Watch IG Horowitz' Reaction When Asked If Hillary Committed "No Crimes"

An overlooked exchange from Tuesday's testimony by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz provides an insightful moment into his opinion of Hillary Clinton's guilt or innocence. 

Unearthed by journalist Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) for her latest report which can be found here, this is a must-see exchange between Horowitz and Rep. Eric Salwell (D-CA) during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, the look on the Inspector General's face - and the guy behind him - are priceless...

"Do you agree, yes or no, that Hillary Clinton committed no crimes?"

Smiles all around.


nope-1004 ???ö? Thu, 06/21/2018 - 17:55 Permalink

1 - Hang Hillary from a lamp post on Penn Ave. for crimes against our country.

2 - Live Stream for all to watch.  Witness first-hand how criminals in high office acting in opposition to the citizens of their own nation are to be dealt with.

3 - Hold a debate on who's next.  Toss up between Eric Holder and John Podesta.


In reply to by ???ö?

FireBrander nope-1004 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:25 Permalink

UMMMMMMMM....her email server....she admitted to committing a crime on TV!

Not only that, she also admitted to destroying evidence!

..and she LAUGHED about it!

You and I try that and let's see if the FBI just shrugs it off..yeah right...our ASS IN JAIL on day one while we go through the formality of a trial and sentencing!

Is she that stupid to admit to this on TV? Nope...she openly admitted to the crime because she was 101% positive she was going to be President...and no matter what she said prior to winning, "what would it matter at that point?".

In reply to by nope-1004

istt nope-1004 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:58 Permalink

No, next up should be Barak Obama. He gave approval to this whole fiasco. We wouldn't be here today if it weren't for his immoral stances on everything across the board.


I actually never disliked the guy while he was president. But now that he is out you can see the trail of destruction and immorality he left. 


He is the one who should be swinging from the lamppost. 

In reply to by nope-1004

nmewn ???ö? Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:03 Permalink

He did answer "a question" not the one being asked and under the condition it was being asked...

"Do you agree, yes or no, that Hillary Clinton committed no crimes?" 

...the correct answer of course is no. 

No...that he does not agree that Hillary committed no crimes. 

In reply to by ???ö?

nmewn Oliver Klozoff Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:37 Permalink


"Hillary, have you stopped beating Huma?"...there's no way it can be answered without admitting to beating Huma. 

Here we go (and it's OT but what the X of Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional, the CFPB...

"Respectfully, the Court disagrees with the holding of the en banc court and instead adopts Sections I-IV of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent (joined in by Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph), where, based on considerations of history, liberty, and presidential authority, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that the CFPB “is unconstitutionally structured because it is an independent agency that exercises substantial executive power and is headed by a single Director.” Id. at 198.

Also most respectfully, the Court disagrees with Section V of Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion wherein he determined the remedy to be to “invalidate and sever the for-cause removal provision and hold that the Director of the CFPB may be supervised, directed, and removed at will by the President.” (Edit: Because the Court cannot make law, only interpret it.) Id. at 200.

Instead, the Court adopts Section II of Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson’s dissent wherein she opined that “the presumption of severability is rebutted here. A severability clause ‘does not give the court power to amend’ a statute. Nor is it a license to cut out the ‘heart’ of a statute. Because section 5491(c)(3) is at the heart of Title X [Dodd Frank], I would strike Title X in its entirety.”

...all this damnable winning! ;-)

In reply to by Oliver Klozoff

Zerogenous_Zone DjangoCat Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:08 Permalink



WHICH, by the way, does not preclude them from REOPENING the investigation...


Trump holds the cards and the so desperately want him's kind of like 'political waterboarding'...the slow drip drip drip...KNOWING that he knows and wondering when the next tid bit of information drops...


their only hope, which is a good one, is counting on the undereducated sheople and drama induced e-social snowflakes will not believe anything that comes from some one who is NOT like them...


did you see May in the UK still pushing the debunked Trump-puts-immigrant-kids-in-cages-narrative?!  she should have BOOOED off the stage immediately!!


but the majority of the populace actually WANTS socialistic fascists dictating their meager existence...



In reply to by DjangoCat

Bastiat DjangoCat Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:10 Permalink

Yes, exactly.  Also, he is IG, not sprecial prosecutor.  Hillary was not an employee of the DOJ or FBI.  It's pretty clear what he thinks about the question asked.  It's just outside the scope of his investigation and report so he brings it back within the scope of his investigation with his answer.  I've got no problem with it. 

In reply to by DjangoCat

edotabin The First Rule Thu, 06/21/2018 - 18:12 Permalink

Hillary will only be charged or face some type of retribution in a very indirect way or from an indirect source. This holds true partially because "HITLER, TOTALITARIAN, BLAH BLAH" and partially because her people are still around and are also implicated. As long as she can take them down too, they keep the party going.

One thing that comes to mind is this RICO lawsuit that was recently brought up. Who was it? A border agent or Secret Service agent? Anyway, if one of those things stick (not too likely), then maybe some disproportionately light sentence might be handed down.

I'm not agreeing with any of this. It's just the way it'll, unfortunately, probably go down.

In reply to by The First Rule

DjangoCat ThePhantom Thu, 06/21/2018 - 20:36 Permalink

Nota bene.. 

"our finding is that prosecutors looked at the evidence and determined no crimes were committed.."... 

"that prosecutors ... determined no crimes were committed" 

Wasn't it James Comey who "determined" that the HRC matter did not even need to go to the "prosecutors"?

What about a grand jury?  Was there ever even an investigation in which HRC was named?  Not according to this report.

Who are the "prosecutors" and were they acting in interests of the nation in coming to that determination?

Have the prosecutors been implicated in any other obstructions of justice?

In reply to by ThePhantom