July 13, 2018

What was Strzok thinking?

That's what the hearing yesterday went on and on about in some of the most ridiculous political theater I've ever seen. Strok seemed intent on sternly insisting that his texts expressed political opinions that he kept strictly separate from his professional work and how dare anyone suggest that he was not a professional who did exactly what he's telling you he did — how dare you impugn the integrity of the FBI!

But sometimes the mask slipped, and when it did, it was really weird:



Via Instapundit.

As for what Strzok was thinking when he wrote those texts, I'll set that aside for a moment and asked what was Strok thinking when he made that smirking face and whole-body jiggle? My guess: I'm getting away with this.

198 comments:

Biotrekker said...

He exudes contempt for Congress, the GOP and the "people".

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

Democrats always get away with the legal consequences. Hence, Trump.

Michael K said...

I see that as a GOP ad in October.

Nonapod said...

He's so far above all us plebes, can't you see? Clearly he is a far superior being and we should be thankful that he deigns to even engage with us at all.

Belle17 said...

There seems to be a "type" with the higher up FBI guys. Total arrogance and disdain. Comey has it, too.

I thought yesterday was a total zoo, but this guy is breathtakingly arrogant, and when the fool from SC wanted to award the guy a Purple Heart, I lost a contact in the back of my head from rolling my eyes.

Gahrie said...

So what Trump says and tweets has deep significance...enough to "justify" judges using it to nullify executive orders.

But what Strozk says and tweets is meaningless and must be completely disregarded.

Seeing Red said...

He’s thinking neener neener, you can’t touch this.

Achilles said...

He is a democrat.

If they had any sense they would cast him out rather than defend him.

But democrats are completely insane right now.

The meltdown after the midterms will be glorious.

Gahrie said...

My guess: I'm getting away with this.

..and I'm shoving it in their face.

Jersey Fled said...

This is one very creepy dude. Makes you wonder about the people who put him in a position of power.

Francisco D said...

"My guess: I'm getting away with this."

He is thinking that he's an untouchable insider and will get away with it just like Hillary.

Hopefully, pride goeth before the fall.

Gk1 said...

If we were to cast Strzok in a movie you would have to use the ultimate conniving, incompetent,self righteous, M*A*S*H character Major Burns aka, Larry Linville. He knows his career is over and this is how he wants to be remembered?

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if ANN was going to deal with the visual aspects of Strzok's testimony. I could not watch it all because of the DEM BS right at the beginning. The smirk on Strzok's face as the Dems jousted with Goodlatte told me right then that he was a certified asshole. Comey's facial expressions when testifying were pretty much a giveaway for his over-weaning hubris. Stzok's facials would have killed him in front of a jury. Lying through his teeth? You bet!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Michael K said...

I see that as a GOP ad in October.

7/13/18, 9:54 AM

Please.

Rob said...

How did this simp manage to screw both a wife and a mistress?

Belle17 said...

The facts are, he WILL get away with it. He's not going to jail. I doubt his wife is dumping him. He will end up with some kind of cushy job when this is over. Guys like this always come out without a scratch. Which is why they keep doing what they do.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"We will stop him"

Perfectly acceptable FBI behavior sentiment and attitude by the radical left that is the democrat party.

Gk1 said...

He's done as a law enforcement officer at the FBI. He's an easily jettisoned scapegoat like Lois Lerner. We will just need to accept that and move on. Having his infidelity rubbed in his face was a nice touch by Gohmert though.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Why is he getting away with it? What is the point of the clown show? Where is Sessions?

Humperdink said...

The guy's a worm. Same as Rosenstein.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The real collusion is the top brass at the FBI and the Clinton Campaign.

traditionalguy said...

What we are watching in his face is the tell called " Dupper's Delight." This man glories in lying and in creating a false reality that fools the miserable Hill Billies that he hates with an evil passion

Message recieved, Mr Strozk.

Original Mike said...

DB@H: “Peter Strozk will be the face of the 2018 election.”
Inga: “I sure hope so.”

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Democrats want to give Strozk a Purple Heart.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Original Mike.


That's a keeper.

rehajm said...

My guess: I'm getting away with this

It's an excellent one: Dupers Delight.

traditionalguy said...

And the FBI has dupped the American People for 50+ years. They are masters of deception and covering up for crimes in DC. The rage he is showing is his hate for the dumb Congress people who dare to talk down to him.

Nonapod said...

A smug, blatantly lying, mean spirited, arrogant adulterer? You couldn't write or cast a better fictional character to represent the Deep State. I mean, if you did, people would find the character unbelievable. Even his name is somewhat Dickensian... Strzok.

Critter said...

I expect that will be his reaction in anticipation of his approaching cell mate, Bubba, for a period of at least 10 years.

CJ said...

God I hope the GOP uses his little smirking face and his head and body wiggle (he looks like the actual Grinch) and overlays his texts about being able to "SMELL Trump voters" at the southern VA Wal-Mart as an ad.

The point of order games the Democrats played yesterday were despicable. I'd have had Capitol Police remove Gerold Nadler from the room.

And how about that scum from Tennessee saying Strozk should get a Purple Heart?

John Podhoretz said the Left is going to make Strozk into their Ollie North. If the Left does that - it tells you everything you need to know about the political situation in America. One Party protects a literal war hero trying to serve his country and the other Party protects a partisan shill that despises half the country so much he falsified documents, lied to FISA judges, and turned the FBI into a spying operation on a political candidate.

Who's the hero and who's the villain in that situation?

That travesty of a hearing yesterday made me hate the Left, like really, really hate them. Scum, scum, scum.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Lying for the greater good of Clinton Corruption is well received on the left.

btw- If his so-called Russian evidence is so compelling - where is it? The Mueller investigation is a tax-payer funded fraud on the American people.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

GOP must make Hillary Clinton and Peter Strozk the face of the 2018 mid-terms.

Gahrie said...

If we were to cast Strzok in a movie you would have to use the ultimate conniving, incompetent,self righteous, M*A*S*H character Major Burns aka, Larry Linville. He knows his career is over and this is how he wants to be remembered?


Nice. I think of him as Grandmaester Pycelle.

Kristian Holvoet said...

My guess: I'm getting away with this.

And the rest of the room? "This is how you get more Trump."

Big Mike said...

I agree. He thinks he’s (1) getting away with it, and (2) going to continue to get away with it. He will not change his tone unless and until McCabe and Comey are in Leavenworth, and probably Rosenstein alongside them.

Whitey Bulger, the investigation of the Olympic bombing, the investigation of the anthrax letters, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Bundy ranch, the Tsarnaev brothers, Omar Mateen, ... The trial verdict for Omar Mateen’s wife should tell the FBI what the people of the United States think of the FBI’s “integrity.”

CJ said...

https://imgur.com/gallery/UAVCvT6

^ here's his little wiggle that the GOP should use as an ad.

God do you think he does that after sex with Gummy Boo Boo Page? Looks at her and does that little smirk and head wiggle?

MountainMan said...

There was one really significant item from the hearing yesterday that has been completely ignored. From Liz Sheld at PJ Media:

"Second, Congressman Gohmert delivered a massive bombshell that went unacknowledged yesterday. While questioning the smirking FBI agent, Gohmert asked about a meeting Strzok attended with the Intelligence Community's Inspector General's (ICIG) office where the FBI was informed that almost every single one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails were being forwarded to an unspecified foreign agent. This discovery was made while examining Clinton's home-brewed bathroom server used to traffic all of her government communications, including classified material. Let me repeat that: all of the former United States secretary of state's emails (around 30,000 emails) were being forwarded to a foreign power. All the folks shrieking about imaginary foreign influence on Trump do not seem to care about this AT ALL."

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Who put Strozk in his role as Deputy Head of Counterintelligence? James Comey, keen judge of character
Who put Andrew McCabe as # 2 in the FBI? James Comey, keen judge of character
Who enabled the appointment of a Special Counsel who then hired Strozk and Page? James Comey
Who is weird, self-righteous, and also has annoying facial tics? James Comey

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

CJ - indeed.

Birches said...

It was bizarre. This is just as revealing as Comey tweeting like a teenager.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Isn't it important that the person chosen to investigate Hillary & Trump was a diehard Hillary supporter & Trump hater? And that he was an active adulterer? And that Strzok's paramour was assigned to the same investigation?
This bozo was a high ranking FBI investigator. Hard to believe htat the dems would wholeheartedly throw their support behind him. Aren't there any adults in that party?
The FBI needs to be shaken up. Heads should roll. The FBI has ammassed and incredible amount of power. In return they were supposed to have a squeaky-clean image. Jesus, this is ridiculous.

Unknown said...

Lots of theater. An overdose of theater. The problem from the Republican side is that everyone had to have their turn in the theater as the lead character, but each individual episode was too short to get anywhere.

What I found most disturbing is listening the Democrat Committee members praise him like a hero, not the agent who was reprimanded and demoted. There position clearly indicates they want a politicized, partisan FBI protecting and helping one party defeat the other. would challenge them on their position.

Tank said...

Strzok: I am the FBI. I have gotten away with much worse than this my whole career. I'm going to skate on this and no one can touch me. Nah, nah, nah nah nah !

Andrew said...

Is that blonde woman behind him his demon spawn?

tcrosse said...

It's Richard Widmark in Kiss of Death (1947).

rcocean said...

No one would care about Mr. Strock's political Opinions except all his FBI actions line up perfectly with those political opinions.

His defense seems to be:

"Sure, I hate Trump and liked Hillary. Sure, I found the Hillary email investigation a waste of time and delayed looking at those Weiner emails for a month. Sure, I couldn't wait to go after Trump for Russia Collusion with a fake Dossier, and go after Flynn for the Logan Act".

BUT - don't accuse me of not being independent. Only Putin would do that!"

rcocean said...

Lets not forget the Democrat Assclowns on that committee. They NEVER put the country before politics. You'd think they'd be unhappy at the way the FBI has behaved toward Congress and in general, but nope.

They did everything they could to turn it into a circus.

AJ Lynch said...

That is what a young Mr. Burns from The Simpsons would look like.

Leland said...

Did you notice that he had a hard time keeping his head held high.

Andrew said...

Quote from Roger Ebert's review of Full Metal Jacket. I couldn't stop thinking of this, and many others have noticed the Kubrick villain connection.

"... at several other times in the film, Kubrick indulges his favorite closeup, a shot of a man glowering up at the camera from beneath lowered brows. This was the trademark visual in "A Clockwork Orange," and Jack Nicholson practiced it in "The Shining." What does it mean? That Kubrick thinks it's an interesting angle from which to shoot the face, I think. In "Full Metal Jacket," it promises exactly what finally happens and spoils some of the suspense."

mccullough said...

This whole hearing was silly. The guy was a high level counter-intelligence agent who texted his co-worker girlfriend 50,000 times on the company phone. He is a total moron just like Comey. A fucking idiot. It’s an embarrassment that these guys attained such high positions. I’d say the same thing about these idiots on Congress but they attained their positions through the idiocy of a majority of their constituents who showed up to vote.

AllenS said...

Strzok is thinking what every American should think. Never, never talk to the police, or FBI, or any other entity that could land you in jail. Lie if you need to lie, but never admit you did anything wrong, in your whole life. Then, laugh at them.

YoungHegelian said...

Strok seemed intent on sternly insisting that his texts expressed political opinions that he kept strictly separate from his professional work and how dare anyone suggest that he was not a professional who did exactly what he's telling you he did — how dare you impugn the integrity of the FBI!

This is, in a nutshell, the collective dementia that affects the entire modern bureaucratic class across the world: "We are Top Men. TOP. MEN." Their estimations of themselves & their abilities are so untethered from reality that their hubris is identical with their invincible ignorance. This is why over & over again they make public protestations that truly virtuous individuals like themselves do not need to be constrained by policies & procedures like the rest of the untermenschen.

I am, living in the DC area, surrounded by these sorts of people. Talking with them is like talking with the country born-again Christians back home in Alabama. No facts ever are allowed to penetrate their world-view, except if those facts bolster their claims. At least with the back-country Christians, you could talk to them in the common language of the Bible. You could tack them down to something. The Top Men's polymorphic hubris can be tacked down to nothing in the outside world.

Gk1 said...

Mountainman I can remember one of the tropes the hillary defenders kept desperately pitching during the email scandal was "Well, Hillary's server was completely safe, no one ever saw classified materials, that's what the FBI told us" and even then it smelled like bullshit. In fact every single lie they told us about the bathroom server was false. Why would this be any different?

I am intrigued to know who this outside agent was? Any guesses? An ally like Britain or Israel? I am sure the DIA & NSA know but aren't tellin'.

320Busdriver said...

This guy is a first rate creep. A hack. That someone so stupid rose to the top of the premier LE agency of the US of A proves how unelected bureaucrats can destroy a nation.

He deserves to be strung up.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The look on Strozk's face IS the inner most feelings of the Chuck Todd-Chris Cillizza-MSNBC-CNN-alphabet press.

michaele said...

That should be combined with Hillary's crazy shimmy shoulder shake during one of the debates...whew...creepy.

rcocean said...

Don't forget that Brennan the Commie and the Clap are involved in this up to their eyeballs.

jaydub said...

Watching him, all I could think of was that this smarmy, snide POS was the Nr 2 counter intelligence official in the US government. How scary is that?

Ann Althouse said...

"I was wondering if ANN was going to deal with the visual aspects of Strzok's testimony. I could not watch it all because of the DEM BS right at the beginning. The smirk on Strzok's face as the Dems jousted with Goodlatte told me right then that he was a certified asshole. Comey's facial expressions when testifying were pretty much a giveaway for his over-weaning hubris. Stzok's facials would have killed him in front of a jury. Lying through his teeth? You bet!"

I find it almost impossible to stare at the television when it's just talking heads. I used to draw to deal with the tedium, but now I'm most likely to play solitaire on my iPhone, which allows me to listen to the words. Looking at the face too? What a nightmare! But sometimes there are funny things that Meade catches. Yesterday, he caught one of the congressmen saying the word "colonoscopy" in a hilarious way and I watched that at least 10 times and laughed more than I've laughed at anything since... well, since Professor Suing Nyu.

BDNYC said...

My main thought was: "this man got in trouble for cheating on his female wife with a woman?" That snarky little gesture made my gaydar ping really hard.

Wendybar said...

This ass still has a job that we are paying for. He claims he still has his security clearance. Any wonder why Americans do not trust any of them?? He will get off without punishment.

Wendybar said...

But Congresssman Steve Cohen thinks this ass deserves a Purple Heart. Nice slap in the face to REAL heroes Steve!!!

Amadeus 48 said...

This guy has to be the worst counter-spy in the history of the world.

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Begley said...

This guy was in charge of counterterrorism at the FBI. Comey and McCabe put him there. What horrible judgment. I imagine his work product was no better than his testimony yesterday.

pacwest said...

One thing I noticed was how often he used the 'I had no personal contact' line. Culpable deniability. Pretty transparent, but probably the best he could do. Hillary thinks she has erected so many layers between herself and an investigation that she is untouchable. In the end she will be using the same weary defense.

It's starting to unravel. As things get worse for Hillary I would expect a few more dead bodies. The firing squad won't be circular. Comey should be nervous.

It looks likes Holder is going to manage to stay out of the fray. I hope not.

Henry said...

Looks like the white privilege shimmy to me.

David Begley said...

Has this guy ever testified in federal court?

Anonymous said...

Does the Democratic performance in that committee hearing make you suspicious that there is even worse out there that they know about and are really frightened might be revealed in public?

Bay Area Guy said...

The Holy rotten triumvirate at the FBI:

Comey - fired
McCabe - fired
Stork - demoted to HR

Had Hillary won, these assholes would be running FBI today.

Think about that.

And you continue to deny the existence of a benevolent God?:)

Gahrie said...

Does the Democratic performance in that committee hearing make you suspicious that there is even worse out there that they know about and are really frightened might be revealed in public?

Probably having to do with the Pakistani spies half of the democrats in Congress had running their tech....

Yancey Ward said...

Strzok had better hope that he is never brought to court over any of this as a civil or criminal defendant, because the video of yesterday's testimony will sink him whether he is really guilty or not. And we haven't really even gotten into the issue of whether yesterday's answers are really truthful in the rare cases where he didn't just hide behind the FBI in refusing to answer questions.

All that aside, I think the big thing that was learned yesterday is that the dossier didn't reach the FBI from Christopher Steele alone, and maybe not even at first, but came through several channels all eventually originating from the Clinton Campaign. It appears that Strzok all but admitted that much of the information in the dossier was sourced from Bruce Ohr. This strongly supports the contention that all of the information that was correct in the Steele Dossier originated in the DoJ itself as part of a the FISA query abuse, and was laundered through Christopher Steele- things like travel details.

Darrell said...

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced on Friday that 12 Russian intelligence officers was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation. The officers are members of the GRU, and are all named as having allegedly hacked the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic National Committee, and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Drudge Red Alert!

mezzrow said...

I wonder if I can find someone to make book that Trump hangs a "Ferret Face" moniker on this guy.

New millenial discussions: "What dimensions of intersectionality did Cpl. Klinger bring to the show?" Discuss.

The Drill SGT said...

mccullough said...
This whole hearing was silly. The guy was a high level counter-intelligence agent who texted his co-worker girlfriend 50,000 times on the company phone.


Times sure have changed. I've had a TS clearance long enough (48 years) to remember the counter-intelligence briefings that called out that called out having under cover affairs as being classic security risks that allowed blackmail by bad people.

Grounds for immediate termination of clearance followed by termination of job.

Darrell said...

Let's pretend we know nothing about data transfer rates or the elapsed time of the hack or the throughput of the available internet service.

Anonymous said...

It Is frightening to see the people that have been promoted to the highest positions of the FBI. One wonders about who has been promoting these people (DOJ as well). What criteria could they possibly have been using? My take is that it has been the "old boy" network at its absolute worst: same schools; same clubs; same politics; same neighborhood; part their hair on the correct side. Merit? Performance? What's that got to do with anything?

The field agents must have been apoplectic watching Strzok yesterday.

320Busdriver said...

And Rosey is out throwing water on this as we speak...

Unexpectedly

Anonymous said...

Given the Navy's recent performance only confirms that the same criteria were used for promotion in the military and the Justice Department under Obama.

Qwinn said...

Anyone else notice the absence of the usual suspects today?

Seems to me like they got their orders to prop Strzok up yesterday, then those orders were recalled as the decision was made that his performance is indefensible in the long run.

Let's not let them forget.

320Busdriver said...

And if Stroke is a Ferret then Rosey is a weasel. Thank God we indicted the 12 Russians, thanks Obama..

Darrell said...

Zombie Eliot Ness died from lack of brains at the FBI.

Etienne said...

Hillary is going to have him suicided. You fail Hillary, you die.

Chuck said...

Althouse let’s assume that indeed Peter Strozk had a deep personal antipathy to Trump. But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

Should Strozk be removed from all contact with any investigation of Trump and/or Clinton?

Then let’s reverse the ideologies. Again, we will presume (1) personal political antipathy but also (2) 100% legal/professional adherence.
Would a young Brett Kavanaugh need to be removed from the Starr investigation? Would a Sheriff Joe Arpaio need to be removed from any investigation of illegal aliens? Would an FBI agent be disqualified from work on the Clinton server investigation, or the Benghazi investigation, if they appeared on Facebook wearing a MAGA hat or attending a Trump rally?

Darrell said...

Do you think that the GRU officers will ever show up for trial?
No.
Then why the fuck did you indict them?

320Busdriver said...

So who gets to decide what the dnc turns over to authorities. I'll bet its not the "authorities".

Matthew Sablan said...

"He will end up with some kind of cushy job when this is over."

-- Just remember, they sent the guy who had an affair with a co-worker to work in HR.

Odds are, he's already got another mistress, this time one that knows better than to text on FBI phones.

The Drill SGT said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
The field agents must have been apoplectic watching Strzok yesterday.


I see every Defense Attorney in the nation adding a new line of questioning attacking the credibility of any FBI sworn statements.

Darrell said...

But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

Ex-Federal prosecutors have reviewed his actions and identified at least a dozen felonies. So bad assumption.

The Drill SGT said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Odds are, he's already got another mistress, this time one that knows better than to text on FBI phones.


doesn't say much about both the morals or smarts of his talent pool.

Darrell said...

The FBI should be losing every case now when the jury gets their hands on it. All credibility is lost. Partisan liars and lawbreakers.

320Busdriver said...

Still more concerned that shiforbrains like this posts' subject are running roughshod over our rights..

Darrell said...

Why don't you record FBI interviews. Hey! You might as well ask us why we use a pencil to write our notes.

320Busdriver said...

A top fbi agent does not even know how to utilize a burner phone... yeah he's THAT stupid.!!!

Gk1 said...

That is a bit rich a man that carried on an extra-marital affair at work is still working in the HR dept. Says a lot about the quality of the FBI's integrity right there, doesn't it? Like putting an alcoholic in charge of sobriety tests at a brewery.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Just think, this man thinks he is better than us.

The most maddening thing about our "elites" is that they are not elite. They are a bunch of third rate mediocrities with power over us.

Gahrie said...

But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

We wouldn't expect you to do anything else. You're a one trick pony...assume the worst of Trump and the best of Trump's enemies. Your pals on the Left and in the media do the same thing.

Darrell said...

And they restored his security clearance so that he could prepare his Congressional testimony. Inga is cool with that.

Anonymous said...

Chuck foists a counterfactual on us? Am I surprised?

Matthew Sablan said...

"But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties."

-- We know it wasn't, from simply talking with Page about conducting official business in a way it wouldn't be caught in a FOIA request. That alone burns any good faith we can give him.

Tommy Duncan said...

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced on Friday that 12 Russian intelligence officers was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation. The officers are members of the GRU, and are all named as having allegedly hacked the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic National Committee, and the Hillary Clinton campaign."

Funny how no one in the media ever mentions the lack of security on the part of the Democrats. Leave the gate open and the fox will eventually find the chicken coop.

That said, I hope the Russians go to court again and force the prosecutors to show their evidence.

Let me add this: The timing of the indictments is convenient. Rosenstein appears to be providing cover for Strozk.

Matthew Sablan said...

None of Chuck's examples involve the person being kicked off the investigation clandestinely meeting with people on his or her investigation team in a way designed to thwart oversight.

THAT is the reason Stzork should be fired; not because he said mean things about Trump.

Gk1 said...

I was talking to a lefty friend yesterday and said the whole performance reminded me of Mark Fuhrman giving testimony at the OJ trial. Depending on your political persuasion you see different things. One thing is for certain this witness contaminates the entire collusion case. Mueller should just wrap this up and go home. His "report" will never be accepted by 1/2 of the country and its a fools errand to pretend this whole collusion farse is worth pursuing at this point. Its irredeemably compromised. Please stop.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty remarked that there's not much depth in the Republican bench.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Matthew Sablan said...

Well. I think the Russian officials should demand a speedy trial.

Chuck said...

Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
None of Chuck's examples involve the person being kicked off the investigation clandestinely meeting with people on his or her investigation team in a way designed to thwart oversight.

THAT is the reason Stzork should be fired; not because he said mean things about Trump.


Actually, Matthew, I am not going to go to any great effort to defend Strozk. I am not even going to battle with the cruder elements of the Althouse commentariat. My question was for Althouse. But I do wonder why, with the current state of the record, what basis there is to claim that any part of the Mueller investigation would be called into question based on Strozk.

People all throughout law enforcement, prosecutors’ offices, in the judiciary, etc., have personal political views. They have private, non-professional lives and in their private lives they may express those political views. There may be cause(s) for recusal, or reassignment, or other remedies to protect subjects and suspects and the appearances of propriety. But shutting down an investigation seems like a radical proposal.

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
Althouse let’s assume that indeed Peter Strozk had a deep personal antipathy to Trump. But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

Should Strozk be removed from all contact with any investigation of Trump and/or Clinton?

Then let’s reverse the ideologies. Again, we will presume (1) personal political antipathy but also (2) 100% legal/professional adherence.
Would a young Brett Kavanaugh need to be removed from the Starr investigation? Would a Sheriff Joe Arpaio need to be removed from any investigation of illegal aliens? Would an FBI agent be disqualified from work on the Clinton server investigation, or the Benghazi investigation, if they appeared on Facebook wearing a MAGA hat or attending a Trump rally?"

This is such a striking false equivalent that you must be the worlds shittiest lawyer, if in fact you are actually one.

Darrell said...

what basis there is to claim that any part of the Mueller investigation would be called into question based on Strozk.

Agreed. But every person that Mueller has hired is at least as biased as Strozk. There is no presumption of impartiality--at all-regarding Mueller's team. And isn't that a requirement of the position?

Michael said...

This beta doofus is a senior person in the FBI. An absurd sissy in a bad suit snickers like a girl. Appalling.

Darkisland said...

Traditional guy

50 years?

The FBI had been a shitstain since Wilson founded it.

The Fbi needs to be abolished. Perhaps, I hope, president trump is just giving them enough rope to jang themselves.

Lon Horiuchi is another beauty we need yo keep in mind as Exhibit B

John Henry

Qwinn said...

I think what Strzok was thinking was that the Left has set the standard for being caught in malfeasance is that they fully admit that they did it. Until they give a full confession (and sometimes even when they do, see Lois Lerner), it doesn't matter how much evidence is accumulated against them, it doesn't count. As long as they keep denying their criminality, they are untouchable, and any attempt to indict them is clear evidence of Right wing fascism.

That only applies to the Left, of course. For the Right, if anyone on the Left has made an accusation, even without any evidence whatsoever, failure to immediately convict the conservative is clear evidence of Right wing fascism.

Go ahead, try to find a media narrative of the last 10 years that doesn't fit that template.

Mike said...

I hated the smirk. He was obviously lying and proud of it. The bias was overwhelming and indefensible. Obviously hire other weasels, a la Comey. If Strzok is right about his texts being simply opinions unconnected to his official duties, why is it that every single text aligns with his official acts? He praised Hillary in texts and let her skate, overlooking the clear meaning of the law in order to do so. He expressed hatred for Trump and zealously pursued every wisp of wrongdoing that oppo research could gin up, including running spies at the campaign. When that didn’t work he turned (on election night) from trying to prove collusion to ginning up reasons to impeach. And he sent those biased texts on FBI devices to other FBI employees during work hours. That’s some hard facts to swallow along with his claim of integrity.

Achilles said...

Strzok is a traitor.

A democrat said he should be given a Purple Heart.

I know guys with Purple Hearts.

It would be cool to have Strzok and that congressman put into a room with those guys.

Teller said...

Muy maricon.

traditionalguy said...

The 4chan guys say that Strozk has always been a CIA trained spy that heads the FBI operation to keep FBI investigations under control. So he just did his assigned job. And then the CIA assigned him to destroy Trump. After all trump is a mere elected, hill billy President.

Rick said...

My guess: I'm getting away with this.

I remember in 5th grade we learned about evidence and proof. For the rest of the year the more immature kids claimed you couldn't "prove it".

They made that exact face.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
Althouse let’s assume that indeed Peter Strozk had a deep personal antipathy to Trump. But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

This is impossible. Publicly acknowledged actions have demonstrated he has already broken laws and professional duties.

No lawyer with even a basic knowledge of the issue could say what you did honestly.

But you know this.

If you are a lawyer you are inherently dishonest.

That leaves a 100% chance you are dishonest at a core level.

JHapp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Nice centrist people won't hold weasels like Comey and Strzok accountable any more than they held Lois Lerner accountable, Professor. Nice centrist people will nod along with the Media when they characterize any attempt to make those kinds of people take punishmen as Republicans pouncing, conservative overreach, or some other ugly breach of decorum.

The weasels know they'll get away with it. If you're paying attention they let the mask slip ALL THE TIME. Most nice centrist people don't bother to pay attention. After all a nice professional like Jake Tapper or George Stephanopolous would tell the nice centrist people if there was something amiss with the weasels' behavior and they haven't (ever) said a word!

Jim at said...

Remember, none of this crap - not a single bit - would've been revealed if Hillary would've won.

Trump - for all his warts - was sorely needed ... if for nothing more than to expose assholes like Strzok.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But shutting down an investigation seems like a radical proposal."

-- If he had just said mean things, sure, it would be radical to end the investigation. When he willingly ignored new evidence in Clinton's case while focusing on Trump's; when Stzork and company pre-drafted Clinton's exoneration. When he and Page conspired to hide conversations from the FBI about their investigations, etc., etc., it gets harder and harder to believe: "He just didn't like Trump; his investigation was completely on the up and up!"

No. It wasn't. He literally discussed ways to ensure there couldn't be oversight of his investigation while pledging to stop the target of his investigation.

There is no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Matthew Sablan said...

Just compare that Stzork and company ignored obvious perjury in Clinton's case, and compare it to them initially not thinking that Flynn lied to them, only to go back and change that assessment later -- and it is impossible to think that the FBI was playing square.

JHapp said...

A timely article describing the collusion between the DNC and the FBI is at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/13/dangerous-pseudo-science-in-cyber-security/
which makes me think Stzork was trying to create a chaotic environment and stall the questioning.

Roy Jacobsen said...

In yesterday's performance (word chosen deliberately) Peter Strozk proved to be even more charming and guileless as Eddie Haskell.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"than," not "as"

Biff said...

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I truly am struck by how creepy both Strozk and Comey appear to be. It's not due to their perceived politics or sanctimony, since I don't get the same vibe from others with similar politics and sanctimony. It really makes me wonder about the culture at the FBI that these individuals have been so successful.

BJM said...

Tommy Duncan said: Rosenstein appears to be providing cover for Strozk.

Of course he is, if Strzok flipped and cut a deal there would be a lot of high level asses in Congress, DOJ and covert services left exposed.

The MSM/Dems just don't get it, voters are tired of the injustice Strzok, Lerner, Holder, Clinton, et al represent.

hombre said...

Why wouldn’t he get away with it. Democrats want him to get a Purple Heart, or some such.

Honor? Meh! Integrity? Meh!

Hillary was their candidate, Bill their hero. The country? Fuck the country!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Does that expression and twee shoulder shimmy remind anybody else of Paul Lynde on "Hollywood Squares?"

Paul just made a catty little funny and is very pleased with himself.

tcrosse said...

Purple heart ? Stronzo deserves to be put in a position to earn a Purple Heart the Old Fashioned way.

Achilles said...

But I do wonder why, with the current state of the record, what basis there is to claim that any part of the Mueller investigation would be called into question based on Strozk.

Strzok was the lead investigator who said he would stop Trump.

The text from Strzok where he said he would stop Trump was withheld from congressional investigators illegally.

Strzok was only removed from the Mueller investigation when the IG forced him to. Strzok was the lead investigator on the Mueller team.

The Mueller investigation has been a shit show from the start. He has been caught indicting people and corporations that didn’t exist when he said they committed crimes.

Everyone on the Mueller team is a proven leftist.

Of course Chuck defends that.

BUMBLE BEE said...

There's still the investigation in Utah. That prosecutor was frequently in contact with the IG. The DNC IT frauds, Uranium One, this is just warming up. BTW, can you envision Stzrok walking up behind Seth that night?. Just getting started.

hombre said...

Read Chuck at 11:27. Chuck is not only unhinged. he is illogical and stupid.

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

...what was Strok thinking when he made that smirking face and whole-body jiggle? My guess: I'm getting away with this.

My guess: the Strok was sitting on a vibrating butt plug activated by wireless remote controls held in the hands of the Democrats on the committee.

PALOQUETH Male Vibrating Prostate Massager Sex Toy with 2 Powerful Motors and 10 Stimulation Patterns for Wireless Remote Control Anal Pleasure

https://www.amazon.com/PALOQUETH-Vibrating-Prostate-Massager-Stimulation/dp/B06XKNWJN2/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_121_bs_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=E9A3V0M6ZXV4PPYFTH49&dpID=41XH-hqebTL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

Ken B said...

To me this looks so very very bad. But to the Dem base this looks so very, very good. “Eat shit losers,” is what it says, and that’s exactly the message that appeals to their base. They care about that far more than they care about winning.

Ken B said...

YH: “polymorphic hubris”

Nice.

Sydney said...

That is just amazing. What the hell? I can't think of any context that puts a good face on that little performance.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Althouse let’s assume that indeed Peter Strozk had a deep personal antipathy to Trump. But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties.

I keep hearing this kind of thing and I guess I'll keep asking the same question: for those of you who don't think the publicly-available info on this topic is troubling/would lead a neutral observer to have serious doubts about the trustworthiness of the investigations, what would it take to change your mind. What evidence would you accept as convincing? What would someone like Strozk have to say or do to make you conclude "yeah, I bet his overwhelming bias likely influenced his judgement and actions such that the product of his work ought to be considered of doubtful trustworthiness?"

What would it take? Is the answer really "nothing; I will always assume this person acted appropriately and that his obvious bias had no impact on his work (work which is, in large part, a product of his own decisions, selective exercise of discretion, etc) no matter how clear and strong that bias is"?

Be specific, please! What would he have to say or have said, do or have done?

EDH said...

hombre said...
Read Chuck at 11:27. Chuck is not only unhinged. he is illogical and stupid.

Indeed, the hypotheticals Chuck posits would not demonstrate, like here, the furtherance of an actual conspiracy among a cabal of federal officials to effect the outcome of two investigations and a presidential election.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Side note: the (former) #2 counterintel guy at the FBI is a wiggling smirking jackass who can't muster the personal professionalism to hide his true nature even when he knows he's on national TV. Tell me again that I am honor bound as an American to disregard all evidence that high ranking members of the State are just bad people (bad at their jobs, with bad attitudes towards non-State citizens, with bad/selfish motives and bad ethics, etc) and that failure to do so means I am "hurting the country!" Tell me again that I have an obligation to assume that jackasses like Comey and this asshole are consummate professionals whose judgement must not be questioned--that if I do then I'm "attacking the FBI" and doing the work of the Russians or some other enemy.

What a joke.

cubanbob said...

Strzok's shimmy and smirk is starting to appear as an oh shit jerk and grimace as the realization that he might be looking at prison time.
So does he cop a plea and rats on Comey? Does Hillary need to get measured for a bespoke orange jumpsuit? Inquiring minds want to know.

cubanbob said...

Chuck said...Althouse let’s assume that indeed Peter Strozk had a deep personal antipathy to Trump. But let’s also assume that Strozk’s performance of hi s official duties was in strict and absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties."

First why would we assume this when his conduct of his duties in the Clinton investigation is the opposite of his conduct in the Trump investigation? Second why would we assume absolute accordance with all applicable laws and professional duties when the evidence is clear he conspired to obstruct justice?

robother said...

The absurdity of Chuck's hypothetical is, of course, that it is perfectly imaginable that were Strozk investigating bank robberies, his political views would have no effect on his job performance. However, the fact that he is at the center of investigations of each of the 2 major party candidates in the middle of the election? No reasonable judge or jury would find that such animus had no effect on the key investigator's decisions.

For what its worth, I imagine Chuck had a similar expression on his face and in his body language as he typed his hypothetical comment.

Qwinn said...

HoodlumDoodlum asks the right question. What WOULD it take for Chuck, Inga, etc. to no longer give these guys the benefit of the ridiculously unreasonable doubt? If what we have already isn't enough, what possibly could be?

Or, in other words:

"What was Chuck thinking?"

jrapdx said...

Thing is characters like Strzok don't actually "think" in the same way as ordinary normal people. Strzok is missing a piece of his brain functioning. Sure he can calculate responses to questions but doesn't easily take the social/emotional context into account. Hence he comes across as arrogant, narcissistic, antisocial, disconnected and sometimes frankly bizarre.

The now famous image/video of his "possessed" facial expression is sure evidence he has no idea how he appears to others. So when he says he wan't "biased" he isn't necessarily lying, rather he simply doesn't connect the dots obvious to everyone else.

Lack of self-observation might well be the disease of our epoch, exemplified by the illogic of leftists who speak in self-contradictions. A realm where internal consistency and personal responsibility are not valued is the perfect environment for antisocial defectives like Strzok to prosper. And so he did.

Exposing his authentic nature in the Congressional hearing renders Strzok done. Even more, he illustrates the reasons for Americans' extreme distrust of the Obama-era DoJ/FBI, and by extension their defenders in the Democrat party.

But we all know paybacks are hell, after all, November is coming on fast. As father used to say, "don't worry son, it all comes out in the wash."

Chuck said...

Qwinn said...
HoodlumDoodlum asks the right question. What WOULD it take for Chuck, Inga, etc. to no longer give these guys the benefit of the ridiculously unreasonable doubt? If what we have already isn't enough, what possibly could be?

Or, in other words:

"What was Chuck thinking?"


It has become so routine, that it seems almost automatic, that the Atlhouse commentariat wants to attribute to me a meaning and a position that I never took.

I'm not defending Strozk

I'm not saying that he did nothing wrong.

I think that the right thing to do, all things considered, was absolutely to remove him from Trump/Clinton matters within the Bureau.

But none of that has anything to do with what I was addressing. I was asking two different questions:
1. Where do you stop, in probing the private political opinions of investigative officers?And;
2. What is there with Strozk, that has anything to do with the larger Mueller investigation? Put another way, why would anybody think that the Mueller investigation should be shut down because of Strozk?

Matthew Sablan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"1. Where do you stop, in probing the private political opinions of investigative officers?And;"

-- If we were anywhere close to a line, it would be a good question. He literally talked about how to avoid oversight. Full stop, we don't need to "probe" his private political opinions. We just have to look at his actions.

Leland said...

What WOULD it take for Chuck, Inga, etc. to no longer give these guys the benefit of the ridiculously unreasonable doubt? If what we have already isn't enough, what possibly could be?

Did you see what it took for people like them to turn on Anthony Weiner?

Here's the positive about it all; the average citizen and voter watched all this; and I think you'll see a few more #walkaway. I Dem representative seriously handed the GOP gift by claiming Strzok deserved a Purple Heart. I can't imagine being that seriously disconnected with the voters. Military personnel vote, and I don't think they believe Strzok deserves a purple heart for weather a storm of praise from Democrats.

Don't worry about the people who have a vested interest in Democrats winning. Their investment, whatever it is, covers whatever disgust they may have.

Matthew Sablan said...

"2. What is there with Strozk, that has anything to do with the larger Mueller investigation? Put another way, why would anybody think that the Mueller investigation should be shut down because of Strozk?"

-- Two major reasons. First, as I've repeated: He conspired to avoid oversight.

Second, and more worrying: He deviated from previously observed investigative behavior in ways that match his announced biases. One of the most obvious indicators of bias is when someone's behavior changes. Compare how Stzork treated witnesses in the Clinton cases with the Trump cases, and you'll see in every instance his treatment lines up perfectly with his known biases.

Third, Stzork made unauthorized contact with the media.

Fourth, his messages were deliberately hidden from Congress by the FBI/DoJ.

Any one, or even two, of those you might be able to excuse or ignore. Taken together -- when the entire team has suffered from the same biases and behavior modifications -- makes it an investigation with very low reliability.

Matthew Sablan said...

Would I throw it all out?

Probably not. Would I do a thorough audit of it? Yes. Yes I would. A few questions: Why did Stzork and company not realize they were being targeted by counter intelligence with the repeated attempts to poison the investigation with the dossier?

Why did they change their mind about Flynn lying? Why were no perjury charges even considered in the Clinton case, despite the investigators (on their government phones!) acknowledging that they were being lied to?

Why did Podesta get a warning and a chance to fix his illegal business structure, even though he did not cooperate with investigators, while the cooperative Manafort had the book thrown at him?

All of those might have legitimate reasoning behind them, but the FBI should be made to provide it.

Michael K said...

Go easy on chuck, guys. He is obviously a defense lawyer who is fine with altering documents to change "Goss Negligence" to "carelessness" when he is defending a doctor who killed a patient. Maybe trump it should look him up.

Gk1 said...

Its funny whenever there is a new "big bulletin" or "breaking development" in charging that russians are being charged, idicted etc. Rosenstein routinely points out that no votes or voting machines were effected by this russian interference. If thats the case why are we continually treated to stories about trump and russian collusion?

Howard said...

Stzork is 100% guilty but the pedophile gets the benefit of doubt from you people. As Jordan Peterson says, ideologues don't think, they just react in a predictable lock-step with what their ideology requires. This is strictly enforced, especially against apostates like Chuck.

Jim at said...

Stzork is 100% guilty but the pedophile gets the benefit of doubt from you people.

We have hard evidence from Strzok. His own words.
The alleged pedophile is dead and no hard evidence is available.

It's you who's not thinking and locked-stepped into your ideology.

Comanche Voter said...

This little wiggle and smirk means he's gone full schmuck on us. In a just world about 5 light heavyweights would use him as a punching bag until that smirk disappeared. Never go full schmuck--it tends to catch up with you in unexpected ways.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
Go easy on chuck, guys. He is obviously a defense lawyer who is fine with altering documents to change "Goss Negligence" to "carelessness" when he is defending a doctor who killed a patient. Maybe trump it should look him up.


What the fuck are you even talking about?

Peter Schwartz said...

Seems like everyone's critique boils down to a wiggle and a smirk. Is that all you have? Everything the FBI did, actually did, helped Trump by sinking Hillary. So if they had it in for him, they kicked an own goal.

Matthew Sablan said...

Sitting on Weiner's laptop and preemptively deciding Clinton was innocent sure helped Trump. Please at least be passingly familiar with the facts.

Matthew Sablan said...

How was not prosecuting Abedin and Mills for perjury supposed to help Trump?

cubanbob said...

Gk1 said...
Its funny whenever there is a new "big bulletin" or "breaking development" in charging that russians are being charged, idicted etc. Rosenstein routinely points out that no votes or voting machines were effected by this russian interference. If thats the case why are we continually treated to stories about trump and russian collusion?"

Its the 8,000lb turd no one wants to notice. There was collusion except the collusion was by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to sabotage the Sanders campaign. So the what we have here is the Russians supposedly hacking into the DNC servers and exposing the DNC conspiring with the Clinton campaign. More likely it was an insider who leaked to Wikileaks. The fact that the DNC refused to allow the FBI ( presumably the not corrupt part of the FBI) examine the DNC servers is more than enough to indicate the DNC is hiding something and most likely one of those somethings is that the Russians didn't hack the DNC servers or if they did, they weren't the only ones. Then there is the Clinton email scandal. The FBI obstructed justice by purposefully tanking a criminal investigation thus rendering Hillary free from prosecution.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Peter Schwartz said...Seems like everyone's critique boils down to a wiggle and a smirk. Is that all you have? Everything the FBI did, actually did, helped Trump by sinking Hillary. So if they had it in for him, they kicked an own goal.

I've read this a lot too, recently, and form some people I consider pretty smart. (Mostly NeverTrump people, coincidentally.)

Seems like a pretty clear case of fallacious thinking, though. The stronger/worse case is usually "well there couldn't have been any conspiracy or even solo actions by Hillary-favoring people within the FBI to sink Trump, because Trump won!" That's a straightforward argument from ignorance, right? I mean that's a well defined logical fallacy. Trump winning is not good evidence for the absence of wrongdoing by FBI people.

This comment is a slightly different case, namely that even if the FBI intended to harm Trump (by wrongdoing) they ended up helping him...which is often presented in a way designed to imply that therefore the alleged wrongdoing and bias are no big deals. That's not as clear a fallacy (since we're talking about relative moral weight and not whether something can be evidence for something else) but still seems pretty wrong to me--if I try to murder someone I hate and end up hurting someone I like I'm pretty sure I can still be charged with attempted murder, right?

Saying "at worst all we can conclude is that some very high ranking people within the FBI seem to have been very strongly biased and that bias may have caused them to try and use their power in a way we don't think they should, but they ultimately failed to get the result they intended" doesn't exactly exonerate these guys, does it??

cubanbob said...

Blogger Peter Schwartz said...
Seems like everyone's critique boils down to a wiggle and a smirk. Is that all you have? Everything the FBI did, actually did, helped Trump by sinking Hillary. So if they had it in for him, they kicked an own goal."

The arrogant bastards just assumed Hillary was going to win. This was to insure she wouldn't get charged with multiple felonies. When she lost the smirky bastards concocted a scheme to deflect from Clinton and embroil Trump. So far the only collusion exposed has been the DNC conspiring with the Clinton campaign to sabotage the Sanders campaign and the collusion between the DoJ and the FBI to tank a criminal investigation of the Obama campaign into the criminal conduct of Hillary Clinton, Obama and various Obama Administration officials.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Let's ignore the Trump investigation and remember that this dude is THE GUY who changed the wording in Comey's statement regarding Hilldozer's "mishandling" of classified material--he changed it from a phrase literally used in the criminal code to a weaker phrase.

Why did he do that? Well, he exercised his judgement and personal beliefs informed by both his years of experience as a top FBI employee AND his now-plain incredibly strong anti-Trump bias. How much of a role did that bias play in his decision? He says "none." Some people here seem to be arguing that that should be the end of it. I think that's silly--how could his very strong bias play no part in that decision? How can any of us be sure any number of other, less obvious decisions/judgement calls of this type were not also influenced by his obvious bias?

How, finally, can any of you people who want to claim none of this is a big deal still argue with a straight face that we (the American people) should just "take their word for it" when people in the FBI (or any other government bureaucracy) tell us they did no wrong, that they're unbiased professionals, etc??

Night Owl said...

I've been ignoring most of these congressional testimonies because smirking douchebags like Comey and Rosenstein and this Pee Wee Herman lookalike make me angry, and I don't want that much anger in my life.

There are probably a lot like me who are tuning out this farce for the same cynical reason, the belief that corrupt partisan scum will get away with their attempted take-down of a Republican candidate/president-elect. But a meme like this gets out to the public, even to those who are actively ignoring the story.

This creepy asshole has just become the face of the FBI. Good luck to the FBI winning any upcoming cases before a jury full of disgusted Americans.

Kansas City said...

It was interesting. Everyone seemed to know he was lying.

The clearest lie was that "we" in "We'll stop him" was the American Voters. It was an odd lie, because he vacillated between not remembering writing it to saying it was late at night and he meant the voters and was made about Trump's comments. Seems like he would have picked on explanation or the other. He probably had been told to say he did not remember writing it, but looking at it now, he thinks he was referring to the American voters. And he messed up the explanation.

I too was struck by how unimpressive he was - that is subjective, but for the supposed top investigator at FBI, he did not come across too strong or bright.

Kansas City said...

It was a bad day for the FBI. Unimpressive guy who was obviously lying.

CWJ said...

Peter Schwartz,

That's some top men, TOP men, logic you've got going there. It's kind of like saying if they were such criminal masterminds, why didn't they get away with it. The obvious answer is that they are not, but somehow in spite of failing at their mission, they will get away with avoiding jail time.

They did the best they could with the cards they were dealt. That is, Hillary commiting felonies, being caught out at committing felonies, the evidence of her committing felonies popping up in unexpected places, and at inconvenient times vis a vis the election, and still managing to not charge her with anything. Trump was elected in spite of the FBI, not because of them. That you could watch all this and say EVERYTHING they did helped Trump is idiotic.

Clyde said...

Gahrie said...
If we were to cast Strzok in a movie you would have to use the ultimate conniving, incompetent,self righteous, M*A*S*H character Major Burns aka, Larry Linville. He knows his career is over and this is how he wants to be remembered?

Nice. I think of him as Grandmaester Pycelle.


He reminds me of a young Larry Hagman in his J.R. Ewing role. Malevolent.

Michael K said...

"What the fuck are you even talking about?"

Here chuck, you don't even appreciate me trying to defend you.

I just assumed you were OK with altering documents. That's all. Just a minor matter of ensuring that Hillary is not shown to have committed a felony.

"Gross Negligence" is a serious matter even in malpractice cases. Surely you know that much.

Clyde said...

Chuck said...

... But I do wonder why, with the current state of the record, what basis there is to claim that any part of the Mueller investigation would be called into question based on Strozk.


Chuck, are you familiar with the concept "fruit of the poisonous tree"? The entire Mueller investigation was made up out of whole cloth, from FBI malfeasance with the FISA process. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and anything proceeding from it should be quashed.

Fandor said...

He is possessed by the devil!

Crimso said...

Maybe any time he is seen in public (or private) he should not be permitted a moment's peace. Maybe people should harass him where he lives, where he shops, where he eats, where he shits...I'm told this sort of "justice" is acceptable now. If anybody richly deserves it, it's this scumbag.

Assholes like this are a very real threat to the Republic.

richard mcenroe said...

#EvilSheldon Strzok

Michael K said...

chuck is not familiar with poison trees as he lives in one.

RigelDog said...

What I see from Strozk is absolute fury. Barely-restrained fury that he partially walls-off behind arrogant contempt for these disgusting fools; these people who have the nerve to focus critical attention on him and thereby destroy his life as he knew it. It's quite disturbing to watch.

Gk1 said...

Strzok knows he's done, right? His career is over at the FBI regardless if he escapes charges. His lover seems to have turned state's evidence according to the remarks being made by the republican's after today's closed door hearing. Even the congressman who said Peter deserved a "purple heart" is back pedaling as fast as his clown shoes will take him. I wonder if the FBI needs to do a suicide watch for Strzok?

MayBee said...

Remember when Hillary did that creepy jiggle?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Where is Sessions? Why won't he re-open the Hillary case and fire all the hacks in the FBI?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

@ Crimso

Maybe any time he is seen in public (or private) he should not be permitted a moment's peace. Maybe people should harass him where he lives, where he shops, where he eats, where he shits...I'm told this sort of "justice" is acceptable now. If anybody richly deserves it, it's this scumbag.

Assholes like this are a very real threat to the Republic.


7/13/18, 7:10 PM

A big bold hearty repeat*

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Be a shame if someone beat the crap out of him.

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

Blogger Rick said...
I remember in 5th grade we learned about evidence and proof.
--
Howard needs a refresher.

walter said...

Chuck,
Do you think those texts are the same as wearing a hat?
The seem to point to activities to "stop" Trump.
When an FBI investigator talkas about that on a guvment phone, just might suggest abuse of power...or Hatch Act
Found this opinion, should you be interested.........:

Federal Employees Have Restrictions

The United States Constitution protects the ability of all people to engage in political speech freely. However, federal employees are in a tough place: while they have the right to political speech, they can't use their office to push their (personal) agenda.

The Hatch Act governs what kinds of partisan activities federal employees may participate in. In general, civilian federal employees (except a few, such as the President and Vice President) may participate in public life with a few exceptions:

They may not run for office in partisan elections.
They may not use their official authority or influence to influence an election.
May not do anything to purposefully contribute to the success or failure of a candidate while on duty, while in their office, or using government property.
May not solicit, accept, or receive campaign donations.

FBI Agents are Somewhat Special

Within the Hatch Act there is a list of agencies labelled "further restricted". Employees of these agencies are especially restricted in the kinds of partisan activities they can pursue.

For example, while all federal employees may not actively campaign for anyone under certain circumstances, further restricted employees may not actively campaign at all. This means they may not make public statements supporting candidates, parties, or platforms, make those posts on social media, distribute campaign literature, etc.

Also, further restricted employees may not:

Hold office in any political organization (including political parties, but also politically-oriented community groups).

Encourage subordinates (even tacitly) to attend partisan events.

On the other hand, the Hatch Act explicitly protects the rights of federal employees (even 'further restricted' ones) to express their opinions on politics. However, that commentary cannot be either coordinated with a partisan group or aimed at actually influencing an election.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's employees are further restricted. Being critical of the President is not a restricted activity - in fact it's protected (as the ability to express opinions).
---

walter said...

Chuck said...
Michael K said...
Go easy on chuck, guys. He is obviously a defense lawyer who is fine with altering documents to change "Goss Negligence" to "carelessness" when he is defending a doctor who killed a patient. Maybe trump it should look him up.

What the fuck are you even talking about?
--
Which part of this are you asking about?

Ctmom4 said...

The smirk and the bizarre wiggle were bad enough, but look at his eyes. There is some serious crazy there. Like he just ate someone’s liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Bruce Hayden said...

"to a lefty friend yesterday and said the whole performance reminded me of Mark Fuhrman giving testimony at the OJ trial. Depending on your political persuasion you see different things..."

I was always a bit surprised at how I came down here, as a white male. I found Fuhrman and 3,other detectives going over to OJ's house to warn him that his ex wife had just been murdered to have been fairly suspicious. One or two uniforms would have made sense. 4 homicide detectives was highly suspicious. And then Fuhrnan going over the fence took it from highly suspicious to a fairly blatant 4th Andt violation. I would like to think that most every attorney who has a decent grasp of the Constitution would have seen it the same way. But then Judge Ito, when confronted with such a blatant (in my eyes) 4th Amdt violation, said fine. LAPD cops do that sort of thing all the time in front of him, and he is fine with it. And, coincidentally, by denying the motion to suppress, he gets his 30 minutes of fame, presiding over the trial of the decade. Win, win. And OJ won too, so No Harm, No Foul. Nothing to appeal, and no trial to retry.

Bruce Hayden said...

It is going to be interesting to see what Strzok's partner here, Lisa Page, said to the Congresssional committees, after the whole production of having to have federal LEOs serve the summons to attend on her. She was the mostly unsung hero of the IG report that took down her previous boss, (former) DD McCade, for lying. The investigation into leaking turned into a pissing match between the two of them, and she had the corroborating documentation in her infamous text messages. She may ultimately be one of the more honest players involved.

Bruce Hayden said...

"They may not use their official authority or influence to influence an election.
May not do anything to purposefully contribute to the success or failure of a candidate while on duty, while in their office, or using government property."

This is the heart of why I think that Peter Strzok probably deserves to end up behind bars. He made a number of actions that seemed d signed to affect the election:
- softball interview of Clnton with her coconspirators sitting in as some of her attorneys
- change "gross negligence" to "careless" in Comey's statement
- worked with Fusion GPS, Steele, Ohr, Halper, etc, to use the Steele Dossier to get FISA warrant on firmer FBI informant Carter Page
- sat on knowledge of the Weiner laptop for a month, appearing to be trying to run out the clock, ostensibly by prioritizing the Trump investigation over the Crooked Hillary investigation. They didn't have the resources to do both, because he insisted on running both investigations and staffing them with his hand picked minions.

The problem for him is that everything in isolation can be explained away, as he attempted to do in that Congressional hearing. But there was a fairly obvious pattern of going easy on Clinton, and trying to dirty up Trump, almost at the same time, combined with a series of highly incriminating text messages as to his intent. Admittedly, there was no smoking gun admissions. He never specifically admitted doing a specific action to help one candidate or hurt the other. Which means that proof of his guilt is circumstantial. And the DoJ and FBI successfully go to trial every day with far less circumstantial evidence of motive than we have here. No different here, really, from prosecutors using life insurance policy designating the defendant as the beneficiary as showing motive for murder. The standard of proof for the jury is beyond a reasonable doubt, and not absolute certainty, so inferring intent from suspicious circumstances is just fine. A prosecutor doesn't have to prove that the defendant said that he was going to kill his victim because of the life insurance payout. And federal prosecutors don't have to prove that Strzok admitted taking a series of actions to affect the election because of his stated biases. Rather, the pattern of his actions, and statements of his bias, are sufficient to infer causation.

As many here probably remember, I have been pushing Hatch Act violations here as the primary crime by at least Strzok for quite some time here. He repeatedly intentionally took official actions that affected, one way or another, and taking those actions in order to affect the election in any way, is sufficient intent. And, as just pointed out, soecific intent can be inferred from his statements combined with his actions. Nothing more is required.

Bruce Hayden said...

Interestingly, while Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building a week or two ago, he is still, apparently, employed by them. This probably means that he is on paid administrative leave.

Why would Strzok want to continue to work for the FBI:
- he is getting paid to mostly sit around his house. Pay is very likely the top level that fedal employees can earn - maybe $170k or so.
- as evidenced by his testimony, he is getting protection from the FBI.

Why would the FBI want him to continue working:
- they can much better control his testimony before Congress
- he is immediately available for any and all investigations. The OIG merely has to notify him to attend, at their leisure, instead of having to depend on subpoenas and court orders to force his attendance.

TheDopeFromHope said...

I'd give Strzok a Purple Heart just for having sex with Lisa Page. How you seen those pictures of her--yowza, what a bowser! (Although I must say, she cleaned up real nice for her hearing yesterday.)

FIDO said...

I am guessing she threw Strzok under the bus

Bruce Hayden said...

Little OT, but not that much. I think that a lot of people yesterday thought that Mueller must have gotten a bunch of new information to support his indictment of all those Russian intelligence officers. Somehow they were able to actually prove that these Russians had been the ones to hack the DNC server. Nope. Still apparently depending on the work of DNC hired Cloudstrike to show Russian involvement. They still don't apparently have anything that will stand up in court - just this time they made sure not to indict any corporations that could send a lawyer to represent them, without risking imprisonment, as the Ruskies did before. Still apparently the single report by the hand picked team of analysts, which is vulnerable because the investigation deliberately cut out a number of the intelligence agencies that would typically be included in such an investigation. But, with no extradition treaty with the Russians, Mueller apparently felt safe enough this time around to go to the well a second time around.

Maybe connected. Maybe relevant. Or maybe just conspiracy theory. But there was supposedly last week a break in the case of who murdered Seth Rich. Supposedly one of the identified killers had CIA ties. Actually almost as credible as the Russians hacking the DNC server, instead of it being an inside job.

Crimso said...

Someone should set up a GoFundMe page to pay one of the Russians who was indicted to go ahead and show up. Then again, are we certain all of those people exist? Mueller is demonstrably negligent when it comes to that minor technical point.

Bad Lieutenant said...

But there was supposedly last week a break in the case of who murdered Seth Rich. Supposedly one of the identified killers had CIA ties.


???! Bruce, link?

hstad said...

Yes, this is not only a disaster for Strzok, but gives the FBI a 'black eye'. Just like yesterday's announcement by Rosenstein of 12 Russian indictments. Greatest answer I read came from Alan Dershowitz: “Well you know it proves, this indictment proves that we never needed a special counsel. This indictment could have been brought by ordinary prosecutors, ordinary FBI agents, there’s no conflict here, it’s Russians they are going after,” he added. “There’s no president, there’s no people around the president, there’s no conflict between the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, and Americans, it’s all Russians. Why do we need to spend twenty, thirty, forty million dollars, have special counsel appointed, to do a routine national security investigation, ......?" We've become a "Soap Opera" Nation.