Earlier this year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz launched an investigation into the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
From Conservative Post:
Allegations that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director’s public announcement on July 5, 2016, and the Director’s letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative decisions were based on
Allegations that the FBI Deputy Director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters;
Allegations that the Department’s Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters;
Allegations that Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information; and
Allegations that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI’s release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1, 2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize same, were influenced by improper considerations.
Heads aren’t just rolling at the FBI. We all want to know why some investigators played down evidence against Clinton, while others exaggerated the usefulness of discredited “evidence” against Trump.
We know where these investigators have been. But what’s their next move?