IG Horowitz’s testimony shows that his Report did not vindicate anyone in the FBI, DOJ, or the press. The only one the IG Report vindicated is Devin Nunes.
The Russia Hoax that lasted three years and that nearly toppled the duly elected government headed by Donald Trump, was nothing less than an attempted coup. James Comey and the progressive left that actively supported this attempted coup are now making much of the IG Report’s conclusion that IG Horowitz found no direct evidence of bias against the President. But as the IG stated in testimony on 11 Dec.: “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this FISA.”
Horowitz did not find that anyone involved in his investigation acted innocently. He simply didn’t make any inferences as to their intent in the absence of ‘direct evidence’ of the same. As he stated in testimony yesterday, “[O]n decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind.” He did not exonerate anyone; to the contrary, Horowitz stated that he has referred his findings to AG Barr and Asst. AG Durham for their action.
‘Direct evidence’ in this case means that someone was stupid enough to memorialize his or her bias, such as Christopher Steele’s admission to Bruce Ohr that he was determined Trump not become President, or the torrid text messages between Strzok and Page. Horowitz’s delicacy, however, is not the legal standard that applies to any of our laws, nor is it the standard anyone should apply to the facts in the IG complaint. Every day, we impanel juries and ask them to draw reasonable inferences from proven fact patterns. It’s very rare for there to be direct evidence showing the specific intent that is part and parcel of virtually every criminal law.
For example, say X swings an axe and beheads Y. If the circumstances are such that a person could reasonably infer that X intended to behead Y, and that there were no provable mitigating circumstances, then it is charged as murder (the intentional and inexcusable killing of another), regardless of whether X admits to his motives or lies about them. If the circumstances show that X was likely trying to chop wood and hit Y accidentally, it is not criminal unless, from the surrounding facts, it appears X acted negligently. Then X could be charged with manslaughter, a criminal charge, but one carrying a far lighter penalty than murder.
Powerline addresses the same point within the context of the IG Report: