July 16, 2018

"What is the point of arguing with Peter Strzok for ten hours about whether he was biased against Donald Trump?"

"The texts speak for themselves, illustrating beyond cavil that he was biased. In fact, his absurd caviling to the contrary suggests he’d be an easy witness to demolish if a competent examiner had the documentary ammunition. Bias is a dumb thing for Strzok to get uppity about. In 20 years of investigating people, I can’t tell you how many of them I developed a healthy bias against. Bias is a natural human condition. It is something we tend to feel about people who do bad things. There is, and there could be, no requirement that an investigator be impartial about the people he reasonably suspects of crimes. Am I supposed to be impartial about a terrorist? An anti-American spy? A corrupt politician? Seriously? The question is not whether the investigator is biased, but whether bias leads the investigator to do illegal or abusive things. In the case of Strzok and his colleagues, the questions are whether they applied different standards of justice to the two candidates they were investigating; whether, with respect to Trump in particular, they pursued a counterintelligence probe in the stretch-run of an election, premised on the belief that he was a traitor, based on information that was flimsy and unverified. These questions cannot be answered without the documents that explain the origin of the investigation. If the committees are not willing or able to hold government officials in contempt for stonewalling, and President Trump is not willing to order that his subordinates cooperate, it would be better to shut the investigations down than to further abide a farce."

Writes Andrew McCarthy (National Review).

83 comments:

Bruce Hayden said...

Ann is up early posting. Or maybe, not knowing when she usually does get up, just posting a bit early. I most often wake for a couple hours in the middle of the night, which is the case here for me, and more often than not miss her first postings of the day.

traditionalguy said...

Strzok needed to be put on display to show anyone who watched the banality of the evil. That was the sneaky worm who used the power to create an insurance policy just in case Soro's rigging of the voting machines failed to stop a coming Trump landslide.

Chris of Rights said...

Aw. I was certain that one of the tags for this post would be “cavil”.

Earnest Prole said...

Shorter McCarthy: It's a farce to convene for ten hours to allow 75 legislators five minutes each of TV-camera time with Strzok.

Darrell said...

There are plenty of documents currently available to crucify Strzok on direct examination. What we witnessed are lots of Republicans going through the motions because they support Trump as much as a not-to-be-named commenter here that calls himself a LLR.

Bruce Hayden said...

I will agree with McCarthy that we all have biases. But in this case, there is a small step between bias and Hatch Act violations. Peter Strzok and crew made a number of strategic decisions during 2016 that affected the election. They never really investigated Crooked Hillary's illegal use of her private email server to conduct government business while she was Sec of State. And they put together, with what now looks like a lot of smoke held together with bailing wire, against Trump. These were also the people best placed to have allowed contractors to do the FISA 702(USPERS) database searches, that NSA Dir Rogers caught and shutdown in 4-5/16. I think that maybe the best example was the FBI, or actually Peter Strzok, sitting on the knowledge that a FBI analyst in NYC had discovered a trove of 700k emails on Weiner's laptop, and that trove included classified information sent to or from Crooked Hillary. Did the FBI now have access to the 30,000 emails that her attorneys had deleted from her own server? No one still knows that. But Strzok admitted that he prioritized the Trump/Russia investigation (Crosswind Hurricane) over the Clinton email investigation (Midyear Exam), and that was why nothing was done for over most of the month of October, right before the election with the Weiner laptop. Did he use his official position to affect the election? His text messages, showing his biases, sure make it look that way, in the decisions he made, and the actions he took, esp from maybe April, all the way up through the election. And, yes, I think that given the decisions made by Strzok, and the actions taken, and not taken, combined with his text messages, a skilled prosecutor like McCarthy probably could get a Hatch Act violation conviction against Strzok, in particular. But also no doubt, could have gotten Espionage a Act and Official Records Act violation convictions against Crooked Hillary for her email escapades.

Tank said...

It doesn't hurt to document what a lying, creepy individual he is, devoid of any self reflection. And to again show Americans the the kind of people who are at the very top of our most powerful gov't agencies.

Sharc 65 said...

Cavil!

BUMBLE BEE said...

Strzok's performance needed to be put on the internet. It is forever thus. Parents can correct errant children with those clips. He wasn't Don Rickles insulting, but a poster child for stasi. Definitely trashed the feds, as if Mueller needed ahy help with that. Rather than Efrem Zimbalist jr, we saw the underside of whale shit

Sharc 65 said...

It means "make petty or unnecessary objections."

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe to amplify a bit (or maybe bore you instead), the Hatch Act essentially criminalizes government employees using their official positions to affect elections. This is the core of the Hatch Act, and most of the rest of what you hear about it involves the periphery. And, no doubt, the national security organizations in both the DoJ and FBI did exactly that, with their investigations of both of the major candidates. It was probably unprecedented that they would be investigating one of them, in the run up to a Presidential election, but they were investigating both of them. The FBI pretty much had the Clinton email investigation thrust upon it by Congress uncovering what we're clear felonies. They seem to, though, gone out of their way to gin up the Trump Russia investigation out of thin air. But let's put that aside for a bit, assume that they had apprpriate predicates for that investigation, and the question then becomes how they conduct these investigations. Could the way that the investigations were handled by these FBI (esp, but also DoJ) employees in their official capacities have affected the election? Most on both sides will probably admit that these two investigations did affect the election results. And, imagine how more dramatic the effect would have been if the FBI had, as it should have, referred Clinton to the DoJ for prosecution for potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of federal felonies. Even if the DoJ had declined prosecution (as they likely would have), the results would likely have been significant on the election results. So we have US government employees, in their official capacity affecting the general election through their official actions.

The analysis can't end there, because the government inevitably, through its actions, affects elections, and can't be expected to shut down every other year for elections. Which is where Scienter comes in. Intent. There has to be intent to affect an election in order to violate the Hatch Act, and keep the government in operation during election years. And the intent had better be fairly specific. So, maybe Strzok gets a pass on the Clinton email investigation because their avowed intent was not to get her elected, but rather, to keep her from retaliating for inconveniencing her once she was elected. Bad intent, probably, but maybe the wrong bad intent for a Hatch Act violation. Strzok's problem though is that later he expressed an intent to make sure that Trump was not elected. He went beyond mere bias there to show an intent to act. The question then is whether he did take some actions as a result of his biases to effect his desired outcome. Which is to say, did he intentionally make any decisions, or take any actions that made Clinton more likely to win, or Trump to lose? We can't probably know for sure, because we weren't in his head at the time, and absent his general statements of intent to make sure that Trump wasn't elected, there wasn't really a smoking gun.

Because of that statement of intent by him, I think that Strzok is fairly vulnerable to prosecution for a Hatch Act violation. But what about the more common situation, where the government employee can be shown to have shown significant bias for or against some candidate, and then taken some action in his official capacity that is in conformity with his biases, that potentially affects an election? I frankly don't see a problem with providing the evidence of bias to a jury, and let them try to determine whether or not that bias affected their decision making, and, thus was essentially made or taken to affect an election, or not. Little different, in my mind, to a prosecutor showing the jury an insurance policy benefitting the defendant, to show motive in a murder trial. They don't have to know for sure that was the real motive, just be pretty sure.

So, yes, I think that bias can be important.

Rory said...

The reason we protect sources and methods is that we have higher calling to protect the American Republic. The charges against both Clinton and Trump are that they tried to subvert the Republic. Congress and the people have to see all the documents in order to learn the truth about these charges.

Molly said...

When the IG testified before congress he often made the point that his report found no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias. But (as far as I know) no Republicans asked the obvious follow up: did you find any circumstantial evidence of bias? What was the nature of that circumstantial evidence? How convincing did you find the circumstantial evidence? I blame the Republicans for not getting this on the record.

Ann Althouse said...

@Sharc 65

Yeah, that’s really why I posted.

Michael said...

It was well worth it to have a look at a high ranking official mincing, smirking and disrespecting his inquisitors. How does such a person rise to such levels in Govt.? Kissing ass. And mimicking the attitudes of superiors. The culture of a second rate public company grown too large, too comfortable.

Phil 314 said...

And we still don’t know how to pronounce his name.

Ralph L said...

We need to find out who's ordering him not to talk and why.

The committee should have picked a single inquisitor for each side, as in the Iran Contra hearings. After what was tried with Jim Jordan, they might wise up.

Matt Sablan said...

You'd think there'd be consequences for ignoring Congress when you're a government worker required to provide documents for oversight. You'd be wrong.

mccullough said...

The hearing was theater as usual but Struck came off as bad as his Congressional inquisitors. Comey, McCabe, and Struck are weird dudes. They should not have been in high positions. They have made that obvious.

Leland said...

So Andrew McCarthy, like Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Althouse. In this case, he decided to troll her to let her know.

As for his article, I'm not sure which investigation he wants shutdown; Muellers, Rosensteins, or the GOPs. I think they all should be, since they are just political theater only swaying those who made up their mind at the start.

Breezy said...

The point is to grow the number of people who are skeptical of big government by demonstrating how fallible us humans are, even if we are in extremely important and critical jobs.

tcrosse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

We cave to McCarthy's cavil caveat.

Etienne said...

"A war is not a crime, and you don’t bring your enemies to a courthouse." - Andrew McCarthy

Strzok is a mole, planted in the FBI by the GRU. He is not a criminal, he is an enemy spy.

Spy's should be shot, not given a forum to smirk in.

James K said...

“But what about the more common situation, where the government employee can be shown to have shown significant bias for or against some candidate, and then taken some action in his official capacity that is in conformity with his biases, that potentially affects an election?

The distinction should be whether the actions are plausibly a normal part of the employee’s job, and of course legal. That wouldn’t apply to spying on a campaign via fraudulent FISA warrants, for example.

Mr Wibble said...

Congress wants to have all the perks of power with no actual responsibilities. A Congress which actually wanted to do something about the FBI has plenty of ways to do so. First and foremost, they can simply slash the FBI budget. If Strzok is really so corrupt, then the fact that he rose so high in the FBI damns the institution as a whole.

BAS said...

He used the term cavil. May be you can have a cavil tag.

tcrosse said...

Spy's should be shot, not given a forum to smirk in.

If Stronzo is shot, then he can get that Purple Heart.

Etienne said...

If Stronzo is shot, then he can get that Purple Heart.

Red star.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

"The gentleman from Tennessee is correct. We need to get this traitor a Purple Heart; right after we hang him from a tree." - Etienne Mathieu


pardon, mon Anglais ist kaput.

narayanan said...

Entry in ship's logbook - Captain was sober today.

when can we write in history logbook - congress hearing was sober (not a farce) today?

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Uppity is the perfect word to describe Stroke.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Stroke is a hero to the left BECAUSE of his bias.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

The criminal acts and collusion are on the left and all roads lead to Hillary Clinton.

Heads up!

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

OT:

Bombshell Bourdain interview is published one month after his suicide: Celebrity chef unloads on 'rapey, gropey and disgusting Bill Clinton and hopes Weinstein is 'beaten to death in jail'

oh awesome. Will Obama and the hivemind still drool over Bourdain? Nope. That's gone.

Michael K said...

Public hearings by Congress are usually a waste of time as the members are unable to keep from playing to the TV.

The Strzok circus was useful because he demonstrated just how arrogant and contemptuous he is.

I wonder how Page will conduct herself today ?

What he did was pretty foolish. He seems to be convinced he is immune to retribution.

It was also useful to see the behavior of the Democrats.

Trump needs to declassify the FISA stuff and I think he will when the time is right.

Matt Sablan said...

"I wonder how Page will conduct herself today ?"

-- Congress seemed impressed with her during her closed door hearing. So we'll see.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

I doubt it, but perhaps Page has wised up to the fact that her boyfriend is a gross weasel.

Bruce Hayden said...

"The distinction should be whether the actions are plausibly a normal part of the employee’s job, and of course legal. That wouldn’t apply to spying on a campaign via fraudulent FISA warrants, for example."

I will respectfully disagree here. You would, seemingly, green line get pretty much anything that a high ranking govtemployee wanted to do. Here we had Peter Strzok justifying sitting on what was likely many of Crooked Hillary's missing emails through much of October, 2016,ostensibly because he had to prioritize between the two investigations that he was running. Making that sort of decision is well within his usual job done ties - senior investigators routinely prioritize their investigations. But giving them that much deference is what I call the Peter Strzok "Na Na Na" standard - government employees get to push the envelope, in favor of one candidate, or against another, as far as they can, as long as they don't leave smoking gun level evidence of election interference. I greatly prefer the Caesar's Wife standard, where government employees are forced to bend over backwards to appear not to be interfering. Note, I am not talking run of the mill employees here, but those at the very top. Peter Strzok may have started 2016 as merely the lead investigator in FBI's Counterintelligence Division, but he was on a first name basis with the Deputy Director, the person who had day to day operational responsibility over 35,000 FBI employees, and routinely met with him in his office, presumably at that $70,000 conference room table of his (including for the planning of their "insurance policy"). Very few government employees have the sort of power that Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, Yates, etc, had to affect an election. Probably no more than one in a thousand. Maybe one in ten thousand. Those are the ones I want above reproach. I would exclude "principal officers" like Yates and Comey who have been nominated by a Oresident and confirmed by the Senate - they are, by definition and necessity, political. But I want the layer below them as virtuous as Caesar's wife.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Henry really opened a can of worms.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

Bourdain slags Clinton, 6 months later he commits suicide. How implausible is that?

narciso said...

I frankly don't trust Wray either, he was weissmans supervisor on the Enron taskforce, subsequently he was one of the mutineers according to gellman among others, willing to resign over the events of March 2004.

Big Mike said...

Strzok managed to make the hearings about whether he was biased, when the point of the hearings should have been whether he did things that were illegal, or at best only technically legal.

Bob Boyd said...

"Strzok managed to make the hearings about whether he was biased..."

Or worse, Congress did.

Michael K said...

"But I want the layer below them as virtuous as Caesar's wife."

This goes back to Mark Felt who was able to overthrow a president as revenge for being passed over for Director.

Don't you think Hoover knew and used similar power ?

The intelligence bureaucracies have gotten way too much power, most since WWII and especially since 9/11.

I have read about the rivalry of Hoover and Donovan which came to pass because Donovan and Roosevelt were law school classmates and friends. Roosevelt was also rather casual about how he ran things.

We are now at the point that these people think they run the government and resent interlopers like Trump.

You could see that in Strzok last week.

With law schools and academia in the hands of the left, I don't know.

The military is no help because they have been purged of competence and replaced by courtiers like the Joint Chiefs.

Howard said...

Still with the excuse making for the failed grilling of Strzck... now it GOPe LLR's fault he made Gowdy his beeyatch.

Unknown said...

Isn't the point all of these congresspersons getting on record? And also disseminating the contents of these texts officially and publicly?

Krumhorn said...

I’m a bit surprised that Bonnie Coleman hasn’t found herself in trouble for her breach of decorum in making her personal remarks about a fellow member needing his medicines. A few years back, A gentleman from CN took his yellow hickory cane to the back of a gentleman from VT delivering many sharps blows for an insult at least as unparliamentary. A wad of chewed tobacky to the face along with accompanying juices can’t be worse than loudly declaring that the member needs his meds.

But I suppose that bringing it up would receive our hostess’ civility bullshit tag.

I guess the the gloves have come off in the House. Gohmert should have asked Coleman if she was feeling PMSy.

- Krumhorn

cubanbob said...

The Lord moves in mysterious ways: the corrupt "former" Communist and autocrat Putin was instrumental in exposing the corrupt, criminal quasi-Communist Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party thus saving our democracy. Give Putin a medal!

Mary Beth said...

The only really interesting thing to come out of the interview with Strzok was the weird, wiggling smirk video. I wonder how many campaign commercials that will show up in this Fall.

James K said...

You would, seemingly, green line get pretty much anything that a high ranking govtemployee wanted to do. Here we had Peter Strzok justifying sitting on what was likely many of Crooked Hillary's missing emails through much of October, 2016,ostensibly because he had to prioritize between the two investigations that he was running.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't have described slow-walking an investigation till after an election as a "normal part of one's job." I guess drawing the line is more like Potter Stewart's "know it when I see it" standard.

robother said...

Rather a Cavil-er attitude toward the performance art of Congressional oversight. It is healthy for American citizens to see the FBI's top counter-intelligence agent literally squirming and sneering, and lying his ass off. No amount of text could make that point as effectively. I don't see how Andrew McCarthy could be an effective trial lawyer without understanding that.

Michael K said...

There are some interesting questions about Strzok and his father now appearing.


It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

After working with USAID-funded programs for CRS in Africa, the elder Strzok stayed active in Africa for the last 30 years running the Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations, records show. The non profit group, founded by the elder Strzok, has focused on working with rural organizations in Africa and Haiti, according to the corporation’s 2009 tax return filed with the IRS.

In 2010, Strzok’s IRS tax filing said his Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations organized meetings with University of Minnesota agencies and “forest product enterprises to provide safe, low cost fuel to Haitian earthquake victims.

“Organized / provided briefings to World Bank & Inter-American bank staff on program of action” for Haitian earthquake victims.”


I wonder if he met the Clintons there?

John Pickering said...

Ann here posts without comment the thoughts of one of the few commenters who miss the point more consistently than she does. After typing

Am I supposed to be impartial about a terrorist? An anti-American spy? A corrupt politician? Seriously?

The writer concludes that the whole question of whether Trump is a traitor is based on information that was flimsy and unverified, a conclusion the Trumpists are clinging to in spite of evidence to the contrary. McCarthy and Ann are apparently unaware that about 30 Russians have been indicted for attempting to throw the election to Trump, that three Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and that there are Americans involved, though their names haven't been published yet. Ann in passing this thing along shows she's indifferent to the possibility that Strozk was biased against Trump because he knew that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Trump is something ranging from the dupe, to the stooge, to the witting agent of Putin and the Russian espionage services. There is a possibility that President Trump has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power. Why doesn't that matter to Ann, and to so many of her readers?

n.n said...

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest.

James K said...

There is a possibility that President Trump has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power.

There is also a "possibility" that John Pickering has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power. There is, at least with respect to Trump, though, no actual evidence.

It's like this apparently serious bit from the PuffHost:

HuffPost
‏Verified account @HuffPost
Jul 14

A tape might exist of Trump doing something in an elevator, though exactly where that somewhere is and what that something might be, no one in media can say. That’s because no one in media seems to have seen the tape — or is even confident it exists.

tcrosse said...

My Gender Studies Professor says that studies show there is a possibility that President Trump has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power.

walter said...

Yes Pickering, ham sandwiches galore.

Michael K said...

There is a possibility that President Trump has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power.

There is a possibility that John Pickering is a pedophile.

Been to Thailand lately ?

Goofy conspiracy theorists need mockery. Badly.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

shit-- absolutely the first question he should have been asked is:

"Agent Strzok, HOW THE HELL DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME??"

Qwinn said...

John Pickering claims the 30 Russian indictments are for "attempting to throw the election to Trump." The indictments themselves explicitly and repeatedly deny that is in any way true. Conclusion? John Pickering is deliberately lying, and should be treated accordingly.

walter said...

How is that one of the FBI's Top Men can't control his mannerisms?

RigelDog said...

I read that article, it perfectly states the issue. Without the ability to compel testimony and without the ability to cross-examine from a factual, documented basis, there is no fact-finding or guilt determination possible. Therefore there is no function for these "hearings" other than grandstanding.

Yancey Ward said...

It has always been quite remarkable to me how Obama and his administration blew the 2016 election. Had his DoJ done its job, Clinton would have been forced from the race in the Summer of 2015, and the party likely would have nominated an electable candidate that wasn't named Bernie Sanders. It is hard to predict what might have happened in the general election, but I think a solid non-Hillary/non-Sanders candidate beats Trump. The only open question to me is whether or not the Republicans would have nominated Trump if Hillary wasn't the sure opposition. I truly don't understand how the Obama DoJ arrived at the decision to protect Shelob- a true mystery to me.

Yancey Ward said...

Andrew McCarthy has another essay up this morning discussion all the problems with Friday's indictments. A must read if you are serious about this stuff.

Yancey Ward said...

The party most interested in the testimony really needs to give all of its time to a single inquisitor- this doesn't even have to be a Congresscritter. However, it pretty clear that the Congresscritters don't like giving up their camera time. This is why the closed door interviews typically are more productive in producing requisite detail- no cameras to Hogg.

Drago said...

John Pickering (channeling LLR Chuck): "Am I supposed to be impartial about a terrorist? An anti-American spy? A corrupt politician? Seriously?"

Well, you have been up to this point.

But only completely.

However, in this case where there isn't even a hint of evidence, you are "all in".

Perhaps, like your compatriot LLR Chuck, you are simply here to smear Trump.

Neither one of you is doing it very well.

My condolences.

Drago said...

Rumor has it the dems have discovered a tape where Trump is promising to have "more flexibility" for the russians after the next election.

I wonder if that tape will surface....

Michael K said...

Good piece, Yancey. I doubt any of the left worries about Rumsfeld and Cheney being threatened with arrest by rogue judges in other countries but that is what this nonsense encourages.

Joe said...

My guess is that nobody realized that Strzok was a sociopath. Yes, to an extent the charade backfired, but it was also illustrative of just how dysfunctional the FBI has become.

Rabel said...

One reason the hearing was so noisy and contentious and ineffective is that it was a joint committee hearing pulling in 75 members from the Judiciary committee and the Oversight committee. This was a decision made by the house leadership.

Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House.

The House has the option of conducting more effective hearings led by a single investigator from each party. The House leadership chose not to do this.

Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House.

John Pickering said...

This thread is a good example of how Ann does some of her readers a disservice by not giving them the benefit of her wide reading. Even though we know that Ann favors the Daily Mail and Powerline as news sources, preferring to access the NYT and the WaPo for their gossip and cultural coverage, it's hard to imagine that she hasn't come across the stories that affirm that the U.S. intelligence community -- unanimously -- has concluded that Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina concluded the same earlier this summer. Mueller charged a dozen Russians last week for their roles in what the charging document made clear was a broad and deep operation to influence the US presidential election.
Ann and some of her readers like to pretend that some strange inexplicable animus that predates the campaign pervades those Americans who loathe and fear President Trump, and never consider for a moment that the hatred he inspires is generated by his actions, including kidnapping and locking up children and siding with the Russians in this hacking dispute. Now we see even Paul Ryan is contradicting Trump -- but Ann and some of her uninformed readers never will.
As an aside, I like the readers who toss around insults when considering whether to contribute to the discussion. A lot of them have the tone of an adolescent whose arguments are proving inadequate: "Oh yeah? Your FACE is a hostile foreign power!"

Fernandinande said...

John Pickering said...
kidnapping and locking up children


"Oh boo hoo hoo won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"

You had the right to remain silent and blew it.

tcrosse said...

Miss Pickering is Ritmo getting in touch with his feminine side.

Michael K said...

Pickering is the all time champ at a blank profile.

Not even an attempt to look like a real person.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

Butina, a former Siberian furniture owner...

Dear God... no!

Gahrie said...

Had his DoJ done its job, Clinton would have been forced from the race in the Summer of 2015, and the party likely would have nominated an electable candidate

They were worried that the scandal would blow back onto Obama, and knew that if Hillary went down she was going to take everyone with her.

gadfly said...

Andy McCarthy wrote:
Disciplined Democrats have hammered at a theme: The Republican-led investigations are a political ploy to discredit the Mueller investigation. At first blush, this seems like a red herring: Robert Mueller was not appointed special counsel until May 2017, mainly because of President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey. The committees, by contrast, are scrutinizing decisions made a year earlier to end “Mid-Year Exam (MYE)” (the criminal investigation of Clinton) and conjure up “Crossfire Hurricane” (the counterintelligence investigation of Trump “collusion” in Russia’s election meddling).

Donald Trump is and always has been, like his Dad a slumlord who hassled tenants and forced rent control occupants to get out, who rubbed shoulders with mafia contractors, bribed politicians, laundered money and told perspective condo buyers about occupancy rates that were too high and he entered into shady business deals with Russian oligarchs. All of these things naturally refocus timelines.

The NYT noted: Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote . . .

Translated, this means that yet another Trump conspiracy theory is at work and none have any legs. If anything is keeping this investigation afloat, it is Donald himself - any publicity, good or bad, is exactly what Trump lives for.

Carl said...

Is "cavil" going to be the new "trump"?

For example, you would not be surprised to see a headline like: "Blimp trumps bloated bag of hot air."
Next it could be "Actor cavils about #MeeToo."

#NamesThatAreWordsOverusedinHeadlines

Bruce Hayden said...

"There is a possibility that President Trump has betrayed his country to a hostile foreign power."

Where was Pickering when Obama repeatedly did that exact thing?

Someone awhile back pointed out that you can tell what the left is most worried about being accused of, by looking at what they are accusing their opponents of. And, that is one of their worst nightmares, that the rest of the country realize that Obama and his people were the biggest traitors to the country, at least in the last almost half century.maybe the biggest hallmark of Trump's foreign policy is "America First", which puts, for the first time in quite awhile, America's interests where they belong - before those of any other country. Obama's foreign policy, to the extent that he had a philosophy, seemed to have been that we had gained our position in the world illegitimately, and thus had to continuously atone for that. Essentially accepting the Dreams of His Father, fighting colonialism, etc. so, his eight years in office seemed to be a constant sellout of American interests to the rest of the world. Even his staunchest supporters would probably be hard pressed to find examples of where Obama put America First.

So, here are some examples of Obama and his Administration betraying this country to foreign powers:
- Selling 1/5 of our uranium to Russia
- Sending $150 billion to Iran, including pallets of cash
- Pulling out our troops prematurely in Iraq
- Regime change in Lybia, Egypt, and Syria. First left a failed state to this date. Second was to the Muslim Brotherhood, that spawned the Taliban, al Quaeda, ISIS, etc. And the third, Syria, because it was done so badly, created the immigrant crisis that is likely to turn western and Southern Europe into part of the Caliphate.
- Greatly reduced the effectiveness of the US military by overextending it, while cutting funding, and imposing political correctness and social justice on it. While the military should have been practicing the basics, like ship handling or marksmanship, they were instead taking transgendered sensitivity classes and the like.

Who was the one then who actually did betray the country? Which is why the left in this country projects their insecurities so pathologically on their opponents.