Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Strzok Strikes Out
I watched a good bit of Peter Strzok’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today. A few observations:
- It is truly frightening that the arrogant, biased, and petulant person who testified today can rise to the very top of the FBI/DOJ bureaucracy and use the awesome power of the federal government to investigate and punish someone he dislikes intensely.
- The fact that such a man can rise to the pinnacle of power in DC is an indictment of the Deep State, where liars and malefactors of every stripe can thrive and prosper.
- When you are in serious jury trial, the worst facial expression your witness can exhibit is the “Strzok Smirk.” If your witness does it, you should throw in the towel and plead him guilty immediately.
- Strzok’s personal attorney, Aitan Goelman, had the toughest job in the hearing room. He was seated behind Strzok and was on the television screen when his client answered question. In a masterful performance, he managed to refrain from rolling his eyes or pulling out chunks of his beard during some of Strzok’s answers.
- Lisa Page must be one desperate woman to have become involved with Strzok. In fact, I don’t know how anyone could be in the same room with him for fifteen minutes.
- The three FBI lawyers with whom Strzok consulted during his testimony must be the lawyers with the lowest seniority in the entire DOJ.
- Strzok did give one straight answer. When asked if he detested Trump, he said, “Yes.”
- He had no specific recollection of writing the email to Lisa assuring her that “we’ll stop him.” But he did say it was late at night when he sent it.
- Maxine Waters has a higher IQ than the Dem Representatives who pontificated (none asked questions) today in the hearing.
- After today, Congressional approval numbers will slip below those of the only two professions that have polled lower: iPhone update techs and website designers who build phony “unsubscribe” buttons.
Holy cow this guy is THE poster child for the deep state. Let him be the face (and smirk) of the entire Muller investigation, I love it!
By the way, can anyone pretty please tell me why this arrogant lying jerk-wad is still drawing a paycheck from the FBI?
The Demo Rats over and over decried the plight of separated immigrant children. The same people that have no problem with partial birth abortion. 60,000,000 lives snuffed out since Roe vs Wade. It upsets me that nobody threw this in their face.
My favorite of that was the line from Trey Gowdy to Strzok “I don’t give a damn what you think!” He left out the “Frankly sir…”
Worse than Koskinen.
I mean, Koskinen was very bad, projecting that “I am untouchable” attitude. Strzok behaved as if he was the one doing the interrogation.
Basil,
I hereby appoint you Ricochet Smirk Judge. Perhaps you can quantify your rating system. I’m sure there are more smirkers out there that we will be forced to endure.
Regards,
Jim
Scary!
I had an elaborate rating system in place called the Cole scale. But then he changed his avatar.
Lost in yesterday’s circus was the revelation that almost every single one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were being forwarded to an unspecified foreign agent.
The problem here is that you are all taking Strozk literally and not seriously.
His declarations that he never allowed his personal hate and opposition towards candidate Trump interfere or color his investigation(s) is totally irrelevant.
If he feels that animosity towards the target of the investigation he must recuse himself. How would anyone here like to learn that the officers investigating accusations against them had a deep seated hatred for them prior to any evidence gathering? Is not the standard that the ‘appearance’ of a conflict of interest is disqualifying valid for FBI investigators?
Now, if it is true that all agents and investigators have a right to personal political positions, show me the members of these two investigations that were tweeting Trump support and Hillary hate? I mean, if it is true that all agents carry around these pre formed deep seated opinions about their targets, you would have to assume that roughly half would be in one camp, and half in the other, right?
If one investigation is filled entirely with investigators who carry the same bias, isn’t that disqualifying?
I told you – he’s the Screwtape character…I thought he was going to let out a hiss…
So, according to your theory, anyone who has personal animosity or hatred towards serial killers should recuse themselves from an investigation into a serial murders?
Something tells me Lisa Page has seen that look a few times…
Anyone here making excuses for Strzok is off my Christmas card list immediately. You have been warned.
What do you think the distribution of political preferences (not to the extent to be considered bias) would be over the entire FBI investigative force? How would it differ from HQ to the Field Offices?
Wow! And this is not front page headlines??
Should Republicans have been prevented from investigating Clinton?
No, I’m saying that if A Squared is accused of being a serial killer, investigators with a personal animosity or hatred for A Squared should recuse themselves. Remember, A Squared is not guilty of being a serial killer just because he has been accused!
Can someone explain to me the point of these hearings? The modernequivalnce of stocks in the public square? Don’t we already have the IG report? Don’t we already know he violated FBI policy? Fire the man and have done with it. This public spectacle is embarrassingly stupid.
This is way off base. The crime and the culprit are two different things.
I’m not making excuses for Strzok. I just the concerns over bias are focused on the wrong bias.
I’m not at all worried about Strzok’s anti-Trump bias. I fully expect every criminal investigator to have a bias against the subject of the investigation, that is their job, but they have to gather the evidence and convince a jury to get a prosecution.
What I abhor is Strzok’s pro-Hillary bias in the e-mail investigation. Bias against the subject of the investigation can’t convict someone without evidence, but bias in favor of the subject can very easily overlook evidence that would have resulted in a prosecution.
That’s valid.
He’d be getting off easy.
A political investigation is not the same as an FBI or DOJ investigation, is it?
To be more precise, if Clinton was being criminally investigated, he should not be investigated by people with a pre existing bias against him. Is that controversial?
If instead your question is ‘should Republicans in the FBI have been prevented from participating in the investigation’ I would say no, as long as Democrats in the FBI are also participants.
I realize people think I’m a religious nutjob when I say these things, but demons are real, and you’re lookin’ at one.
Exactly.
What crime did he commit?
It’s sad if one cannot tell the difference between extreme bias, so significant as to require who knows how many interactions between two or more parties while engaged in an investigation, and a simple political party preference.
True. It’s not technically illegal to surrender your eternal soul to Satan, but it’s not really a good idea.
And it just looks bad on your CV.