[HOT AIR] Graham is always good during Q&A at hearings (a rarity on both sides of the aisle) and this is no exception. A simple logical progression: If Strzok was the lead investigator on Emailgate and we know that he didn’t want Trump to be president and it’s universally understood that the FBI recommending that Hillary be indicted would have fatally weakened her candidacy......should we not assume that the outcome of Emailgate was gamed to protect her? Why should we give Strzok any benefit of the doubt in assuming that his investigative decisions were pure? We shouldn’t ‐ and the IG doesn’t really disagree. That’s the only slightly odd note here. Michael Horowitz went out of his way to say in last week’s report that Strzok might have prioritized Russiagate over Emailgate in the final month of the campaign for partisan reasons, not wanting to reopen the Pandora’s box of Clinton’s classified-material practices so soon before the vote. To the extent that there’s any dispute here between him and Graham, it’s the differing degrees to which they’re willing to assume that bias infected the probe. Horowitz thinks the decision not to charge Clinton and much of the investigation itself were vindicated, albeit with Strzok’s motives a troubling question mark. Graham thinks Strzok’s participation necessarily taints the whole process and leads us to doubt the results. The tree was poisoned by Strzok; its fruit must necessarily be poisonous too.