In order to understand OIG Reports you have to understand the process, they do not look to second-guess discretionary decisions made by FBI agents or DOJ attorneys. They don’t try to determine if they got the right answer, only that they followed policy in arriving at that answer. So the OIG will not say Peter Strzok made the wrong decision in opening the case, they will only note if he made the decision in accordance with policy.
The OIG also assumes any testimony given by FBI or DOJ personnel are truthful unless proven otherwise by evidence. When they want to know why an agent made a decision, they ask them why they did it. If they claim it was an honest mistake or a judgement call based upon a legitimate reason the OIG takes their word for it. UNLESS the agent confesses or they find conclusive hard evidence to prove the agent is lying, they take their word. This is why you lead to such conflicting information. The OIG finds all of this questionable evidence, but the agent denies the allegation, so they report the facts but don’t conclude it was nefarious.
The agency can then take disciplinary or legal action against the employees if they don’t believe their story. Which is why most of these personnel have been terminated or resigned to avoid cooperating with the investigations. So don’t take Horowitz’s statement that they didn’t conclude something as confirmation that it didn’t exist. His statements always include the caveat that he did not receive testimony or documents to support that conclusion.
Then the Democrats & the media take his statement that no one confessed to the crime, as proof that the crime didn’t happen. While endorsing the evidence within the report that can easily prove the crimes to a fair jury. The Democrats are accepting the facts that will build to later conclusions. Enough of the process, my next several posts will get into the evidence within the report!