US Attorney John Durham that is investigating much of the same things Horowitz has been for a much shorter period, says that he greatly disagrees with the IG’s findings. Basically, Horowitz said that the FBI did all of these bad things like spying, withholding exculpatory evidence, using evidence that was not really evidence at all, but boys will be boys, so let’s just drop it.
John Durham, on the other hand who has been investigating for only months while Horowitz has been investigating years says he does not agree with the findings at all and that he told the IG so a month or two ago. John Durham is the man that AG Bill Barr tapped as the investigator into the origins of the investigation into Trump.
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
Mr. Durham has already traveled to Italy and other countries as part of his sprawling investigation into how Obama’s corrupt FBI and intel agencies launched and carried out the largest spy operation of a presidential candidate in US history.
Unlike Horowitz, Durham has real power to bring the coup plotters to justice, such as the power to indict and impanel a grand jury.
US Attorney General Bill Barr also blasted the FBI on Monday in a statement
“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said, adding, “It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.”