EXPECTATIONS AND THE RELEASE OF THE HOROWITZ FISA INVESTIGATION REPORT

Now is the time for an attitude adjustment in preparation for the release of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on the FISA warrant process on Monday, December 9, 2019.

Horowitz is a liberal…

There is little or no doubt that the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, is your typical classically-trained Northeastern liberal elite with an undergraduate degree from the uber-liberal Brandeis University (summa cum laude) and a law degree from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude).

His powers are limited …

Unlike a United States Attorney, Horowitz, as an Inspector General, lacks the broad investigative powers which allow him to investigate matters outside of his agency, issue subpoenas, or convene a Grand Jury to compel testimony. While he can investigate agency matters and recommend prosecution through criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, he cannot proceed with his own prosecutions. If the Department of Justice refuses to further investigate through the Federal Bureau of Investigation or seek indictments, Horowitz has no recourse other than making the matter public in an unclassified version of his report.

He is more about protecting the agency from criticism and harm than protecting “We the People” from the agency…

Functioning more like the human resources department in a corporation, Horowitz’s primary job is not to specifically root out agency corruption, malfeasance, and policy violations, it is to protect the agency from scandal and to produce reports and recommendations that prevent future problems and ensure adherence to agency procedures and protocols. The Inspector General is part of the club while portraying the appearance of some degree of independence.

How does it all work? …

As we have seen in Horowitz’s investigation of the allegations facing former FBI Director James Comey and others and their involvement with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, the conclusions were less than satisfying to most of the American public. Yes, procedures were violated, but nothing really political popped out – so move along, nothing to see here.

“While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

Second, in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decision-making. In so doing, we found that Comey largely based his decisions on what he believed was in the FBI’s institutional interests and would enable him to continue to effectively lead the FBI as its Director. While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice.

Moreover, these decisions usurped the authority of the Attorney General and upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions and the accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United ‘ States.

There are many lessons to be learned from the Department’s and FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, but among the most important is the need for Department and FBI leadership to follow its established procedures and policies even in its highest-profile and most challenging investigations. By adhering to these principles and norms, the public will have greater confidence in the outcome of the Department’s and the FBI’s decisions, and Department and FBI leaders will better protect the interests of federal law enforcement and the dedicated professionals who serve these institutions.”

Any Horowitz-generated criminal referrals for lack of candor (lying) or leaking that were forwarded to the Department of Justice remain in bureaucratic limbo. And, even worse, not a word about letting individuals who clearly violated the Espionage Act, perjured themselves, destroyed documents and other government property, and engaged in a massive conspiracy against Donald J. Trump which interfered with the 2016 election, walk free.

What can we expect? …

Most informed sources believe the IG report will be more institutional BS, and any wrongdoing or criminal referrals will be limited to those who are likely to get some type of procedural pass from the bureaucracy. 

Bottom line …

I believe that Horowitz will catalog a list of “deviations” from established policy and possibly make several criminal referrals to the Department of Justice where they will lay fallow while U.S. Attorney John Durham completes a broader investigation.

What does give me hope is that I would expect the FISA Court judges to take judicial notice of the proceedings and seek contempt charges against those who lied to the court when obtaining the Carter Page FISA warrants. But don't hold your breath. 

I also believe that the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General, Michael K. Atkinson, needs to be investigated for his handling of matters related to the faux-whistleblower.

In the final analysis, I have no expectations other than the bureaucracy protecting the bureaucracy – if I am wrong, that will be a pleasant surprise.

We are so screwed.

-- steve