Congressional Investigators uncovered several stunning facts from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that will re-frame the entire Hillary Clinton email investigation, and rock the FBI.

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016!

"Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time," adding this was "surprising"

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Michael Horowitz’s testimony to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, one day after he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Hillary Clinton’s guilt or innocence.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Shooting down a Dem/MSM talking point, Horowitz testified, "We did NOT find no bias in regard to the October 2016 events." Strzok's choice to make pursuing the Russia espionage case a bigger priority than reopening the Clinton espionage case suggested "that was a BIASED decision"

Horowitz just confirmed that there indeed was an original draft of his 568-pp report that was subsequently redlined by DOJ/FBI higher-ups. It's imperative that Congress obtain this early version before the swamp rats edited and revised it for obvious CYA purposes

BREAKING: IG Horowitz now says he's no longer convinced the FBI was collecting all of Strzok's and Page's text messages EVEN OUTSIDE THE 5-MONTH BLACKOUT period when it archived none of the texts due to a technical "glitch." So a # of other Strzok responses to Page likely missing

BREAKING: IG Horowitz confirmed that he is investigating allegations that FBI officials "edited" agents' 302 summary reports of interviews with witnesses and suspects in the 2016-2017 investigations (including Gen. Flynn)

Don't do many predictions, but here goes: the Flynn 302 is a composite 302. The source materials were not just edited but deleted prior to Flynn's prosecution.

BREAKING: IG Horowitz just testified that 1 of the unidentified other pro-Clinton FBI investigators referred for discipline was one of the agents who interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016, along with Strzok

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) just outed 2 of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG & both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in "counterintelligence" as the FBI claimed as an excuse to w/hold their names

Via Zerohedge…

Then, in a different text exchange with one of the other three Clinton email investigators (not Peter Strzok or Lisa Page), another agent wrote “screw you trump” after the first agent admitted “You should know…that I’m…with her.”

The unmasked agents are Sally Moyer (“Agent 1”) and Kevin Kleinsman (“Agent 5). As reported on Friday, Moyer referred to Clinton as “the President” in a text exchange with another FBI employee four days after interviewing her, according to Thursday’s DOJ Inspector General report.

“By the time of Clinton’s interview on July 2, we found that the Midyear agents and prosecutors, along with Comey, had decided that absent a confession or false statements by Clinton, the investigation would be closed without charges,” reads the IG report.

Clinton was interviewed by FBI agents on July 2 about her use of a private, unsecured email server which housed classified information while she was Secretary of State. According to the IG report, however, the FBI had already decided against recommending prosecution unless Clinton lied or confessed.

The same agent who texted “screw you trump” – “Agent 5” – also wrote “she better win… otherwise i’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns… and likely quitting on the spot,” as well as “fuck trump” on December 6.

The report said of these FBI agents that “we identified two instant message exchanges that appeared to combine a discussion of politics with the Midyear investigation.” (The FBI referred to the Clinton email investigation as “Midyear Exam,” “Midyear,” or “MYE.”)

The report released yesterday by the inspector general for the Department of Justice referred to these two FBI agents not by their names but as “Agent 1” and “Agent 5.”

This means that all four FBI case agents working the Hillary Clinton email investigation – the other two being Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – were ardent Clinton supporters, and at least three harbored animus towards Trump.

The Duran predicted much of the destruction to the US rule of law from Hillary’s reckless actions way back on October, 2016 .

Here is what Alexander Mercouris wrote from his post, “Hillary Clinton just planted a bomb under American Democracy”:

By far the most irresponsible and dangerous Hillary Clinton has done is however to accuse a foreign power – Russia – of meddling in the election in order to prevent her winning, and to impose Donald Trump on the American people.

This is dangerous and irresponsible at so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, it is not true. There is no evidence Donald Trump is a Russian agent or has any connection to Russia, or that Russia backs him. All the ‘evidence’ cited to prove he is and that it does – down to the misquotation of a single comment of Putin’s and the claims about Trump’s supposed Russian business connections – has proved to be so unconvincing that even Hillary Clinton has stopped talking about it.

Secondly, it is polluting the US political system by using agencies of the US government to spread this false story.

I have previously put on record my own strong doubts that Russia is behind the DNC and Podesta leaks. Now Craig Murray – a former British ambassador who (unlike me) is a personal friend of Julian Assange – has come forward to say that he knows 100% as fact that Russia is not behind the leaks.

Craig Murray is a man of proven integrity who as a former senior diplomat has handled classified intelligence material and who therefore knows how to separate fact from fiction. If he says he knows 100% for sure that Russia is not responsible for the DNC and Podesta leaks, then given the sources he has that is good enough for me, as it should be for all reasonable people.

What that must means is that the recent statement by US intelligence that Russia is behind the leaks is untrue. I have previously discussed the deeply manipulative language used in this statement, which in fact proves that US intelligence does not have the evidence to back up what it says.

I have also pointed out that it is actually unprecedented for US intelligence to interfere in a US election in this way.

Now that we have Craig Murray’s confirmation that the claim of Russian responsibility for the leaks made in the statement is untrue, we can judge even more clearly what a deeply dishonest document this statement is.

The big question is what persuaded US intelligence to make this statement? Based on everything we know, the suspicion has to be that Hillary Clinton and her campaign, almost certainly with the help of senior officials in the Obama administration, somehow persuaded US intelligence to put out this statement in order to swing the election in her favour.

If so then it should be said clearly that using the nation’s intelligence services to spread a false story in order to defeat a political opponent in a democratic election is a far worse thing than anything Richard Nixon ever did, whether during the 1972 election campaign or at any other point in his career.

Thirdly, these false claims about Russia are corrupting public debate, making a proper discussion of the US’s vital relationship with Russia – a nuclear superpower – all but impossible.

The result is that the ‘realist’ positions that are now becoming associated with Donald Trump – which have a long and respectable history in US foreign policy (they were the policies of John F. Kennedy in the months immediately before he was assassinated, of Lyndon Johnson, of Nixon and Kissinger, of Ronald Reagan in his second term, and of George H.W. Bush) – are no longer being taken seriously, since they are being associated with a man who has all but been called a traitor.

Fourthly, these false claims complicate relations with Russia almost beyond reason.

How can either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton now negotiate with Putin when the first has been publicly all but accused of being Putin’s agent and the other is being presented as the President that Putin tried to stop? How – if Hillary Clinton becomes President and tries to make a deal with Putin – does she explain it to her supporters after all the things she has said about him?

Fifthly, and most dangerous of all, making this completely false claim is planting a bomb under the legitimacy of whoever is going to be the next President of the United States.

If that person is Donald Trump, then he will have to contend with the fact that he is the candidate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, most of the political establishment, nearly all the media, and the US intelligence community, have publicly claimed Russia is helping to win.

How in that case, if Trump does win, would he as President be able to command the respect and loyalty of the foreign policy bureaucracy, of the intelligence community, of the military, of the media, and of Congress, when they have all been told that he is the preferred candidate and quite possibly the agent of a foreign power? Would they not see it as their duty to obstruct and disobey him at every turn, so as to stop him selling out the country to his foreign puppet-masters?

How does Trump contend with the insinuation, which will be hanging over his Presidency from the first day if he is elected, that it was only because of Russian help (right down to the hacking of voting machines) that he won, and that he is not therefore the true choice of the American people? Would not Trump have to fear possible impeachment proceedings in the event that he made the smallest mistake, with many Americans feeling that any steps were justified to remove a President who they had been told was the agent of a hostile power?

If the next President is Hillary Clinton then the situation is scarcely any better.

Hillary Clinton would in that case know that she won the Presidency on a lie: that Russia was trying to help her opponent win and that it was the patriotic duty of Americans to vote for her in order to stop him.

Would she not then have the constant fear of what might happen if (or rather when) the lie was found out, and if US intelligence was asked by Congress to explain the statement it made, and the circumstances under which it made it?

Would Hillary Clinton not in that case also have to worry about the possibility of impeachment if the whole truth about this sordid affair ever came out?

Which brings me to the subject of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

I am not an expert on the US law in question. However it looks to me like a standard law for the handling of classified or confidential material, of which there are many. As is common with such laws, it is a law of what the British call “strict liability” ie. motive is irrelevant, and a crime is automatically committed if the the terms of the law are breached.

What that means is that it is technically irrelevant whether Hillary Clinton breached the terms of the law intentionally or carelessly (as she says). If she breached the terms of the law then she is or should be guilty of the crime set out in it.

I think it is fair to say that most people familiar with this law agree that Hillary Clinton was very fortunate not to have been prosecuted when the FBI first investigated her over the emails. Most of these people also agree that anyone else in the same position would almost certainly have been prosecuted if they had done the same thing.

As it happens Hillary Clinton not only failed to provide any remotely satisfactory explanation of why she used a private server in breach of the terms of the law, but she has also admitted deleting tens of thousands of emails (apparently on the grounds they were “private”) and of having destroyed hard drives to make retrieval of these emails impossible.

Again I think it is fair to say that most people who know about these things would expect in those circumstances a prosecution for obstruction of justice; and that most of these people think that Hillary Clinton is either very privileged or very lucky that no such prosecution was brought against her.

Hillary Clinton is by all accounts a very capable lawyer. As a lawyer she would have been required to keep clients’ information confidential as a normal part of her work. Hillary Clinton was also one of the lawyers involved in the hearings of the Watergate scandal, in which mishandling of confidential information was a central issue. She cannot therefore claim to be ignorant about these sort of issues.

Hillary Clinton has also served in the White House as a member of her husband’s administration, and was a US Senator before Obama appointed her US Secretary of State, when the scandal of the emails took place. Again the handling of secret and confidential information would have been a normal part of her work.

We are therefore talking about someone who has been handling confidential and classified information all her working life, and who is or should be fully aware of the relevant rules and protocols involved in handling it, and of the legal consequences of not abiding by them.

Speaking as someone who has also had experience of handling confidential information, I can say that after a time observing the proper protocols becomes second nature. It is well-nigh incredible to me – and I suspect to many other people – that this was not so in Hillary Clinton’s case.

It is also well-nigh incredible to me that a lawyer as experienced as Hillary Clinton would not in the event of an FBI investigation immediately take steps to ensure that all the evidence – meaning of course all the emails – was tracked down, carefully preserved, and handed over immediately to the FBI. That tens of thousands of emails were instead deleted, that hard drives were destroyed, and that emails should now be turning up months later in a laptop in the possession of the estranged husband of a senior aide who is being investigated on sex crime charges, would be quite literally beyond belief were it not actually happening.