other senior FBI personnel ultimately begs the question: where was the oversight then? ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Horowitz report

#4

Post by Oldgringo » Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:03 pm

Horowitz, et al, reported the findings without conjecture or speculation as to the intent or mindset of the persons/groups involved.

Damn the dimocraps and their FBI lackies. :banghead: Jail sentences and large fines for all of 'em!

User avatar

E10
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:07 am
Location: El Paso

Re: Horowitz report

#5

Post by E10 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:47 pm

K-Texas wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:17 pm
Unfortunately, Horowitz was the DOJ IG at the time the events transpired. So damming Comey and other senior FBI personnel ultimately begs the question: where was the oversight then? ;-)
Oversight comes from the top - in this case the Obama Justice Department and maybe from Obama himself. Inspectors General get involved only as a result of executive direction or a complaint. The leadership isn’t going to order an investigation of their own corruption, and any potential complainants probably feared for their careers, if not their lives.

User avatar

Rafe
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:43 pm
Location: Htown

Re: Horowitz report

#6

Post by Rafe » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:58 am

Just FYI, if anybody wants it, the full "redacted for public release" version of the report can be viewed/downloaded here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf


K-Texas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: Horowitz report

#7

Post by K-Texas » Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:54 pm

E10 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:47 pm
K-Texas wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:17 pm
Unfortunately, Horowitz was the DOJ IG at the time the events transpired. So damming Comey and other senior FBI personnel ultimately begs the question: where was the oversight then? ;-)
Oversight comes from the top - in this case the Obama Justice Department and maybe from Obama himself. Inspectors General get involved only as a result of executive direction or a complaint. The leadership isn’t going to order an investigation of their own corruption, and any potential complainants probably feared for their careers, if not their lives.
I'm sure that's how it worked during the Obomination Administration. The Clinton email investigation, or the lack thereof, by the FBI should have thrown up a red flag for the IG. Apparently, he didn't see much chance of the presidency going to anyone but HoLarry Clinton.

I think Horowitz was more concerned about his job security than doing his job. And with his watered down report, it seems obvious that he doesn't want his lack of action brought into question. All his report amounts to is some slaps on the wrists of a few that were already implicated. Since James Comey was one of them as the director of the FBI, I don't know how one could say that that should not have come under the purview of the DOJ IG. ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Horowitz report

#8

Post by srothstein » Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:02 am

K-Texas wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:54 pm
I think Horowitz was more concerned about his job security than doing his job. And with his watered down report, it seems obvious that he doesn't want his lack of action brought into question. All his report amounts to is some slaps on the wrists of a few that were already implicated. Since James Comey was one of them as the director of the FBI, I don't know how one could say that that should not have come under the purview of the DOJ IG. ;-)
I don't know how the IG works there, but in a lot of cases they are only allowed to investigate complaints. If the DOJ has a similar restriction, he was told to investigate how the Russian interference probe started. Since the e-mail scandal was not part of that probe, Horowitz might not have had any authority to investigate it.

I have not read his whole report and don't intend to. There were some interesting clips from it in the news though. You have to pay attention to what he did not say as much as what he did say. For example, he did not say there was no political bias involved in the case, just that he found no evidence of it. He also pointed out that the investigation met the requirements of the FBI to start one, but that those requirements were pretty darn low and met almost nothing. Several other points he made and that were reported on were along those same lines.

While I am sure job security was involved to some extent (you don't get to that level of job without being a fairly astute politician) , the question becomes "Who was he afraid of?" If he could make a case that said the FBI was wrong and started a biased investigation, he would have been protected by the President (about the best protection available). If he found evidence that there was no bias and the investigation was proper and fair, then he would have been protected by the "deep state".
Steve Rothstein


K-Texas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: Horowitz report

#9

Post by K-Texas » Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:21 pm

srothstein wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:02 am
K-Texas wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:54 pm
I think Horowitz was more concerned about his job security than doing his job. And with his watered down report, it seems obvious that he doesn't want his lack of action brought into question. All his report amounts to is some slaps on the wrists of a few that were already implicated. Since James Comey was one of them as the director of the FBI, I don't know how one could say that that should not have come under the purview of the DOJ IG. ;-)
I don't know how the IG works there, but in a lot of cases they are only allowed to investigate complaints. If the DOJ has a similar restriction, he was told to investigate how the Russian interference probe started. Since the e-mail scandal was not part of that probe, Horowitz might not have had any authority to investigate it.

I have not read his whole report and don't intend to. There were some interesting clips from it in the news though. You have to pay attention to what he did not say as much as what he did say. For example, he did not say there was no political bias involved in the case, just that he found no evidence of it. He also pointed out that the investigation met the requirements of the FBI to start one, but that those requirements were pretty darn low and met almost nothing. Several other points he made and that were reported on were along those same lines.

While I am sure job security was involved to some extent (you don't get to that level of job without being a fairly astute politician) , the question becomes "Who was he afraid of?" If he could make a case that said the FBI was wrong and started a biased investigation, he would have been protected by the President (about the best protection available). If he found evidence that there was no bias and the investigation was proper and fair, then he would have been protected by the "deep state".
Call this JMO, but I don't see the Horowitz report as having any teeth, and as Shakespeare would say, "it's much ado about nothing." I don't expect anyone to be charged with a crime unless actions were taken against them previously.

In every law enforcement agency of any size in this country, most of them have an Internal Affairs Division. What does the FBI have? It is the duty of the IG to investigate any wrong doing by the FBI.

And when the Obamination's last AG privately met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, while HoLarry's email practices were being investigated, even the MSM reported on it. How could it not be the IG's duty to at least raise concerns. The reality being, if these things that Horowitz has turned a blind eye to had occurred during a republican administration, the MSM would have screamed bloody murder and reported that it was the duty of the DOJ IG to confront and tackle any such incident.

Of course, I can't speak for the president, but with the changes he's made with AGs, you'd think he might at least have requested that Horowitz, almost certainly a demo-commie and his wife being a producer for CNN, step aside. How could it be in Horowitz'a best interest to bring charges against anyone in the DOJ while he was nothing more than a spectator to those events? So I certainly understand the point concerning his limitations under a demo-commie regime. I think a better man would have used the authority of his office, even if it meant his own resignation or dismissal. Then at least, the court of public opinion would have mandated several investigations into wrong doing that might have at least barred HoLarry Clinton from ever again seeking any federal office. The Russia investigation would have occurred sooner, and might have had some teeth. ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”