SEN GRAHAM GRILLS IG, FBI DIRECTOR OVER ABUSE OF POWER, LETTING CLINTON OFF
Sen Graham exposed FBI and DOJ timidity in prosecuting their own dirty cops as well as their partisanship, protecting Clinton while organizing a lynch mob Trump…
Senator Lindsey Graham began his questioning of IG Michael Horowitz by asking whether or not he thought it was “clear to everybody in the country by July 5th  that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party?” They agree that it was, with the convention less than two weeks later and the text messages reflective of it as well.
He reads a notorious August 8th text exchange in which Page asks Strzok, “Trump’s not ever going to become President, right, right?” and to which Strzok responded, “No, no, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Graham then verifies with Horowitz that Strzok was the lead investigator on the Clinton email ‘investigation,’ noting, “Ok, so the head guy, looking at Clinton on August the 8th says ‘we’ve got to stop Trump.’”
Graham continues, “A week later here’s what they say to each other, text message to Lisa Page. ‘I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office, that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re forty.” Graham establishes with Horowitz that Andy is Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Graham points out that with McCabe denying he was there and Strzok stating that he was in testimony to Horowitz, one of them is lying. He also cites a Feb 2016 text from Page to McCabe, also referred to as Andy, the Deputy Director of the FBI, in which she stated, “Hey, you’ve surely already considered this, but in my view our best reason to hold the line at two and two, two agents and two prosecutors, is she might be our next president.”
Still referencing that interview, Graham notes that one of the FBI agents who conducted that farcical deception of the American people, “said on election day, to another FBI agent, ‘You should know that I’m with her.’ Now here was Clinton, correct?” Horowitz agrees that it was Clinton and adds those comments to the long list of things that made him concerned.
Senator Graham has now demonstrated a pattern of conduct on the part of the coup participants, stating, “Eventually very concerned gets to be enough already.” He asks FBI Director Wray if he’s ever proved a case based upon circumstantial evidence, to which Wray answers “yes.” Graham says, “Well, I’m going to write you a letter and talk about why you should reconsider your findings as to whether or not it affected the investigation.”
Graham says, “I think there was a lot of bias that did affect an investigation that is to me almost impossible to explain using any standard that I grew up with as a prosecutor or even as a defense attorney. Graham cites another instance of Strzok texting to Page that “Trump is a f**king idiot.”
He says “I’m glad you found what you found, Mr. Horowitz. I’m not buying that the Clinton email investigation was on the up and up,” noting that the guy in charge, Strzok, clearly didn’t want to see Trump elected President of the United States. Graham asks the obvious question, “Do you agree with me that finding her liable criminally would be inconsistent with stopping Donald Trump?”
He continues, ‘If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable, that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put those two things together?” Horowitz remains non-committal and searching for refuge from stating a position, saying, “I guess it would depend when, but yes I, conceivably it could.”
Graham gives him a time, asking, “How about July, a week before the convention?” Horowitz gets himself a little tongue-tied, saying “it clearly could conceivably.” Graham tires of the defensive answers, saying, “Not only clearly conceivably, that’s exactly what’s happening here folks. You cannot hold her criminally liable and stop him.”
He also makes the point that the wording describing her misconduct as “gross negligence” was changed by the FBI because “Gross negligent is a criminally liable standard. So if they had said it the way that they originally wrote it she’s guilty of a crime. And the reason they changed it is because she’s not guilty of a crime and if you want to stop him, it can’t be gross negligence.”
(TLB) published this video report as compiled by Rick Wells at Rick Wells.US
Rick says… If you’re also fed up with Facebook Gestapo tactics of censorship and kicking conservatives off of their platform for telling the truth, look for me onhttps://gab.ai/RickRWells, on MeWe, and on my website https://RickWells.US – PleaseSUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US to receive my posts directly by email, safely beyond the censorship of Nazi Mark Zuckerberg and his thought and speech Gestapo goons. Thanks for reading my work.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our main websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … TLB
Follow TLB on Twitter @thetlbproject
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box.
TheLibertyBeacon.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.