Why did the Democrats and the MSM appear to be so happy with the Horowitz Report?
Some or all of the following:
(1) They’re pretending; it’s all for show and propaganda.
(2) The report contained a bunch of statements which they believed they could spin successfully to a public unlikely to actually read any of the report or the commentary on it from the right, and therefore will never hear the things in it that implicate the FBI and the Democrats and vindicate Trump and his staff.
(3) After setting the idea in many people’s minds that the Hororwitz Report “exonerated” the FBI from any wrongdoing of any consequence, then – if and when Barr and/or Durham come up with indictments of some of the players – the Democrats will be able to successfully (in the public’s eyes, anyway) claim that Barr and Durham are the ones framing those charged, because of course Horowitz had exonerated all of them.
All of this rests on the probably correct supposition that only the most dedicated of political junkies will read the Horowitz Report or take a look at the right’s discussions of the points in it. I don’t know whether this approach by the Democrats and the MSM will ultimately be successful in electoral terms. But I understand that the foundation of the theory behind it is a reliance on public ignorance combined with the inherent complexity of following the story’s details.
Reuters, that Leftie source, claims there are “facts”, which the (implicitly guilty) President will not now address.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-whitehouse/trump-to-address-impeachment-charges-in-u-s-senate-trial-white-house-idUSKBN1YE1VH
One of the things about this whole thing that has been somewhat known for awhile is the FBI would site news articles as some kind of evidence to justify getting warrants and often times these articles were planted by the same sources as used in the application.
This is outrageous and again I question the go along judges for not strongly pushing back against this.
I mean how is this different from a homocide detective telling a newspaper reporter that the husband is the number one suspect in his wife’s murder then citing the newspaper article to get a search warrant against the husband.
53 sec. clip of AG Barr interview with NBC.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1204481809624522753
Horowitz has already exposed hundreds of liars both in gov. and in the media to view. I have not seen any of these malefactors apologize or show the least humility, accept the tiniest responsibility for putting the nation through this debacle. Scum, veritable scum, the lot of them.
Look–anyone who read Pravda in the heyday of the Soviet Union knows what is going on here. Who believed Pravda? No one in the Soviet Union.
The last sentence is rather depressing.
They won’t know what they had ’til it’s gone..
One of the first things I heard about the report from the media was that it summarized the mistakes made by the DOJ and FBI in its presentations to the FISC as “clerical errors.” Is that true? Did Horowitz purposefully give ammo to both sides?
Amadeus 48:
I would wager that some people in the USSR actually did believe Pravda. But probably a smaller percentage of the population than believes the MSM in this country at present. I personally know many people who are fully onboard with the Times and WaPo.
They’re happy the IG report doesn’t recommend bringing criminal charges against anybody in the gov’t.
I think it SHOULD be the IG’s job to do that, if gov’t folk are acting like criminals. I’m not sure that is the job, tho.
Like Comey, Horowitz is claiming no documentary evidence about the intent of the mistakes/ criminal behavior. Like Comey, Horowitz lists lots of mistakes, which are criminal in my non-specialist mind. Unlike Comey, Horowitz doesn’t decide whether to prosecute or not.
He does give facts. To me, the facts indicate criminal behavior, that should call for indictments and trial.
Horowitz didn’t call for any indictments.
That’s what the Dems call “exoneration”, in the case of Dems. (Wasn’t when Mueller didn’t call for indictment of POTUS).
With Dem media pushing, I’d guess most NYT readers & Dem true-believers would say Trump was NOT exonerated, but the FBI was.
This remains essentially true until there actually are indictments against some top Dems.
AG Barr interview with WSJ Senior Editor, begins 25 mins in, listen up to approx 46 mins in for current issues.
Pull quote: Barr– “These things take time.”
https://www.wsj.com/video/watch-william-barr-at-wsj-ceo-council/FC078ACB-7C12-46BA-A937-3ED1868CAC4D.html?mod=e2tw
You know…I’d rather have people either not read the report or straight up lie about it than get David French’s response where he acknowledges at least some of what the IG report shows but then not only declines to issue a mea culpa for his past incorrect pronouncements on the subject but pretends no such admission is needed.
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Mike
You know…I’d rather have people either not read the report or straight up lie about it than get David French’s response where he acknowledges at least some of what the IG report shows but then not only declines to issue a mea culpa for his past incorrect pronouncements on the subject but pretends no such admission is needed.
Since French has recycled the most obnoxious Democratic talking points in his columns, acknowledging something is rotten in the FBI is a come down for him.
I don’t think you’re going to get too many admissions from French, because (I suspect) the motor of the NeverTrump dispensation has been vanity. They went out on a limb in 2015 and 2016 and they don’t wish to acknowledge that they misjudged the situation. Others are notable for despising the social type with the most affinity for the President (Kevin Williamson’s an example of that) or, at least, preferring the trans-national fancy bourgeois to the rest of us (see Jay Nordlinger yapping that ‘Americans by choice’ make ‘the best Americans’). They are more and more a coterie with a certain amount of donor money in their pockets but no constituency.
Powerline blog’s Scott Johnson has a post with the entire Barr-NBC interview, plus commentary.
24 mins. of video there.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/barr-is-on-the-case.php
TommyJay – No “clerical errors” are identified anywhere in the report by that name, but a little spinning could pull them out.
As Neo said, there are only a relatively few political junkies who will bother to check any gossip (aka news reports) against the report itself, although that is very easy to do. (ctrl-F and enter your term in the search bar)
[OI is Office of Intelligence (I found that abbreviation in a single footnote). VMU is the FBI’s Validation Management Unit. I tried to fix the wierd format that resulted from my cut-and-paste, but probably didn’t catch all the CR-LF oopsies].
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
The word “clerical” does not appear in it at all.
The word “errors” appears 52 times. (see below)
The word “error” shows up a few times: All of the text is quotes from various pages; the numbers in () are mine.
One footnote approaches the idea of “clerical error” but it is not really consequential – and has a typo of its own.
This section makes it look like the witnesses tried to introduce the idea of “clerical errors” by denying any knowledge of why the factual and substantial errors were made in the FISA applications.
Because it relates to the many factual errors in the applications, this footnote might interest those who want to know what the “Woods Process” thing is all about.
“the Democrats will be able to successfully (in the public’s eyes, anyway) claim that Barr and Durham are the ones framing those charged”.
In the public’s eyes? Much less so (esp. for GOP, or Trump 2016 voters), than for those Dems/ Lefties desperate for solace, after the collapse of the Mueller/ Ukraine “bribery” etc. scams.
The Left may be aiming to inspire its flock to inflict civil disobedience, at any trial of the conspirators. As they love to chant, “No justice, no peace!”
We’ve known for years that the Steele dossier was fake, but you would never know that by checking wikipedia. Just compare these two versions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
https://infogalactic.com/info/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
The wikipedia site on the same matter adds so much irrelevant negative information about Donald Trump that it quickly becomes an unreadable mess. And if you look at who is editing that wikipedia page, you find it is some guy who makes no secret that he is a liberal and that he dislikes Trump.
The same whitewashing occurs on the wikipedia page for Crossfire Hurricane, where Trump and Fox News are still blamed for pushing conspiracy theories.
“Horowitz didn’t call for any indictments.
That’s what the Dems call “exoneration”, in the case of Dems. (Wasn’t when Mueller didn’t call for indictment of POTUS).” — Tom Grey
If the Left didn’t have double standards ….
https://nypost.com/2019/12/09/ig-report-proves-whole-investigation-was-as-corrupt-as-comey-goodwin/
Thanks AesopFan.
The FoxNews guy (Cavuto I think) did not say anything to suggest that “clerical errors” was his characterization. I assumed it was something in a summary page, since he was spouting off on it very quickly after its release. Then again, Cavuto is not a Trump fan.
That Woods Process sounds like the double and triple checking that mythx was wishing for in an earlier post. Trouble is, people involved in the Woods Process need to have the intent and determination to be honest (or at least fear of punishment) for it to be meaningful.
_____
Misspellings are common in intelligence work and result from the rapid turnaround. Yeah, sure.
I read some long article several years ago that excerpted extensively from FBI 302 reports. There were many instances where the author(s) of those reports conjectured whether he/she had heard the proper names correctly, whether there were different ways to spell the proper name in subsequent document searches. (OK, fine.)
Then, they went on to list the different possible spellings they actually considered. They’d start with one of two reasonable spellings, followed by a slew of absurd spellings. Oh boy, they sure were thorough. (cough, cough) What was really going on? Nothing good.
Worth reviewing what McCarthy said last year.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-obama-administration-spying-hypocritical/?itm_source=parsely-api
The Obama Administration’s Hypocritical Pretext for Spying on the Trump Campaign
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 29, 2018 6:30 AM
Cheap Talk: communication between players that does not directly affect the payoffs of the game.
Could also be labeled whistling past the graveyard.
Yes, this will serve as adequate justification for an all-out war for control of the senate.
Next time they impeach Trump on flimsy grounds… they’ll control both the house *and* senate and they can then successfully overthrow the duly-elected executive.
The entire Democrat presidential field is currently dead in the water, so this may be their only sensible move.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384695.php
While we’re at it, wouldn’t it be sweet to carve up National Review‘s endowment among philanthropic bodies which are actually in the business of promoting starboard thought and policy? (Which don’t include The American Conservative, btw). Had quite enough of cruise-ship conservatives.
The entire Democrat presidential field is currently dead in the water, so this may be their only sensible move.
They’d get 45% of the ballots if they nominated a dead dog in the road. What’s interesting is what the Democratic electorate finds appealing. Felonia von Pantsuit still polls quite well. Among the actually competing candidates, you have Joseph Biden, a man who has never held an executive position, a man whose professional history before going into politics consisted of 4 years as an associate in a suburban law firm, a man with intellectual deficits at least as pronounced as Dan Quayle’s, a man with a history of comically blatant and self-aggrandizing lying (which included passing of Neil Kinnock’s family history as his own), a man whose paternal governance produced a train-wreck like Hunter. That he’s suffering the cognitive decline you often see in 77 year old men leaves them unperturbed. Your other choices include another biographical fabulist w/o executive experience whose signature is advocacy of state appropriation of ever greater shares of the country’s productive capacity and a mediocre business-as-usual mayor who has two other features (1) mastery of what one wag called ‘Harvard bull$hit” and (2) a manifest disinclination and incapacity to maintain a normal domestic life (which Democratic voters find appealing). Their best candidate is a 78 year old not-really-lapsed Trotskyist (who, at least, could run a municipal government capably and who, it’s a reasonable wager, is too old-left to have much affection for identity politics).
Sleepy Joe is toast if the impeachment process reaches the senate. In the unlikely event he survives Trump’s impeachment trial, he may spontaneously self-destruct in any of a number of other ways, from past gaffes to new gaffes to sudden ocular bleeding; he’s egg-like in his fragility and I doubt the progs will choose him.
I think Bernie will ultimately come up short as well. A significant portion of Bernie’s base resents him for giving in to and *endorsing* Hillary after the bought-and-paid-for superdelegates knifed him in the back in 2016. He rolled over for Hillary. He’s old and weak.
Plus, neither of these old white men are intersectional enough.
Mayor Pete gets one intersectional brownie button for being funny. But apparently the blacks hate him. Regardless, Bootie-gig is toast as soon as he kisses his husband in public. I expect the other top-tier dem candidates to start making appearances with their spouses to precipitate his downfall.
Lieawatha is the most intersectional of the top-tier candidates still standing. Her Medicare-for-all plan is a PR disaster, not going to be easy to film-flam her way out of that one; but she *did* get past the cultural appropriation hurdle (thus far). Trump did his best to make of her a laughing stock and she willed herself past the mockery to become a legitimate contender (thus far). I give her credit for moxy and I believe she’s the smartest of the bunch.
Then there’s Hillary. She’s a fucking bottle of ipecac. The prog movement will be at death’s door before they consider imbibing that shit again. But a man can dream…
Trump humiliating Hillary back in 2016 was super funny. A second win over her would be even funnier.
When Mayor Pete and his husband start appearing together, may I suggest nicknaming them Ace and Gary ala Robert Smigel’s TV Funhouse from SNL back in the 90s?
https://youtu.be/E-RVW1aC6_U
Mentus–In any sane world, Warren’s flat out lying, and claiming that she did not receive any benefit from falsely claiming to be an American Indian–and repeatedly trying, furthermore, to sell voters on her claim of no benefits received–should totally disqualify her from being a candidate for President.*
She apparently believes that voters are stupid or that, in the age of “Orangeman bad,” Democrat voters will be willing to just ignore such a major lie, and indicator of untrustworthiness.
See https://pjmedia.com/election/warren-denies-receiving-any-benefit-as-a-result-of-native-american-lie/
4) Democrats always lie (a variation on Vox Day’s “SJWs always lie”)
“…apparently believes…”
Absolutely. From the very depths of her private, state-of-the-art, sweltering, smoked-up sweat lodge.
The firmly-held belief (backed up by a non-stop avalanche of demonization) has always been “Anyone is better than Trump”; and so it only makes sense that the Democrats have firmly decided to give the voters…”Anyone”.
With great fanfare, excitement and enthusiasm….
At least initially.
Because now that they’ve taken a step back (as it were), they’ve discovered that more than a few (read practically “all”) of these “Anyones” are pretty pathetic (though each in their own inimitable way)—no, make that execrable—no matter how you cut it.
So that while “Anyone is better than Trump” is still the official company credo (along with such boilerplate as “supporters of the person in the street” and “supporters of human rights” and “supporters of justice” and “American Psychos”, sorry “Patriots”), they are desperate to find a candidate that will attract more than mere puzzlement, discontented grumbling or shrieks of laughter (or agony).
It’s not coming easy….
…Hence impeachment—that all-purpose tool for all seasons and needs.
Hence any possible lifeline that their necessarily selective interpretation of Horowitz’s report might offer.
(While Hillary checks her looking glass with ever increasing frequency…and preens…and dreams….)
“The IG report might have falsely claimed that there was no evidence of political bias in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, but it found that all of Devin Nunes’ claims about lies told to secure the FISA warrant were true, and all of Adam Schiff’s counter-claims were false:
…
Exit Question:
Do David French, Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and the rest of the gang finally start treating claims of Dan Jones, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, Adam Schiff and John Brennan with some skepticism, given their track history of remorseless lies?
And if they don’t begin to offer the most minimal level of skepticism towards the claims made by proven liars — what conclusions can we begin to draw about this group?” – Ace (h/t Art Deco)
Maybe not in the opening (see Turley’s Titanic analogy), but certainly in the subsequent investigation. Like, about 1 nanosecond after the permission to proceed was given. Kind of like the Big Bang.
Everyone but the “cruise ship conservatives” (A.D.) knew where the ship was headed from the beginning.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/horowitzs-findings-belie-his-conclusion-of-no-political-motivation.php
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384700.php
A better question is why, knowing Horowitz would soft-pedal everything in favor of the FBI (because he did it before) did Barr not intervene like he did in the Meuller report to make sure the real message got out?
Barr needs to put down the bagpipes and pick up his .45 sidearm, and start acting like a sheriff.