Comments

Horowitz speaks… — 39 Comments

1. “Then again, if the FBI consists of so many knaves, I’d prefer them to also be fools rather than brilliant and subtly Machiavellian geniuses.” – Neo

   There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of that so far.
   For example, sending texts of a questionable nature (on many levels) to your co-worker paramour on your government-issued work phones is not too overly brilliant – even if Clinton had won.

   https://nypost.com/2019/12/02/lisa-page-doesnt-want-you-to-think-aboout-fbi-wrongs-in-trump-probe/
   by David Harsanyi

   https://nypost.com/2019/12/10/former-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-sues-fbi-justice-department-over-released-texts/
   By Kate Sheehy

2. Yes, the Strzok/Page texts are really the thing that puts this over the top. Without those at least some argument could be made that there was no biased intent. So they are both knaves and fools.

3. Knaves in intent, although I am sure they don’t see it that way. They have a mission of a higher calling than the law. They may even one day understand how misguided and wrong they were… or not.

   Fools for buying into the anti-Trump hysteria in the first place and thinking that it justified betraying their oaths, their professional integrity, and their nation.

4. I would highly recommend reading down through Mollie Hemingway’s phenomenal twitter feed in order to better understand what Horowitz is trying to actually say (among many other things, including Schiff vs. Nunes).

   One example:
   https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1204814980622757893 :
   Graham: Comey says he’s vindicated by your report. True?
   Horowitz: “The activities we found don’t vindicate anyone who touched this.”

   Ditto Lee Smith’s twitter feed.

5. The Strzok/Page texts are helpful, but I think there are large amounts of detail outside the Horowitz report. We were told that we had to keep waiting for Horowitz probably because the probe was being expanded. Well, it seems like a relatively narrow probe to me. The time it took is absurd. It couldn’t go outside the DOJ and FBI, by dint of Horowitz’s job description.

6. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384712.php

   December 11, 2019
   Surprise! CNN and MSNBC, Which Have Covered Every Moment of the Fake Impeachment Hearings, Absolutely Refuse to Air the Horowitz Testimony

   CNN and MSNBC stopped following the IG hearing after about 30 minutes, and both refused to cover the opening statements by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The decision does not align with the recent live hearing coverage standard both networks have held for the last few months, giving endless air time to the impeachment hearings lead by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, and Rep. Jerry Nadler.

   Sub quote is from here:
   https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/11/cnn-msnbc-refuse-to-air-doj-inspector-general-hearing-live/#.XfEdQTufPhE.twitter

   If the IG report proved that the FBI acted perfectly within its boundaries, as the mainstream media claim, then what’s the harm in airing this footage? The truth is, the IG report revealed abuse of power at the highest levels of the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community.

   The truth does not fit the CNN and MSNBC agenda, and that is why they refuse to give a platform to it.

7. Griffin on December 11, 2019 at 2:53 pm said:
   Yes, the Strzok/Page texts are really the thing that puts this over the top. Without those at least some argument could be made that there was no biased intent. So they are both knaves and fools.
   * * *
   It appears that Horowitz does not count this as bias – maybe it’s a timing thing.
   IG report p. 66:
   (sorry about the formatting; it’s an artifact of cut-and-paste that I can’t fix in the “edit” mode)

   In the OIG’s June 20.18 Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016
   Election, we described text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page expressing
   statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Clinton, and several text messages that appeared to mix political opinions with discussions of the investigation into candidate Clinton’s email use and references to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. One such exchange occurred on July 31, 2016, the date of the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,

   Or maybe just because they were part of the herd.
   p. 349-350

   Additionally, on August 8, 2016, Page sent a text message to Strzok that
   stated, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok
   responded, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Although we did not find in our prior
   report any documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political
   views stated in the text messages to the specific investigative actions in Midyear
   that we reviewed, we concluded that Strzok’s text messages with Page indicated or
   created the appearance of bias against Trump. We further concluded that the
   messages raised serious questions about the propriety of any investigative
   decisions in which Strzok and Lisa Page played a role. Because several of these
   inappropriate and troubling messages occurred at or near the time of the opening
   of Crossfire Hurricane, we closely reviewed the roles of Strzok and Lisa Page in the
   investigation’s opening and whether there was any documentary or testimonial
   evidence that their views impacted the decision to open the investigation.
   We found that while she attended some of the discussions, Lisa Page did not
   play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases.
   Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the
   four individual cases, but we found that he was not the sole, or even the highest
   level decision maker as to any of those matters. Priestap, Strzok’s supervisor, told
   us that ultimately he was the official who made the decision to open the Crossfire
   Hurricane investigation, and Strzok then prepared and approved the formal
   documentation, as required by the DIOG. Evidence reflected that this decision by
   Priestap was reached by consensus after multiple days of discussions and meetings
   that included Strzok and other leadership in CD, the FBI Deputy Director, the FBI
   General Counsel, and the FBI Deputy General Counsel. We similarly found that the
   decisions to open the four individual cases were reached by consensus of Crossfire
   Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump
   campaign who had recently travelled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia,
   and that Priestap was involved in those decisions. The formal documentation
   opening each of these four investigations was approved by Strzok, as required by
   the DIOG.
   We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or
   improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open Crossfire Hurricane. The
   evidence also showed that FBI officials responsible for and involved in the case
   opening decisions were unanimous in their belief that, together with the July 2016
   release by WikiLeaks of hacked DNC emails, the Papadopoulos statement described
   in the FFG information reflected the Russian government’s potential next step to
   interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These FBI officials were similarly unanimous
   in their belief that the FFG information represented a threat to national security that warranted further investigation by the FBI.
   Witnesses told us that they did not
   recall observing during these discussions any instances or indications of improper
   motivations or political bias on the part of the participants, including Strzok.

   We also reviewed the text messages and emails of each of the FBI officials,
   in addition to Strzok, who participated in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane
   and the four individual cases, and did not identify any statements in those
   communications that indicated or suggested the decision could have been affected
   by political bias or other improper considerations. We also reviewed other
   contemporaneous documents, such as meeting notes, and asked witnesses who
   were not involved in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane but who were familiar
   with the predication for the case for any evidence of political bias or improper
   motivation in the FBI’s decision making. Again, we found no such evidence,
   including from Department officials briefed about Crossfire Hurricane subsequent to
   it being opened. These officials also did not express any concerns about the FBI’s
   decision to open the investigation. By way of example, David Laufman, then Chief
   of the National Security Division’s (NSD) Counterintelligence and Export Control
   Section (CES), told us that it would have been “a dereliction of duty and
   responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as
   urgently

8. AesopFan,

   Yeah, Horowitz may not but any sane person does.

   I’ve been incredibly skeptical that any of these people will get any comeuppance beyond cushy pensions and book deals BUT I have to say that Barr and Durham’s responses the last couple makes me a little more hopeful.

9. So, all Horowitz really has is that, indeed, nobody said out loud in a documented meeting or on official communications that they were doing this just to Get Trump.
   However, as Barr pointed out in his interview (see below), their primary “lead” was still just a hear-say report about a statement allegedly made by a very-junior-level staffer in a bar.
   It’s either fools (group think on steroids) or knaves (maybe we can use this!) IF AND ONLY IF Priestap was not part of tasking Mifsud to set up Papadopoulos.

   We similarly found that the decisions to open the four individual cases were reached by consensus of Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently travelled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia, and that Priestap was involved in those decisions.
   …
   We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or
   improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open Crossfire Hurricane.

   The evidence also showed that FBI officials responsible for and involved in the case opening decisions were unanimous in their belief that, together with the July 2016 release by WikiLeaks of hacked DNC emails, the Papadopoulos statement described in the FFG information reflected the Russian government’s potential next step to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These FBI officials were similarly unanimous in their belief that the FFG information represented a threat to national security that warranted further investigation by the FBI.
   Witnesses told us that they did not recall observing during these discussions any instances or indications of improper motivations or political bias on the part of the participants, including Strzok.

10. Barr’s statement was quoted here
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/12/10/why-did-the-democrats-and-the-msm-appear-to-be-so-happy-with-the-horowitz-report/#comment-2470092
    AesopFan on December 11, 2019 at 3:41 pm said:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384700.php

    Griffin: see this (also quoted in the other thread)
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/horowitzs-findings-belie-his-conclusion-of-no-political-motivation.php

11. In a normal criminal or civil trial, normal citizens on a jury are asked to make judgments about people’s state of mind and motives. Yet, Horowitz can’t stick his neck out and say what is obvious to everyone about the motives and malice of people in question.

    A true bureaucrat…

12. Horowitz did his job which was protect DOJ employees from any overt exposure to charges of outright criminality. He didn’t do a very good job for those who can read between the lines and connect the obvious dots. BTW, Graham was on fire during his opening statement today. I enjoyed his comments about Feinstein and her connection to the Chinese.

13. The Horowitz hearing was devastating for the Comey FBI (and by extension for the Democrats).

    Josh Hawley was brilliant.

14. Roy Nathanson: ” Yet, Horowitz can’t stick his neck out and say what is obvious to everyone about the motives and malice of people in question.

    A true bureaucrat…”

    I watched much of the testimony today. I admire Horowitz’s ability to thread the needle of weasel word testimony. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head as he figures out how to do testimony that won’t (he hopes) bring him death threats or shunning at the DOJ Christmas party. A true bureaucrat indeed.

    The Republicans managed, for those who were watching Fox News, to make it perfectly clear that the FBI was more knave than fool in this matter. I loved Senator Kennedy’s (R-LA) remark that, after he had read 25% of the report, he felt like he was on an acid trip – he felt unmoored from reality. The MSM will spin this, but the average citizen, even the LIV independents, can recognize bias and political mal practice in what the FBI did. The Swamp is like the Emperor With No Clothes, exposed to all as nakedly corrupt.

15. I strongly suspect everyone here can identify the essential question, but Dyer adds some dots and then connects them.

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/12/11/before-crossfire-hurricane-devin-nunes-asks-the-essential-question-after-release-of-doj-ig-report/

    Before Crossfire Hurricane: Devin Nunes asks the essential question after release of DOJ IG report
    By J.E. Dyer December 11, 2019

    The IG report only takes us so far. That’s because it accepts the start date of its investigative charter as the day Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched by the FBI: 31 July 2016.

    We’ll learn a lot from looking at the period after that. But the operations of U.S. agencies against (or, if you like, “involving”) members of the Trump campaign were underway well before that. Even if we use the friendlier-sounding term “involving” here, it’s still the case that agencies and personalities that engaged with Trump campaign members after 31 July 2016 were also involved with them before 31 July 2016.

    Devin Nunes called that out on Monday.

    She also identifies the essential problem:

    The highlights have come out quickly, such as the startling count of 51 procedural violations by the FBI just in forwarding the FISA applications on Carter Page, and the fact that nine of those 51 involved making false statements to the FISA court. In light of these and other findings, the IG report’s conclusion that all this troubling conduct didn’t amount to “bias” on the part of the FBI seems rather … beside the point. Pick another measuring stick, folks. That one is about as useful to our public purpose as Gloria Steinem’s famous bicycle was to a fish.

    Whatever we label it – and “bias” is an unimpressive scare word to begin with – a federal law enforcement undertaking so full of violations and false statements is a problem of the highest priority. So call it Petunia, for all I care. Just don’t have the crust to call it something that frames it to be written off. Real, live Americans have to live every day with what we suffer the FBI to do in the name of law and order.

    And if the senior officials at headquarters are allowed to misbehave themselves so badly, it doesn’t much matter how honorable the rank and file are.

    Whatever behavior you don’t punish, you get more of.
    On steroids.

16. I’m tired of hearing from everyone how wonderful the rank and file of the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department are and that it’s just a few at the top who are the problem. There were a lot of people at the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department who had an idea of what was going on and yet not a single one of them raised the alarm.

    Trump got a ‘whistleblower’ for an innocuous phone call and a big investigation and even impeachment, yet all the wrongdoing against Trump and his people did not raise anyone’s notice. That seems to me to indicate a serious lack of integrity at several levels.

    Replacing just the top of these organizations is not enough; they need serious reform of their entire cultures.

17. As far as their oaths and country, remember they swore to protect the country from “all enemies, foreign AND domestic.” They truly believe conservatives are the enemy so the country MUST be protected from them.

    They see us as deplorable, bad people who are worthy of condemnation. Also irredeemable, of no value who cannot be saved.

    This is why we do not matter to them as we are beneath their contempt, subject to ridicule at best. By stopping us they are protecting the country.

    They, the elite, the bureaucrat, the media, know what is best and the rest of us should shut up and take it (good and hard for our own good, of course).

    This is why they can direct policy, spy on others, make their pronouncements and regulations and fiats and we must obey.

    If another Republican had run and been elected, they would have done the same thing. But it took Trump to bring it out into the open for all to see.

    He exposed the machinations that would never have seen the light of day. Why haven’t the judges brought charges on those who lied before the FISA court? Because they are the same elite who have contempt for us.

    None of them believe they did, are doing, will do anything wrong in this or how they think of us. How else can Clinton, Comey, Schiff, Nadler, Brennan, etc. say what they do without truly believing it? They are the cult, the true believers in their “righteous cause” of lording over us.

    This is why they believe they are upholding their oaths of protecting the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Protecting the country from us.

18. Except, wait a minute, we Are the country, not just the Left.

19. Strange as it might seem, the next election could be a Trump landslide with both the electoral and the popular vote because of the economy and perhaps the truth about the weasel deeds of the left who it turns out might really be commie, rat’s assed bastards and the dumb shits that buy into their story. It’s really that simple and the balance seems to be shifting as more people have jobs and Trump’s crazy ideas seem to be working. One can only hope that more of us common folk actually see and read what is going on now with the reports.

20. Strange as it might seem, the next election could be a Trump landslide with both the electoral and the popular vote because of the economy and perhaps the truth about the weasel deeds of the left who it turns out might really be commie,

    It won’t be. North of 40% of the population is irreconcilable and don’t care about gross violations of the law contra political opponents. Every aspect of this should be motivating for voters, but it will move the needle very little.

21. “Why haven’t the judges brought charges on those who lied before the FISA court?” — eeyore

    Earlier I asked what the FISC judges knew about those warrant applications. They may have been bamboozled about the Steele dossier, but surely they knew they were dealing with a presidential political campaign?

    Devin Nunes weighed in,

    Nunes called to either end the FISA court or for action to be taken against the court because of the abuses found in the IG report.

    “They ran spies … they ran people into Trump campaign officials over and over and over again,” Nunes remarked. “It was the Democrats’ dirt followed by fake news, followed by spies that they ran against Trump campaign officials, and then they decided, even though there was exculpatory evidence, not to turn it over to the court.”

    “The FISA Court has to either be shut down in its entirety or they have to take action and soon because … this cannot happen again,” he added.

22. “The long term implication of the IG Report will be the realization that the FBI has become the law enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.”

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1204184967367913473

23. I fear that irreparable damage has been inflicted on the fabric of society. When the very organizations that are charged with making the laws, and enforcing the laws, are proven to have no respect for the laws, there is no basis for trust.

    I know there is anger across the land. I am extraordinarily angry. I served in uniform for 25 years, with faith that those who governed us were, by and large, true to our constitutional principles–even if when there were incident of individual corruption. That faith has been betrayed.

    It remains to be seen how the anger is manifest.

24. More on Horowitz:

    In a weird way I am kind of in awe of his ability navigate between and try to please both warring sides… For the Republicans, he says no FBI person is vindicated. For the Democrats, he says no FBI person is implicated. The two statements are actually not in conflict with each other and both sides get the sound bite they wanted to be able to repeat.

    Genious…!

25. J.J.: but the average citizen, even the LIV independents, can recognize bias and political mal practice in what the FBI did.

    Art Deco: North of 40% of the population is irreconcilable and don’t care about gross violations of the law contra political opponents.

    If my FB feed is any indication, the left in this country is fully willing to “cut down every law in England America to get at the Devil.”

26. Irv on December 11, 2019 at 6:02 pm said:
    …
    Replacing just the top of these organizations is not enough; they need serious reform of their entire cultures.

    * * *
    I’m with Irv and Nunes.

    It’s all well and good for Wray to say they will reform procedures, but the Horowitz report detailed over and over again that agents did not follow procedures already in place.

    This line in his testimony today blew me away.
    https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/12/Horowitz-Written-Testimony.pdf

    Further, the agents and SSAs did not follow, or even appear to know, certain basic requirements in the Woods Procedures.

27. For me it’s to the point where if I am watching or reading about a criminal case that should be non political but if an FBI agent or US Attorney is involved I’m instantly skeptical.

    This whole mess is how trusted organizations lose that trust and it’s very hard to get back.

28. “…did not follow procedures already in place…”

    Exactly.

    And the fact that ALL of these purported “mistakes” went “in the same direction” (multiple times, at that), and “just happened to” be used to entrap, intimidate, prosecute, trip up, confuse, confound and ultimately imprison Trump associates—while intending to defenestrate Trump himself—should set off all kinds of ringing, clanging bells and flashing red lights.

    All honest mistakes! Heh, sure…
    Could happen to anybody, any organization, any bureaucracy….
    Really. Seriously.

29. Related:
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/michael-horowitzs-flawed-epistemology.php

30. Loath as I am to think it, let alone say it, the FISC must end. No more secret spy court proceedings can be permitted: trust was given and now that good faith has been proven failed.

    This is why we can’t have nice things. Damned shame. Now people will have to die in undiscovered terror acts. This is what Barack Obama brought us. Thanks, Obama.

31. If my FB feed is any indication, the left in this country is fully willing to “cut down every law in England America to get at the Devil.”

    It’s worse than that. They think quite well of themselves for it and cannot process arguments to the contrary. At all.

32. A question that I’d like someone to ask James Comey, preferably when Comey is under oath:

    “You told President Trump in early 2017 that the content of the Steele Dossier was “salacious and unverified.” The Horowitz report says that the Steele Dossier was the basis for FISA surveillance of Trump. When did you know that the contents of the Steele Dossier was “salacious and unverified?”

33. ” ‘If my FB feed is any indication, the left in this country is fully willing to “cut down every law in England America to get at the Devil.” ‘

    It’s worse than that. They think quite well of themselves for it and cannot process arguments to the contrary. At all.”

    This is exactly what I see constantly in my FB. A vast mass of my school and work acquaintances hold all of the leftist thought about orangemanbad as literal, gospel truth; they would sooner accept that water is not wet than question any part of it. And it’s not just that it’s obvious truth that cannot be questioned by anyone with a functioning brain, they assume that anyone who even considers anything to the contrary, much less believes it, is not just wrong but absolutely evil: stupid, racist, bigoted, sexist, Nazi orangemanbad supporters and defenders. Against that backdrop, there’s no wedge to start one of Remnant’s precious “civil and dispassionate dialogues.”

    I saw this really kick into high gear around the beginning of the “Punch a Nazi” era. It was chilling. Some of these people posting social media memes glorifying attacking real or imagined Trump supporters were people I’d known for 20 years. To see chubby, balding middle-age parents who had never been in a physical altercation in their life (I know because I went to school with them) suggesting figuratively or literally that one should go around attacking people who might have voted for a President they don’t like, was down-the-rabbit-hole stuff. I suddenly saw what happened in Germany in the 1930s. These are people who have actively dehumanized political opponents. There is no such thing as rights or due process of the law for us. They are not interested in whether proper process was followed during what was obviously a politically motivated travesty of justice; they honestly couldn’t care less if every rule in the book was broken. It’s all good when you’re going after Trump and his untermenschen.

34. We keep talking about knaves or fools. And I have used that formulation at times myself.

    And a lot of us talk about the “deep state”, that is, those civil servants who were left over after Trump took office, and who presumably preferred Hillary to Trump before the election. I have often likened most of Washington to fish swimming in a Democratic ocean, who don’t have enough contact outside the beltway to know they are, in fact, rabid ideologues on the left. Given that everyone around them believes the same way, how could it be different?

    But we also need to recognize that very few people in Washington in the lead up to the 2016 election could ever, in their wildest dreams, imagine that Trump would win the election. They aren’t knaves or fools (although they come close to being fools), nor are they necessarily denizens of the swamp. They just didn’t have any familiarity with “flyover country” and probably never heard another person say anything positive about Trump.

    I remember attending a Trump rally in Reno in late 2015. I was not a Trump supporter, but I wanted to see him in action. It was amazing. I was among the believers. These people, who packed the ballroom in the Nugget, knew the slogans, the applause lines, and were committed supporters. It was a population of thousands I was totally unfamiliar with and therefore unprepared to expect.

    Now transfer that experience to the people in the coastal enclaves, watching MSM coverage of the Hillary and Trump campaigns, and you (or at least I) can understand how Strzok and Page and all the others at the FBI could do what they did in the full expectation Hillary would be inaugurated in January 2017 and their actions, if ever discovered, would appear to be rational and even laudatory.

    Horowitz’ testimony before the Senate gives us a little insight into this frame of mind. Strzok et al might honestly may have believed they were doing the right thing. Yes, they were foolish in that belief, but it is understandable. And Horowitz is understandable in reaching the conclusions he did.

    The MSM, on the other hand, were either inexcusable or incompetent. Or perhaps enemies of the American experience. Yes, I’d like to see the FISC closed and the FBI completely turned over. But even more, I would like to see the MSM made to own up to their misfeasance. Democracy not only dies in darkness, it also dies in the light — the light of deluded idealogical purity.

35. “Strzok et al might honestly may have believed they were doing the right thing. Yes, they were foolish in that belief, but it is understandable.”

    Yes, it is understandable if you do not consider yourself a public servant or even an equal citizen but the ruler of others.

    Mike

36. But even more, I would like to see the MSM made to own up to their misfeasance.

    I think you might mean ‘malpractice’. ‘Malfesance’, ‘misfeasance’, and ‘nonfeasance’ refer to official misconduct. To Sztrok and McCabe, not to the Sulzbergers or Anderson Cooper.

37. Horowitz is a lawyer — a good lawyer. He wrote very precisely: “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open Crossfire Hurricane.” That doesn’t mean he didn’t find any evidence that there was political bias or improper motivation, nor that he didn’t find evidence that political bias or improper motivation in anyone else’s decision to open Crossfire Hurricane, nor that he didn’t find evidence that political bias or improper motivation in anyone’s decision to continue Crossfire Hurricane.

38. “Strzok et al might honestly may have believed they were doing the right thing. Yes, they were foolish in that belief, but it is understandable.”

    I think that’s a very astute point…which is why I’d like to see anyone accused of, say, insider trading to be adulated, congratulated, promoted, encouraged, awarded for ingenuity, innovation and thinking outside the box—while making large swaths of the population wealthier (if one follows certain aspects of “trickle-down” theory to their logical—or perhaps illogical—conclusion).

    And instead we throw the book at these guys! How utterly misconceived! We really should show more understanding to these altruistic capitalists.

39. Richard,
    Indeed. But you’re still being rather charitable.
    In the following link, see points 11 and 12:
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>