The IG’s report: Americans need to know who ‘we’ is
“We’ll stop it.”
That’s what FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok told his female companion Lisa Page by text to allay her 2016 fears that Donald Trump would become America’s next president.
Those three words overshadow everything else in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-page-plus report submitted to Congress last week regarding the investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Besides the text exchanges of Strzok, Page and three other individuals whose names were redacted – endless dialogue that is unanimously anti-Trump – there’s plenty in the report that should concern Americans, regardless of how they voted in 2016.
• Horowitz’s report confirms that Clinton’s sloppy e-mail practices exposed information exchanges that were infiltrated by foreign entities. The report confirms that President Obama was part of an e-mail chain of information.
• It makes public a disturbing pattern of media figures and organizations treating FBI agents to a variety of juicy perks and paid favors in return for leaked information.
• The report scolds former FBI Director James Comey for massive insubordination and bolsters the rationale for President Trump dismissing him.
• It criticizes him for playing judge by publicly laying out violations and concerns regarding Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server twice during the presidential campaign when the more proper course would have been to refer the concerns and charges to the Attorney General’s office.
Of course, it doesn’t help that Lynch, days after being caught in a tarmac meeting with former President Clinton, removed herself from the case.
So everything stinks to high heavens and the inspector general concluded there was massive bias among FBI figures toward then-candidate and later President Trump.
The bias is obvious from the unequal examination between the loose Clinton e-mail probe and the exhaustive Trump/Russia investigation.
The bias is obvious in countless text messages from FBI personnel making blanket demeaning judgments about Trump voters.
But he says there is no evidence that the bias played a factor in the investigations that have been ongoing for more than two years, dragging millions of Americans through the mud.
So when Horowitz appeared for scheduled testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees this week, we were hoping for enlightenment on how the lead investigator in the Clinton e-mail scandal and the Trump/Russia probe can have such an over-the-top dislike for Trump and his supporters and yet manage to be unbiased in working these two cases.
The same can be said for everyone else in Strzok’s circle, most of them the key players working with a special counsel investigating the president for more than a year.
Most of all, we wanted clarity through the hearings on who Strzok is referring to when he says “We” and what was their plan designed to stop Trump from becoming or, if elected, remaining president.
While we heard a disturbing acknowledgement that most of the key players in the FBI involved in these two cases had a clear bias against Trump and treated his situation much more aggressively than that of Hillary Clinton’s, Americans still don’t know who Strzok’s “we” is.
The lack of clarity is a stain on the special counsel’s findings before they are even issued. And only by getting a clear answer to the “we” questions can Americans find out who interfered more in the 2016 election, the Russians or key figures in what is supposed to be the world’s ultimate practitioner of objectively dispensed criminal investigation, the FBI.