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.
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?