The Horowitz Report

I watched very little of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and I certainly don't plan to read the 400+ pages of his report on the FBI actions during the 2016 election.

It is fair to say that both sides of the political spectrum are putting their spin on the report. The Democrats and the media stress that the investigation shows "no FBI bias" in their actions. The Republicans point out that Horowitz did state that there was "illegal surveillance" and that Horowitz outlined 17 errors made by the FBI in investigating Trump and his aides-all of those errors working to the detriment of Trump. They also point  out that Horowitz was constrained to working within the DOJ-FBI structure. The real case will be when John Durham finishes his investigation for Attorney General Bill Barr, both of whom have been critical of parts of Horowitz's report.

 There are a few points that leave me mystified, so I would like to make a couple of points.

Horowitz preferred to use the term, "illegal surveillance" over spying. To me this is like substituting "extremely careless" for "grossly negligent", which James Comey and his gang did in the Hillary Clinton report. Illegal surveillance or spying, take your pick.

Probably the most controversial conclusion Horowitz came to was that the FBI showed no bias in their handling of the investigation. Good grief! Has he read the emails that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were sending each other? Was the FBI not biased when they relied on the Steele Dossier to apply for FISA warrants against Carter Page? They knew that Steele was extremely biased against Trump.

And here is another point: I refer once again to my own experience with wiretaps (and other intercepts) during my career with DEA. Again I stress that I never applied for a FISA warrant, but in the case of ordinary wiretap applications, one of the most important requirements in applying for an extension is that the intercept is producing fruit-evidence. That in fact, the principals are using the communication device to conduct their illegal activities, and that evidence of crime is being obtained. Otherwise, how do you justify an extension?

Did the FBI have that with Carter Page? Mr Page has never been charged with a crime. What information were they able to give the FISA judge in applying for the three extensions that showed that the intercept was producing evidence? I am guessing none.