Peter Strzok, for those who don’t know, was the anti-Trump FBI agent who exonerated Hillary and originated/was lead investigator for/was point of contact for one of the investigations into Trump over collusion with Russia, which began right after Hillary was exonerated, all in the midst of the 2016 Presidential race. During the Clinton investigation, Strzok texted that Hillary should win “100,000,000 – 0” before he had even completed the investigation, before a lot of the interviews had even taken place for it. He and his mistress Lisa Page were concerned that they were being too harsh to Hillary despite giving her a one-of-a-kind softball interrogation that Strzok himself was part of: they did not record the interview which is normal, didn’t make Hillary take an oath to tell the truth which is abnormal, and allowed her to have two previously-interrogated witnesses to be present, which is usually a no-no so that the government has a better chance of catching the accused in conflicting statements. One previously interrogated witness herself got a good deal- she got an immunity deal, then handed over her laptop which contained classified information when it should not have, then was allowed to walk out in the middle of her own interrogation because it went into an area she didn’t want it to go into! Strzok also altered the exoneration letter for Hillary, drafted months before Hillary was interviewed, so that the original text of “gross negligence”, which is a crime, was changed to mirror Obama’s phrasing, that Hillary acted carelessly. Yes, you heard right. The same President who said he does not talk to anyone in the DOJ about pending investigations, who said he hadn’t really been tracking the situation, said that Hillary was not guilty of a crime before the investigation had concluded, despite Hillary having illegally deleted emails (and lied to Congress about it, which usually means a contempt charge if say some unknown like you or me did it), broken a bunch of other laws, and exposed our sensitive info to hackers.
Why do I say Obama’s “careless” statement is an exoneration of Hillary? Because the FBI made a one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law: that Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. FBI Director Comey admitted this, saying Hillary needed “criminal intent”.
You hear “oh if someone else did it they’d be locked up” a lot, so let’s give a real-life example A Navy sailor had no criminal intent (he had no intention to show the pictures to anyone until AFTER their contents were declassified) in a contemporary case that violated security and involved sending classified info to private sources. Guess what? He was jailed, his Hillary defense thrown out. (On the other hand we have Kate Steinle’s killer, who the jury determined had no malicious intent, so he was let off despite conflicting testimony from him about the incident. Because the Left thinks their candidate and their murderous illegal alien angels need proof of intent while an honorable sailor who made a mistake should be locked away for years offhand. Welcome to the Left’s vision for America).
As for the difference being that the sailor knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes fail to acknowledge, lest it makes the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, C: Hillary at various points demanded classified markings be removed from items that were to be sent to her, so she DID knowingly receive such info, her own words show that she DEMANDED it! Which also means D: Hillary knowingly lied to Congress, and pretty much everyone.
Back To Strzok
Since we’ll get into Strzok’s bias, let’s start with a quote.
“Several of their text messages also appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about the Midyear and Russia investigations, raising a question as to whether Strzok’s and Page’s political opinions may have affected investigative decisions” --Inspector General Report on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Strzok went before Congress on July 12, 2018. The result was an appalling display of hypocrisy by the Democrats… as usual. So I guess forget that appalling part, it’s happened so much we’re numb to it. But let’s break down one of the incidents- when Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tried to question Strzok.
The Democrats put up a magnificent struggle to run interference for Strzok. They tried to deny Gowdy the ability to even question Strzok. Idiot Congressmen, I guess keeping their end of the bargain by protecting Strzok in exchange for his tipping the scales in favor of Hillary and starting the anti-Trump investigations, pulled out some real headscratchers.
- Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) raised a point of order, repeatedly, that was not valid (and implicit in his point of order was that Congress has no oversight of the FBI, or at least SHOULDN’T have oversight of the FBI).
- To Nadler’s point, a Congresswoman (camera wasn’t on her, but I think Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)) said the point of order could be that Gowdy was asking for a violation of attorney-client privilege. Firstly, it would be up to JERRY, not Sheila, to have a valid point of order since Jerry was the one raising it. Second, the circumstance for this was that Strzok refused to answer a question because FBI counsel said he shouldn’t. Strzok had his own lawyer, and evidently they weren’t
co-counsel (even if they were it would be stupid because at some point Strzok’s self-interest might conflict with the FBI’s). Strzok did not invoke his own lawyer’s advice, he just said that the FBI lawyer told him what he couldn’t say (he later consulted with his own lawyer, after all this, but not before the attorney-client privilege was raised as a point of order). Under these circumstances there is no attorney-client privilege. On top of that, such privilege doesn’t even relate to the matter at hand. It relates to communications between client and lawyer, like say if the client said he was guilty as sin the lawyer can’t be compelled to testify against his client due to this privilege. So basically- the female Congresswoman got it so completely wrong you’d wonder if she just heard the words when she flipped past Matlock while channel surfing. (especially sad since, if it was Jackson-Lee, she had served as a judge, though that was 28 years ago so maybe she forgot a few details). But then the same Left that tried to invoke attorney-client privilege to protect Strzok celebrates when a possible violation of that privilege leads to a leaked tape of a conversation between Trump and his attorney that tells us exactly nothing, so there you go.
- After the above farces failed, Nadler attempted to have a vote on adjourning the committee. They were that terrified of letting Strzok continue.
- Democrats, in a total reversal of their hero worship when Kamala Harris badgered someone testifying before the Senate and refused to even let him finish answering a question (with sexism accusations against the Senators that wanted her to behave herself), demanded that Gowdy stop asking a question so that Strzok had a chance to answer. Except Strzok WASN’T answering the question, and Gowdy was trying to keep him on point. Unlike Harris, who was just screaming because she knew CNN and MSNBC would give her airtime, and apparently already had a story ready to go because the NYT and WaPo published the same talking points about fake sexism in the stories linked above. The Dangerous Kamala was just following a tried-and-true tactic: spew so many accusations at someone that they’re stuck trying to defend one when a dozen more interrupt them so that they’re unable to defend themselves and look either slow or guilty when trying to keep up. Liberals HATE IT when someone can defend themselves (just look at their position on the 2nd Amendment, and look at 10/16 of the states that make it illegal to defend yourself when attacked and compare to the states that have stand-your-ground laws).
- The same Democrat that interrupted to say that Gowdy wasn’t letting Strzok answer the question (since the whole party backed Harris, there’s no way this Dem isn’t being hypocritical here) also exclaimed that Gowdy’s time for questioning had expired. She might have been right if these were normal rules. I may have missed it, but the Chairman could’ve restored Gowdy’s time because of the interruption, in which case he still had 30 seconds. Later on, maybe that same Congresswoman (I’m bad with voices, I know this latest one was Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), but don’t know if she was the earlier one) interrupted again about the time. But it doesn’t matter, because the chair of the committee and the ranking member (Chair is always from the majority party, ranking member is always from the minority party, so Coleman’s party was in on this) agreed that the Chairmen and Ranking Members of each committee present would have whatever time they needed. Coleman of course, in typical spoiled brat SJW fashion, said that everyone should get that extra time. Just a puff of smoke while she fumed that her own party didn’t grant her a special privilege… and that her objection was partly squashed by her own party’s actions so her chance for a spotlight grandstand was denied.
- While Gowdy was asking a new question, a Democrat interrupted to try and get him to stop asking it, by claiming he had asked it already
They succeeded in delaying Gowdy’s questioning by 15 minutes and interrupting a few times throughout.
Strzok himself had quite a performance during Gowdy’s segment.
- He had a nice sneer throughout, about the only time he had a smug smirk was when Democrats were protecting him. Notice how he’s practically spitting out his statement about respecting the American electorate and Democracy? If that’s respect, I’d hate to see what contempt from him looked like.
- Strzok repeatedly denied recalling having written the text messages, yet he was able to recall the exact provocation and the exact conditions under which the “we’ll stop it” text was written. What a coincidence that out of the 50,000 texts he claims to forget, he’d remember the circumstances around this one that he claims to have forgotten, and claims during the hearing that he needs a transcript to remember it, saying that the transcript had not been provided to him before (thus he could not have been prepared beforehand with knowledge of what this text he does not remember related to, since he didn’t even have it according to him). He keeps saying the context needs to be taken into account, but if he never wrote them or doesn’t remember writing them then how the heck can he testify to the context? (Go ahead, have a friend scroll through your text history and ask about a random text from even 6 months ago (Strzok had to recall from 2 years ago), see if you can figure out its context based on the date). He could at best say “I think maybe at the time I was”, but certainly he could not make the definitive statements he made about context if his “I can’t remember” testimony is to be believed.
- After Gowdy, correctly, paraphrased a statement Strzok had made earlier, Strzok says A: that he, Strzok, stated that he testified that he was kicked off the Mueller Probe BECAUSE of his bias, and B: next says he was not kicked off the Mueller Probe for his bias, and C: says he does not appreciate Gowdy mischaracterizing their exchange earlier. Except Gowdy didn’t, if anything Strzok had the biggest screwup on that point.
- The context Strzok named for his “we’ll stop it” (“it” being the Trump campaign) text was what Strzok characterizes as Trump’s “disgusting” attack on Khizr Khan. You remember him, the anti-gay (sharia is quite anti-gay) Muslim that Democrats paraded. Strzok says it was just awful how Trump attacked the family of a dead soldier. Well, the family became fair game when they made themselves political. Also, Hillary herself and her lackeys referred to plenty of similar families of fallen soldiers as liars or fame seekers when they criticized her. Hillary herself denied anyone was killed at Benghazi. Strzok was ok with all of that, he didn’t care about the families of dead soldiers then. And as for disrespecting service members in general, the candidate that Strzok thinks
should’ve won “100,000,000 – 0” demanded that military personnel not wear their uniforms in the White House, and this prized candidate for whom he arranged a softball interview that NBC’s “do you get your feelings hurt” pro-North Korea Lester Holt would be jealous of also HATED the Secret Service agents assigned to save her life, and routinely disrespected them. Yet only Trump, attacking some homophobe who was politically attacking him, is “disgusting”, according to Strzok. I guess that means that gold star families whose relatives were victims at Benghazi seeking the truth, Secret Service agents doing their job, and military personnel doing their job are turds and a homophobic Muslim getting political is holy and protected according to Strzok. (Now granted, compared to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, and Frederica Wilson, Hillary Clinton might actually be palatable because at least in public Hillary gives a reserved appearance, unlike these others who are more unhinged than a door laying on a floor). And of course we have blonde-haired blue-eyed Hillary Clinton praising the “vision” of the Nazi-esque totally racist eugenecist Margaret Sanger who wanted to kill blacks, and Hillary praising her “friend and mentor” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV, KKK Chapter Founder and recruiter of 150 members- yes he renounced his membership, in 1993 saying it was a mistake (despite letters from his time as a Klansmen in which he says he didn’t want to be in the military because he’d have to work with “race mongrels”, despite in his 2005 memoir praising the Klan in a way remarkably similar to Trump’s “good people on both sides” remark that liberals used to call him a racist, despite Byrd having been the only Senator to vote against Clarence Thomas and Thurghood Marshal, despite having voted against civil rights in 1964, despite having opposed an end to segregation in the military), before Hillary was mentored by him, but if the Left’s Scalise Precedent of “speaking in the same building as a Klansman 15 years prior means you should be shot for being a racist” is in play, then certainly Hillary’s love of the founder of a KKK chapter can be considered fair game for racist accusations, particularly in light of Hillary’s praise of Margaret Sanger and her Gandhi joke and this next item)- and wrapped up her disdain for blacks with her “super predators” remark that is very much the 1994 equivalent of Trump’s “animals” statement that we’re supposed to accept as evidence of Trump’s racism, but apparently none of that was “disgusting” either so I guess my spiel in a moment about lily-white Strzok supporting our salacious title makes all the more sense.
The Left insists Strzok’s bias did not impact his investigations, probably because he’s just as biased as they are. Maybe his bias did, maybe not. No one really can tell what was going on in his mind during the process and what evidence he may have dismissed or decisions he may have made based on his biases.
But we do know this: the Left clearly judges what’s in the mind of Republicans based on THEIR statements. The opinions expressed under the First Amendment rights of President Trump in his TWEETS are enough to qualify as obstruction of justice. Ok, then why aren’t 50,000 text messages DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS enough to show bias affected Strzok’s investigation? Trump’s travel ban must be racist because of tweets, so the liberal courts say. Ok, then how does Strzok’s bias not affect his investigation? Steve Scalise is apparently a racist and deserved to be shot because he once spoke in a building that white nationalists later used for a meeting, such is the nature of the hate the Left wants us to feel. Ok, so then how come Strzok’s clear bias didn’t affect his investigation? (for that matter, why isn’t Hillary a racist for praising Margaret Sanger and for saying Klansmen Senator Byrd was her idol? That’s a bit more to go on for a racism accusation than sharing a speaking location on the same day) You liberals claim the shooting of Michael Brown was an unjustified racist incident, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the contrary findings of the black-led DOJ under a black President, despite the evidence that Michael Brown was aggressive and threatening the officer’s life which led to Darren Wilson being found “not guilty” by a jury. Ok, if you believe this despite a lack of evidence, how come you can’t even see the possibility that Strzok’s actions were biased?
Bringing up the racial sting of Michael Brown is a clever way to arrive at the clickbait subtitle for this article. At the end of the YouTube clip, Strzok gave a self-righteous speech and received a ton of applause from Democrats who were present. Except his self-serving speech basically is summarized as “even if I was biased, it was impossible for my bias to affect my work”. He reasoned that his subordinates and superiors and colleagues would’ve spotted it and overruled it.
By that measure, isn’t it ALSO totally impossible for bias to exist in a police force, or even in one police officer? Doesn’t this mean it’s impossible for Michael Brown’s shooter to have been a racist? Police too have a chain of colleagues, superiors, and even subordinates reviewing their findings, arrest patterns, patterns of brutality, etc. So if we’re to believe any of the moderates in the Democratic Party who says not all cops but some are biased thus we should not be in a state of anarchy and respect some laws, if we are to believe the DOJ’s findings about racism in the Ferguson department (because surely someone overseeing that department from the state capital overseeing the department would’ve noticed), if we are to believe the Left’s demands that we nationalize the police forces because the local branches that states and the DOJ already have oversight over are racist, that MUST MEAN that Strzok’s safeguards CAN’T prevent bias from affecting one’s work. So unless we go with the mantra that everyone in the criminal justice system is racist, from the local precinct to the black-ran DOJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to the black-ran country itself under President Obama, Strzok’s argument is already disproven if we’re to assume the Left’s narratives on racism in law enforcement is true.
By the way, the Left’s narrative that cops are hunting blacks is pure fiction, probably designed to energize blacks into voting for Democrats, and maybe energize them into buying newspaper subscriptions and providing cable ratings. Definitely helps in making blacks feel like they are separate from whites (a Democrat Congresswoman, in that link, says that blacks are shot by police when they don’t elect black government officials), and whites are painted as being the sole race present in the GOP, thus discouraging blacks from joining the white party.
Down To Cases
Let’s talk a particular case- Freddie Gray. We had the accusation that in a city with a black police chief, black district attorney, and black mayor- under a black DOJ under a black President- racism was afoot. Well, clearly based on the Strzok grandstand that Democrats applauded there couldn’t be any racism there, especially under the conditions outlined presently.
There was a zealous prosecutor, whose husband was on the city council representing the district Freddie Gray was from (9 out of 13 members are black, ALL are Democrats, and it has been that way since 1942, and since 1942 they only had two Republican mayors with the last leaving office in 1967, so any systemic racism could ONLY have come from the Democrats), who received campaign contributions from Freddie Gray’s lawyer, who was in such a fervored furor to attack the police that she totally botched the case so badly that the arrest warrants had the wrong names and addresses.
This prosecutor, who wanted a conviction so badly she tried to say the police had no reason to arrest Freddie Gray when in fact they did, this prosecutor who tried to hide evidence, couldn’t even get a conviction and had nothing on racism, a fact which further confirms to liberals the notion that Strzok is wrong about how there are checks on bias like his. If you believe the cops were racist and maliciously acted on it, you must believe Strzok is wrong because no evidence of bias was found. If you believe Strzok is right, then you must conclude that there was no racism in the Freddie Gray case. These are your only two options, an impossible conundrum for a liberal… which is probably why they usually riot and scream instead of thinking logically and debating rationally (go ahead, try to apply your whataboutism and give me an example of the Republican riots after Obama won… yeah, that’s what I thought. How about the “violent” Tea Party protests? Oh wait, no such thing, just claims of the N-Word being used that not even $10,000 could encourage evidence of). Now I know that no self-respecting liberal would believe that the prosecutor was blatantly biased herself, so I didn’t think it worth the time to mention how her handling of the case is a close-to-home example of how Strzok’s bias could’ve impacted his own dealings.
Since the Left STILL maintains the Freddie Gray matter was an example of racism, despite there being no finding of bias by said zealous prosecutor seeking any crime she could use, couldn’t the Right at least be forgiven for assuming Strzok’s bias influenced his behavior too? Afterall, with Freddie Gray it was kind of nebulous what motivated the officers involved, as far as what facts we have. You on the Left can all claim to be mindreaders and tell me the officers were racist, but we have no direct evidence of this (otherwise the prosecutor would’ve had them on at least one charge of misconduct), whereas we have the evidence for Strzok’s bias: his own written statements. Yet, with MORE evidence that Strzok may have acted improperly because of his hatreds, you insist that he did not, while we don’t even have evidence the Freddie Gray police officers were biased at all, and you claim they’re racists. Think about this objectively, liberal- which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory? The one with or without evidence backing it up?
Furthermore, if you contend there was racism there, that there is racism in all police departments and all law enforcement branches, then you must naturally believe Strzok was lying with his moralizing speech that clearly meant racism cannot interfere in the law enforcement process, and you must be horrified that your own elected officials chose to applaud him for his statement. And you probably think Strzok was a racist, going back to my notes about some of Hillary’s disgusting behavior and why such an interpretation would be a logical conclusion regarding Strzok.
But How COULD Strzok Have Acted Improperly?
Ignore or dismiss vital evidence, give softball interviews, draft the exoneration letter based on the wording of President Obama, the head of Hillary’s party, saying that Hillary was innocent, draft said letter months before Hillary has been interviewed, months before the investigation had interviewed everyone it needed to, give sweetheart deals to Hillary and her team in exchange for easy questioning just so that you can say you questioned them (or so I assume, based on Strzok’s July 31 text that indicated he was just going through the motions with the Clinton Investigation, that it only mattered in the sense that they didn’t want to have a procedural error, contrasted to how he says the Trump investigation matters because it is “momentous, and the later treatment under Mueller of Trump’s team, who find themselves staring down the barrels of police guns), and of course starting an investigation into the opponent of your preferred candidate.
If the concern was election interference or collusion, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary when we learned the Fusion GPS document she paid for came from the Russians themselves, with Hillary money going right to Russian oligarchs? Why was said Russian document used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Trump campaigner? The Russians supposedly tried to hack the RNC too, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary’s ties to Russia, like when she said “[America’s] goal is to strengthen Russia” and that she would be “thrilled” if Russia had its own “Silicon Valley”, ie a group of Russians with the skills to hack into the RNC? Nope, Strzok ONLY investigated Trump, after conducting a piss-poor excuse of an investigation into Hillary’s email use, and constantly during the Clinton and Trump investigations, he held firm in his devotion to Hillary and disdain for Trump. How’s THAT for an example of bias affecting your judgment?
And as for the alleged checks Strzok had, let’s test that. James Comey was the FBI Director. The same James Comey who lied about FBI agents believing Lt. Gen. Flynn was lying. The same Comey who claims to have had severe concerns about both the Obama and Trump Administrations, but only attacked the Trump Administration and had nothing but glowing support and love for Obama and Hillary Clinton. The same Comey who leaked memos he wrote about Trump (not having written any on Loretta Lynch) to a university professor so that he could trigger a special counsel investigation into Trump, the one that Strzok ended up serving on. The one staffed by Democrats.
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was another of Strzok’s superiors, whom Strzok cited as being someone that’d stop him if his bias affected the investigation. McCabe is also known for holding court in his office, on one such occasion discussing with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page how Trump couldn’t win the election, a conversation that took place only two weeks into Strzok’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. Meeting in his office where his own legal counsel says Trump can’t win, in a conversation with the man investigating Trump. Sooooo not biased! McCabe’s wife is known for running as a Democrat in Virginia, with $675,000 worth of help from Clintonite Terry McAuliffe.
And just in general, maybe not Strzok’s own bias but just an example of flaws in Strzok’s theory of checks and balances in DOJ, we have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He would have authority over the FBI Director, who has authority over the Deputy Director, who has authority over Strzok. Rosenstein told Trump to fire Comey, Comey leaked memos to start a special counsel investigation into Trump for firing him, and Rosenstein started the special counsel investigation in part to look at Trump’s firing of Comey which Rosenstein himself demanded.
And of course, when it comes to Strzok’s colleagues who would keep his bias in check, we have FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who we saw in the texts wanted Strzok to stop Trump, who outlined to her boss and the man investigating Trump a hopeful scenario where Trump would lose the election.
What an effective system of checks and balances we turned out to have! No wonder Democrats clapped for Strzok’s speech, it’s just the kind of system of checks on their power they like- NONE