THE HOROWITZ REPORT: BLIND TO THE RECURRING IMPLICIT BIASES.

ICHEOKU says unfortunately, it appears that the main law enforcement institution in the country has been infected with the bug of crass partisan politics. As a result, its investigation now sways as it selectively sees fit. How could any reasonable person, faced with the mountain of evidence of the desire of the bureau to see one candidate prevail in the last 2016 presidential election, reach a conclusion that there was no bias in the bureau's investigative activities, both before, during and continuing after the election. 

Bias were flashing red everywhere you turned and starring everybody in the face; admitted they were mainly implicit in nature; but with such prevalence and no attempt to hide them that any rational person could easily infer their existence. Even the explicit bias would have been uncovered had those thousands of text messages and emails exchanged between lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page been released; but the FBI did not allow the public to see them or rather refused their release. These text messages were summarily hidden away, kept out of reach and out of sight and the only plausible reason for doing it is to shield some implicated persons in the spy gate scandal. So, American people are not fooled nor too stupid to buy into the lack of "evidence of bias" which the Inspector General tried to sell to them in his report. 

It is intelligence insulting and logic defying, requiring the suspension of disbelief, to concede the assertion by the Inspector General that “no bias” was established in the initiation of investigation of the Trump's campaign. If the FBI was not biased, why was it only Peter Strzok that was assigned to investigate both the Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton's 33,000 missing emails, as well as the President's supposed Russians infiltration of his campaign. Was he the only FBI agent available or competent enough to conduct such investigations. Why did Michael Horowitz disregard the text messages between the two lovers, where Peter Strzok was reassuring his lover Lisa Page that Donald Trump will never be president and that there is an insurance in place to achieve that. It is equally noteworthy that the same Peter Strzok boasted that Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton chances of defeating Donald Trump is one million to nothing, yet he entertained no bias against the president? 

James Comey's wife and their three daughters are Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton's staunch supporters, who participated in the march in Washington DC against the president, yet the inspector General wants America to believe that James Comey had no reason to nurse any animosity against the president, with his four angry women mounting pressure on him. It is also on record that the FBI did not concurrently inform Trump's campaign of the suspected infiltration of his campaign by the Russians; but informed the Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton's campaign to be vigilant of foreign infiltration. The same bureau previously had warned Senator Diane Feinstein of her long time driver being a Chinese agent. Why did the FBI not investigate the Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton's campaign or planted a spy therein just like they did with the Trump's campaign. Yet the Inspector General wants American people to believe that there was no bias in the bureau's investigative action against only the president. 

There were 17 uncommon errors made in the investigation of the president and you wonder why these many mistakes by such a premier investigative bureau, if they were not purposefully intentioned outcomes. One or two mistakes will be acceptable, but 17 is outlandishly fishy. Lastly, if there was no bias on their part in initiating and continuing the investigation of the president, why did the FBI continue with the FISA petition to the court long after they became aware that the dossier on which the petitions were based was fraught with errors? Why did they not stop or inform the court of the discovered mistake and also include the exculpatory evidence in their filings to the FISA court? But American people are expected to just accept it, nod their heads in support of their numero uno investigating bureau since they can do no wrong and are beyond reproach, right? 

ICHEOKU says since the Russian infiltration investigation was not the first rodeo for the FBI with such investigations, why did they get so many things so wrong in the FISA petition process, which has now become a FISA abuse scandal? Other than their implicit bias, such a renowned investigative agency usually does not unintentionally get such so many things wrong and in just one investigation. The frequency of so many coincidences makes the findings in the report, that no bias was established, simply unbelievable nor acceptable; and without further and additional information as to the prevalence of such irregularities and mistakes in their investigations, this stand alone incident is indeed suspect. 

Bias is most times implicit and should have been inferred from the conduct of all those who were involved in the investigation of the president and raising of the FISA documents. Just like James Comey wrongly stated during his usurped role not to indict Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton, when he falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton had no guilty intent and should have inferred her guilty intent from her conduct; this Michael Horowitz's somewhat exculpatory statement that "no bias" was found is equally suspect, as it should have been similarly established by inference. 

Simply put, the report appears to be just another cover up job, intended to shield the Deep State from being implicated in the whole scandal and protect them from facing consequences for their action. ICHEOKU reiterates that American people are not buying it, so until the culprits are identified and held to account for their intentional electoral malpractice and interference in our election, the current air of complicity and untrustworthiness will continue to shadow the FBI. Therefore it is in the FBI's own interest to transparently lift the fog of suspicion hovering over them and speedily too, in order to regain the confidence of the American people in their once straight laced bureau. Appearance is everything and the shadow of suspicion and lack of trustworthiness bedeviling the bureau is not good. It is shameful.