One Point About The IG Report

6/16/18

Here’s one point on the IG Report, which I haven’t read, not even the summary.

Apparently, it discloses a great deal of bias among some of the top echelon in the FBI charged both with investigating Clinton and investigating Russia and the Trump campaign.

Some are drawing succour from the report saying, paraphrase, “We can’t find documented or otherwise evident instances of bias informing specific decisions. But we’re concerned with many expressions of bias among highly placed people.” 

But it’s rare so as to be effectively non existent for sophisticated people explicitly to broadcast their bias. That’s why the legal maxim is, “Not only must justice be done, it must seen to be done.”

So, for example, when Strzok, a lead investigator into Clinton’s email issue and the campaign collusion issue, says, “We’ll stop it,” how can anyone know whether that attitude didn’t inform his decisions? It’s impossible to know.

That impossibility is why taint arises from just the  apprehension of bias, why courts, for example, overturn decisions on that apprehension and root out judges for it before decisions are made. Bias can be inferred from conduct and comments. In the Report, however, there are smoking gun instances of it. 

So for those who want to take comfort from there being, as the Report says, no documented or evident instances of bias affecting specific decision, they need other recliners: it’s no comfort at all and proceeds from a massive misconception.