In the well-written article for National Review, Andrew McCarthy explains why the report delivered by Inspector General Michael Horowitz is half-baked. If you look at the content of the report, there is plenty of detail. Every action taken by the FBI in the Hillary Clinton case has been looked at. The problem is that nothing is taken with an overall view. Is that why the IG’s conclusions are so mysterious? Read this for understanding.
As Written and Reported By Andrew C. McCarthy for the National Review:
In dealing with the FBI, Clinton got kid gloves while Trump got scorched earth.
Why say do I say the report “may be half-baked”? Why don’t I just come out and declare, “The report is half-baked”? Well, I figure if I write this column in the IG’s elusive style, we’ll have the Rosetta Stone we need to decipher the report.
See, you probably sense that I believe the report is half-baked. But if I say it “may be” half-baked . . . well, technically that means it may not be, too. I mean, who really knows, right?
If that annoys you, try wading through 568 pages of this stuff, particularly on the central issue of the investigators’ anti-Trump bias. The report acknowledges that contempt for Trump was pervasive among several of the top FBI and DOJ officials making decisions about the investigation. So this deep-seated bias must have affected the decision-making, right? Well, the report concludes, who really knows?
Not in so many words, of course. The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start: It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did. In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong. The cop-out is…..
KEEP READING THERE IS WAY MORE HERE: