MSM Portrayal of OIG Report is Comically Dishonest

If one cribbed only from the mainstream news outlets’ ‘analysis’ in forming their opinion of the significance of the Office of the Inspectors General’s report into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email server scandal, they’d be under the impression that only one finding matters. Not even an hour after the 500-page report had been released, these networks professed to have parsed it, and come away with all that the public needs to know.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s ultimate conclusion that his office “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed" is the line that the shame stream media has clung onto, but it’s perhaps the least significant finding in the entire report.

In other words, Horowitz’s statement says that nobody at the FBI wrote down or documented malicious action to inhibit the Trump campaign. Of course they didn’t.

Would a murderer leave a detailed description of his crimes written down for the authorities to find? Does a cheating spouse leave a salacious text exchange within unprotected reach of their husband or wife?

Even a department that has shown itself to be increasingly out of control and politically compromised isn’t so incompetent as to provide a trail of paper evidence.

Were they going to document their partisan pivot from a half-assed charade of an investigation regarding a very legitimate scandal regarding national security – more on the emails later – to prioritize what seems to be a contrived, out-of-thin air narrative of collusion that has produced no tangible results, and only appears to be falling apart by the day, now nearly two years after it was opened?

Of course such things are not going to be left in plain sight via “documentary or testimonial evidence”, so it’s only to be expected that Horowitz would come to this conclusion. But, there is plenty of note within the dense report which further illuminates the rampant bias among FBI employees whose professionalism is supposed to restrain them from being so openly for one candidate and against the other. And, more concerning are direct implications that not only is this bias real, it could have been acted upon by at least one person still employed by the bureau.

Of particular note is a previously-undisclosed text exchange between agent Peter Strzok, who still takes a salary from the bureau, and his lover/co-worker Lisa Page.

It cites Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Even with no evidence that Strzok and his fellow anti-Trump brethren at the FBI acted on what can only be described as an affirmative to prevent Donald Trump’s presidency, is this level of bias not unacceptable, especially considering the revelations regarding the bureau’s role in further infiltrating the Trump campaign?

How is it acceptable, in anyone’s view, that Strzok, one of the highest-ranking agents on both the Clinton and Trump Russia investigations, has this kind of anti-Trump malice in his heart? This Strzok-Page exchange alone is reminiscent of the overall tone of the OIG Report, which exposes widespread, unabashed anti-Trump bias within the halls of FBI offices across the nation.

Horowitz concludes that the exchange is “indicative of a biased state of mind but even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the Presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI & DOJ."

This statement is a damning rebuke of the alternative conclusion that there was no discovery of evidence that the Trump campaign was directly affected by this political bias. It’s the statement that, in fact, is the conclusion that those who read the entire Horowitz reports come away with.

Imagine if the Trump campaign had not succeeded, and Horowitz had reached the same conclusion that this bias within the FBI didn’t impact that outcome. Would such a finding be accepted so easily? Knowing what we know now, would we be able to claim that political bias within the FBI didn’t materially impact Donald Trump’s electoral prospects?

Because bias, as we are so often told by social justice generals mandating sensitivity training, racial and gender quotas, and the overthrow of the white male patriarchy, impacts everything we do, even when we don’t know it. Even when that bias isn’t neatly documented into a record for OIG investigators to examine.

The text messages between Page and Strzok, not to mention other agents, is not the ‘subconscious bias’ that we are told makes all white people racist. It’s 100% conscious, and the findings in the OIG report make it difficult to accept that these biases weren’t, and aren’t still being, acted upon, even if there was no ‘documented evidence’.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel is a certifiable expert on this case. She succinctly summed up during a Twitter thread the reasons why the mainstream media is so off in their characterization of the report.

via Twitter:

1) Don't believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn't find bias. He very carefully says that he found no "documentary" evidence that bias produced "specific investigatory decisions." That's different

2) It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: "Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President."

3) But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they "cast a cloud" on the entire "investigation's credibility." That's pretty damning.

4) Meanwhile this same cast of characters who the IG has now found to have made a hash of the Clinton investigation and who demonstrate such bias, seamlessly moved to the Trump investigation. And we're supposed to think they got that one right?

5) Also don't believe anyone who says this is just about Comey and his instances of insubordination. (Though they are bad enough.) This is an indictment broadly of an FBI culture that believes itself above the rules it imposes on others.

6) People failing to adhere to their recusals (Kadzik/McCabe). Lynch hanging with Bill. Staff helping Comey conceal details of presser from DOJ bosses. Use of personal email and laptops. Leaks. Accepting gifts from media. Agent affairs/relationships.

7)It also contains stunning examples of incompetence. Comey explains that he wasn't aware the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? Then they sit on it a month, either cuz it fell through cracks (wow) or were more obsessed w/Trump

8) And I can still hear the echo of the howls from when Trump fired Comey. Still waiting to hear the apologies now that this report has backstopped the Rosenstein memo and the obvious grounds for dismissal.

Some of the OIG report is also downright perplexing. The report scolds Comey for, of all things, defying the suggestions of the Obama justice department, led by Loretta Lynch, even though we know that DOJ was firmly in Hillary’s camp. Not following the orders of a thoroughly compromised DOJ, the report somehow concludes, is evidence of Comey’s insubordination.

Of all the things for which to criticize Comey, defying Loretta “Matter, Not an Investigation” Lynch isn’t one of them. This is another minute facet of the report that those crafting a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump narrative will continue to hold onto.

See, Comey did sabotage the election so that Donald Trump would be elected!

As preposterous as a pro-Trump motivation by James Comey is, that’s the story that the left has embraced, and they’re sticking to it.

Let’s face it. The truth doesn’t matter to a large portion of the country. They live in a world where the bad guys are chosen before the investigation begins, and the facts can be molded as is seen fit. Even though the OIG report is a damning criticism of the FBI, widespread anti-Trump bias within the organization, and the mishandling of the Clinton email case by FBI leadership, the left comes away reading only one thing:

No “documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed".

See! We told you!

Related News