Earlier this week, Michael Horowitz — inspector general for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) — delivered his 434-page report on the FBI’s 2016 investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election and possible Russian ties to Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. And on Wednesday, Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing got underway shortly after 10 a.m. EST with a lengthy opening speech from Republican Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, followed by a speech from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
Neither Graham nor Feinstein were critical of Horowitz’ report, but during their questioning of Horowitz, they spun the report in different ways — with Graham jumping through hoops on Trump’s behalf, while Feinstein shot down the conspiracy theory that the FBI spied on Trump’s campaign in 2016.
Here are some of the highlights of Horowitz’ testimony.
1. There was no evidence of FBI showing political bias in 2016
Trump sycophants and conspiracy theorists have repeatedly claimed that in 2016, the FBI’s investigation was biased against the Trump campaign and motivated by a desire to see Democrat Hillary Clinton elected president. But Horowitz testified that the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) “did not find that political bias” influenced the FBI’s 2016 investigation.
2. Feinstein shot down claim that Barack Obama wanted FBI to spy on Trump campaign
When Feinstein asked Horowitz if the OIG found any evidence of President Barack Obama asking the FBI to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign, Horowitz responded, “We certainly didn’t see any evidence.” Feinstein, during her questioning, also asked Horowitz if, in 2016, there were FBI agents who “had views that were both favorable and unfavorable to candidate Trump” — and Horowitz confirmed that there were.
3. Report found no ‘evidence of intentional misconduct’ in Carter Page surveillance
During his testimony, Horowitz testified that the OIG report found no “evidence of intentional misconduct” during the FBI’s 2016 investigation — including the surveillance of Republican Carter Page, who worked on Trump’s campaign. But “intentional” is the operative word: Horowitz testified that the OIG found “basic and fundamental errors” in the FBI surveillance of Page, and those “errors” didn’t live up to FBI standards. That included FISA warrants.
“The FISA process was not used appropriately,” Horowitz testified.
4. FBI did not plant spies inside Trump’s campaign
Horowitz’ report showed that although the FBI did place Page under surveillance in 2016, there was never a full-fledged spying operation against the entire Trump campaign — Page was the only one actually placed under surveillance. When Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Horowitz if his report for the OIG finds any evidence of a “Deep State” conspiracy being carried out against the Trump campaign by the FBI in 2016, Horowitz responded, “It finds that it was a properly predicated investigation based on the rules of the FBI.”
5. Russian interference in the 2016 election was real
When Graham asked Horowitz if the OIG found any evidence of Page coordinating with the Russian government in 2016, he responded that no evidence was found. But the hearing also made it clear that the Russian government did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election. And even Graham acknowledged that Russian interference occurred.
Here are 7 embarrassing arguments Republicans have tried to use to defend Trump
With the Senate impeachment trial in full swing, Republicans have launched an aggressive if scattershot campaign to defend President Donald Trump and discredit the Democrats’ case.
It’s not going well. Multiple recent polls have found that a majority of the country thinks Trump should be removed from office and many more think he has done something seriously wrong, even if they think he should remain in the White House until the next election.
While the Democrats have unleashed a torrent of facts and compelling arguments for the charges that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, Republican replies have been all over the map. Many of their arguments are completely beside the point of the case, and the sheer weakness of their defenses is an embarrassment to the party.
Impeachment trial makes it clear: Republicans are beyond reason, evidence, reality and hope
In liberal, politically plugged-in circles, it is an article of faith that if only Democrats did something different, they would do better at winning political battles. Dinner parties, social media, online chats, listservs, coffee hour: All are consumed routinely by discussion of what tweak to Democratic messaging would unlock all the political victories that we know belong to us. Progressivism vs. centrism? Are "identity politics" good or bad? Should Democrats embrace more forceful language, or maintain a genteel tone? Play hardball, or deliver placating language about "bipartisanship"?
The absurd antics of Trump’s lawyers have turned the Senate trial into a bad episode of the Twilight Zone
It’s hard to pick out the best moment for Absurdity around the impeachment trial. In this Twilight Zone-like courtroom reality, there are simply too many choices for Most Absurd.
Like the Oscars, the undramatic competition for the award leans unduly on older, white men, particularly those with preordained decisions already in mind before any outcome.
Certainly, the top three must include continuing claims by Republican senators that they have not learned anything new – after having voted 11 times to deny the admission of new evidence or witnesses beyond the transcripts of the House committee hearings that had led to an impeachment vote.