The back-in-the-news Horowitz Report critiqued Robert Mueller’s investigation of the 2016 election, which alleged substantial “Russian interference,” further alleged to be aided and abetted by Donald Trump.
With that report finally fully declassified we now have proof that this whole idea was "storybooked" by anti-Trump operatives in the Democrat top ranks and the Intelligence Community to impede, if not sink, a Trump presidency. That was true collusion and it even involved Russians.
Back in 2019 the ensuing mantra from the mainstream media and among Democrats quickly became No bias was found by Horowitz in the FBI’s pursuit of FISA authorizations to spy upon four private citizens within the Trump Campaign.
Actually, the exact phrase in the Horowitz Report is this (italics mine):
“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
Why such a narrow scope of evidence? Bias and motivation are abstractions reflecting a state of mind. Such a mindset may be consciously chosen or simply take hold subliminally. I’d offer that human bias is essentially a “comfort zone” far more than it is a cauldron of hatred.
That makes bias so easily deniable, even to one’s own self. It is unlikely someone would give testimony (fess up) to his own bias especially if it could rise to possible criminal charges.
It is also unlikely there would be a material trail constituting documentary evidence of such bias, albeit the texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok clearly showed a roiling hatred of Trump and his supporters and a plan Strzok likened to an insurance policy to prevent a Trump victory. This plan involved the top levels of the FBI.
So, now let’s consider the U.S. Department of Justice’s methodology of investigating for bias that can rise to the level of prosecutable criminality: On DoJ’s website it states that the Fair Housing Act authorizes “the Department to bring suits where investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.” (Italics mine).
In other words, the DoJ realizes there will not likely be testimonial or documentary evidence of housing discrimination. They will not find an embroidered sampler on the wall with flowers and vines surrounding the saying,” Don’t Rent to Black People,” or a memo found to that effect.And yet such sentiment has certainly existed in the past so the DoJ must resort to looking for patterns or practices of behavior, and when observed at a low bar of critical mass, unfair and illegal actions can be divined and prosecuted.
Now recall the Lois Lerner scandal wherein the IRS was clearly targeting conservative groups to impede or quash their applications for tax-free status. After an internal investigation, no one in a biased IRS Division did jail time despite destroyed evidence.
That should have been the early tip-off that criminal prosecution based upon patterns and practices of bias is only for us average folk, us middle-class schmucks and not for those politicians or bureaucrats in favor much less for Intel big-wigs.
That is why Horowitz’s scope of evidence was so limited: the patterns and practices of bias were so obvious, it’s best not to go there.
We’ve come to realize that internal investigations are designed to throw a few jabs but never a knockout punch. So, it’s “no reasonable prosecutor” and “a forgetful old man,” et cetera. How would it turn out if the suspect real estate agency was allowed to investigate itself for potential crimes?
We can only hope that the current DoJ takes note of its own historic use of patterns or practices of behavior to divine and prosecute criminality. Looking back over the past dozen years would show countless examples:
There was clear bias in a myriad of election interference schemes by the Intel Community; there was bias by social media giants and the mainstream media, bias in the Judiciary, bias in banking, in hiring at universities.
There were voluminous lawfare schemes coordinated between the White House, DoJ and State AGs. Then there was DoJ’s targeting of concerned parents, Catholics, and of pro-life protestors. The list goes on and on.
And sooner or later it will come to light to what degree the mayhem at the Capitol on J6 was orchestrated by anti-Trump operatives. When it does, we won’t have to look far for patterns and practices of bias by the Special Select Committee on January 6th from its formation through its destruction of evidence (pardons-be-damned).
We can also look at how the J6 protestors (the unpaid, unplanted ones) have been arrested, prosecuted, and treated during incarceration. Many walked through opened doors of the Capitol for a matter of minutes and yet received years-long prison sentences.
Contrast that with how Antifa and BLM rioters were treated for doing far more damage to people and property over several years. They were not arrested by SWAT-teams and relatively few faced any jail time.
Man, there are ugly patterns and practices of bias truly all over the place, or as Mr. Schiff might say, in plain sight.
