So, Horowitz is claiming that there was no "... intentional effort to deceive the court.” Or, is he claiming that it is OK when an FBI employee does it?
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that an IG report is meant to present the results (methods, testimony, evidence) of the investigation - not provide opinion (i.e. "no political bias").
18 USC 1001
...
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
"Horowitz added that he has never “seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”
“If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience,” Cruz then posed. “Would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?”
"Horowitz stated that “they certainly would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court.”
But, they may be immune from 18 USC 1001, look at this section (b):
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
Pretty lame fall guy. This small fresh cheeser don't stink enough. Not at all. They think we cannot smell the corruption that express from the impeachment grifters. These are very powerful, criminally insane character actors inciting mass hysterics with lies amplified by corrupt media--many of which reinforce the lies by broadcast licenses that need to be challenged. Local stations are crucial to the spread, they lie but the people trust the local liars lying for the deep elites. Document the lies. Shut them down.
I once went through training with former FBI undercover agents. Top of the line guys. Opened my eyes big time. A lot of it was on strategically interviewing people and detecting deception... A lot of the examples used were of Anthony Weiner and clear cut (this was before he was tried). The most interesting was watching real interviews at the beginning and a lot of people being unsure of what was occuring. After the training, we rewatched these real interviews and it was clear as day as to what happened. These guys were top notch.
So, Horowitz is claiming that there was no "... intentional effort to deceive the court.” Or, is he claiming that it is OK when an FBI employee does it?
When Cruz pressed him on this later in this same exchange, he said that it was for someone else to determine whether it is prosecutable.
e: I think that specific employee has been referred for prosecution and is why Durham's investigation became criminal.
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that an IG report is meant to present the results (methods, testimony, evidence) of the investigation - not provide opinion (i.e. "no political bias").
ALL of them have been referred to the FBI for evaluation for possible prosecution.
According to Horowitz it was also okay when Hillary fried subpoenaed documents.
Horowitz is a swamp creature.
Horowitz’ Report is the water mark for the absolute best possible spin on what happened.
No, he's saying prove intent and you get a conviction.
Then I hope to see a conviction down the road because I don't know how someone would unintentionally alter an email.
100,000,000 to 1
Here’s a problem:
18 USC 1001 ... (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
Someone have a link as to what was changed in an email?
This should be the headline across the nation but it wasn't even covered by most media.
All I've seen is "IG report found no bias"...it fucking says an FBI agent made shit up.
"Horowitz added that he has never “seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”
“If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience,” Cruz then posed. “Would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?”
"Horowitz stated that “they certainly would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court.”
The standard is “knowingly”, not “intent”.
But, they may be immune from 18 USC 1001, look at this section (b):
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
Would this qualify as a judicial proceeding though?
Mr. Wray, there is a problem. Actions have consequences unless you work for the FBI.
At least there isn't any evidence these actions were politically motivated.
That sounds pretty bad!
Fruit of the poisoned tree.
This is a great quote but hasn’t it already been posted eleventy billion times today?
YUGE! Great commentary MY SENATOR!
Roberto watch it and weep oceans of salty tears.
There ya have it.
Fuck. It. It's time. Now or never. It's already too late pedes.
Pretty lame fall guy. This small fresh cheeser don't stink enough. Not at all. They think we cannot smell the corruption that express from the impeachment grifters. These are very powerful, criminally insane character actors inciting mass hysterics with lies amplified by corrupt media--many of which reinforce the lies by broadcast licenses that need to be challenged. Local stations are crucial to the spread, they lie but the people trust the local liars lying for the deep elites. Document the lies. Shut them down.
LOL @ people still acting as if this doesn't make Watergate look like a game of Red Rover.
I once went through training with former FBI undercover agents. Top of the line guys. Opened my eyes big time. A lot of it was on strategically interviewing people and detecting deception... A lot of the examples used were of Anthony Weiner and clear cut (this was before he was tried). The most interesting was watching real interviews at the beginning and a lot of people being unsure of what was occuring. After the training, we rewatched these real interviews and it was clear as day as to what happened. These guys were top notch.
I think we've all learned, don't speak to them no matter how casual it may seem.