Strzok Strikes Out

 

I watched a good bit of Peter Strzok’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today. A few observations:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The three FBI lawyers with whom Strzok consulted during his testimony must be the lawyers with the lowest seniority in the entire DOJ.
  7. Strzok did give one straight answer. When asked if he detested Trump, he said, “Yes.”
  8. 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.
  9. Maxine Waters has a higher IQ than the Dem Representatives who pontificated (none asked questions) today in the hearing.
  10. 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.
Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 105 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    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?

    Only if the hatred means they will fabricate evidence.

    • #61
  2. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    A smirk worthy of Koskinen.

    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

    I had an elaborate rating system in place called the Cole scale. But then he changed his avatar.

    Basil,

    I am already in favor of the next war.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #62
  3. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    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. 

    That isn’t exactly what happened, is it?  It is one thing to say that once evidence is gathered that shows the guilt of a subject of the investigation the investigator forms a bias, and quite another to say that before any evidence is gathered, the investigator carries a bias that drives him to open an investigation. 

    Evidence, then investigation, then bias, is expected. 

    Bias, then investigation, then evidence ( or not!)  is abuse of power. 

    • #63
  4. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    • #64
  5. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    PHenry (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    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.

    That isn’t exactly what happened, is it? It is one thing to say that once evidence is gathered that shows the guilt of a subject of the investigation the investigator forms a bias, and quite another to say that before any evidence is gathered, the investigator carries a bias that drives him to open an investigation.

    Evidence, then investigation, then bias, is expected.

    Bias, then investigation, then evidence ( or not!) is abuse of power.

    But personal bias against, say, an organized crime boss if often an absolute necessity to fuel the years of work necessary for the investigation to result in a conviction.  

    Like I said, what bothers me greatly is the pro-Hillary bias.  That is a real problem for a investigator.  Bias against the subject still requires proof that could convince a jury and withstand cross-examination.  If you are biased towards the subject, as Strzok clearly was towards Hillary, you never get the evidence in the first place.  

    • #65
  6. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    • #66
  7. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The modernequivalnce of stocks in the public square?

    That’s valid.

    He’d be getting off easy.

    What crime did he commit?

    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.

    The guy was reassigned to HR. That should be punishment enough for whatever he did.

    • #67
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.

    • #68
  9. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    But personal bias against, say, an organized crime boss if often an absolute necessity to fuel the years of work necessary for the investigation to result in a conviction

    If that bias is based on solid evidence of wrongdoing, I agree.  If that bias is only based on political or personal animosity, then that investigator has a professional duty to recuse himself.  Just because he thinks that person is ( or might be) an organized crime boss does not justify any investigation. 

    Otherwise, everyone any law enforcement officer dislikes for any reason can be subject to endless ‘investigation’.  And we just have to ‘trust’ that he isn’t using that bias as the basis. 

     

    • #69
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The modernequivalnce of stocks in the public square?

    That’s valid.

    He’d be getting off easy.

    What crime did he commit?

    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.

    The guy was reassigned to HR. That should be punishment enough for whatever he did.

    That would be enough to make me quit.

    • #70
  11. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The modernequivalnce of stocks in the public square?

    That’s valid.

    He’d be getting off easy.

    What crime did he commit?

    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.

    The guy was reassigned to HR. That should be punishment enough for whatever he did.

    Are you kidding? HR is practically designed for the demon-possessed.

    • #71
  12. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    PHenry (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    But personal bias against, say, an organized crime boss if often an absolute necessity to fuel the years of work necessary for the investigation to result in a conviction

    If that bias is based on solid evidence of wrongdoing, I agree. If that bias is only based on political or personal animosity, then that investigator has a professional duty to recuse himself. Just because he thinks that person is ( or might be) an organized crime boss does not justify any investigation.

    Otherwise, everyone any law enforcement officer dislikes for any reason can be subject to endless ‘investigation’. And we just have to ‘trust’ that he isn’t using that bias as the basis.

     

    Meh. He has to convince his boss that his full time job should be investigating this guy.

    I still think pro-subject bias is FAR more concerning for an investigator than anti-subject bias. 

    • #72
  13. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The modernequivalnce of stocks in the public square?

    That’s valid.

    He’d be getting off easy.

    What crime did he commit?

    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.

    The guy was reassigned to HR. That should be punishment enough for whatever he did.

    Are you kidding? HR is practically designed for the demon-possessed.

    Drew,

    I think this video reflects the flavor of the interchange between Trey Gowdy and Strzok.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #73
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.

    That assumes a lot about the Mueller probe that isn’t so. 

    • #74
  15. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I just watched  Deputy AG Rosenstein announce indictments of Russian agents for meddling in the U.S. election process. It was good and relevant. it’s good that Trump has this information. 

    • #75
  16. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    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 Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.

    “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.

    Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information.

    Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the “specific content.”

    “The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, “but you were given that information and you did nothing with it.”

    He also said that someone alerted the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to the issue.

    “Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,” Gohmert said.

    I caught that also. And if memory serves, the NY FBI agent was concerned that he didn’t hear from DC office about the emails for about 30 days – Strzok testified yesterday that he followed up immediately.

    Am I misremembering?

    • #76
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.

    That assumes a lot about the Mueller probe that isn’t so.

    The part that is most concerning to me about the Mueller probe was how it came into being and the part that included the notion of ‘obstruction of justice’ by the President. Everything would be OK if it were confined to Russian interference in the election, but then it could have been run from within the FBI, except the parties there had anti-Trump bias, and were determined to have him or his campaign to be part of it. An unbiased investigation would have revealed that if it were there.

    • #77
  18. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.

    That assumes a lot about the Mueller probe that isn’t so.

    The part that is most concerning to me about the Mueller probe was how it came into being and the part that included the notion of ‘obstruction of justice’ by the President. Everything would be OK if it were confined to Russian interference in the election, but then it could have been run from within the FBI, except the parties there had anti-Trump bias, and were determined to have him or his campaign to be part of it. An unbiased investigation would have revealed that if it were there.

    Take that up with the President. If he hadn’t told people on two occasions, once on national television, that he fired Comey to end the investigation this probably wouldn’t have happened. 

    • #78
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    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?

    If he has animosity against them in their day job role, then probably yes.  

    • #79
  20. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Regarding Strzok, he made his animus towards DJT more than evident. Nothing worse than I’ve seen on FB … or here on Rico, for that matter.

    I think what we have is a classic example of Scott Adams’ “two movies on the same screen”. If I was as convinced as Strzok that DJT would be harmful to the country, it wouldn’t be too difficult to convince myself I was doing the country a favor by using any means necessary to prevent his election or derail it once it occurred.

    Regarding the smirking, I think what we watched was someone full of moral righteousness who has been promised cover. There are a lot of people with a real interest in not getting the full story known. 

    • #80
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    That is a good question. If Congress is not going to enact any reforms or modify its funding as a result of the information it gets, that means it is abdicating its oversight role.  

    • #81
  22. Sash Member
    Sash
    @Sash

    One particularly disgusting House member is Stalwell of California… has a more disgusting human ever existed?  Why do Democrats vote for such vile people?  Do they truly love evil?

    I hope Independents saw it like I saw it… Democrats must be removed from power.  They are just criminals protecting other criminals.  And they have got into the FBI and corrupted it.

    I can’t say that I really know anything about the electorate… I would never have picked Trump… so what do I know, but please America… get these corrupt Democrats out of power over our lives.

    • #82
  23. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I still think pro-subject bias is FAR more concerning for an investigator than anti-subject bias.

     It sounds like your position is that you are far more concerned with a guilty person getting let off easy than you are with an innocent person getting harassed relentlessly.  I find both equally concerning. 

     

    • #83
  24. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    Like I said, what bothers me greatly is the pro-Hillary bias. That is a real problem for a investigator. Bias against the subject still requires proof that could convince a jury and withstand cross-examination. If you are biased towards the subject, as Strzok clearly was towards Hillary, you never get the evidence in the first place.

    What’s the difference between the FBI changing the language that redounded to criminality about Hillary’s handling of her classified emails, and had someone they literally hated,, done far less? There is way too much arbitrary interpretation involved to pretend that personal animus toward a target is of no consequence.

    Of course there aren’t any cases where innocent people were convicted because prosecutors didn’t pursue exculpatory evidence or outright withheld  it, since they had such a fine case going on. That simply doesn’t happen. Never has hatred of the accused resulted in overzealous prosecutions either.

    I’m not a lawyer, but if I was assigned the Strozk case to prosecute, I would recuse myself. On second thought…I’m sure if he’s innocent I won’t be able to find any wrongdoing…. 

    • #84
  25. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Our Mollie:
    5 Key Takeaways From The House Hearing With FBI Counterintelligence No. 2 Peter Strzok

    Conclusion:

    The hearing was less than substantive because of the ongoing obstruction and stonewalling campaign engaged in by DOJ.

    That was itself instructive.

    • #85
  26. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1017436322947108864

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1017439061563379712

    https://twitter.com/instavire/status/1017482658782294016

    • #86
  27. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    PHenry (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I still think pro-subject bias is FAR more concerning for an investigator than anti-subject bias.

    It sounds like your position is that you are far more concerned with a guilty person getting let off easy than you are with an innocent person getting harassed relentlessly. I find both equally concerning.

     

    My point is, we have safeguards built into the system to protect against over-zealous investigators in the FBI. We don’t have safeguards in the system against under-zealous investigators in the FBI. 

    • #87
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    A-Squared (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    But personal bias against, say, an organized crime boss if often an absolute necessity to fuel the years of work necessary for the investigation to result in a conviction

    If that bias is based on solid evidence of wrongdoing, I agree. If that bias is only based on political or personal animosity, then that investigator has a professional duty to recuse himself. Just because he thinks that person is ( or might be) an organized crime boss does not justify any investigation.

    Otherwise, everyone any law enforcement officer dislikes for any reason can be subject to endless ‘investigation’. And we just have to ‘trust’ that he isn’t using that bias as the basis.

     

    Meh. He has to convince his boss that his full time job should be investigating this guy.

    I still think pro-subject bias is FAR more concerning for an investigator than anti-subject bias.

    I think they’re equally bad when the subject is a political figure (pro and anti). This whole thing has been a weaponized use of the state apparatus. 

    And did anyone see Manafort’s mug shot on Drudge yesterday? The guy is a political prisoner. This is happening. In America.

    Danger on the Left.

    • #88
  29. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Hat tip to neo-neocon:

     

    • #89
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    The Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte committees are seeking to determine if there was systematic abuse of power by senior executive branch officials. The Mueller Special Counsel investigation, operating with unknown scope, keeps any exposure of these misdeeds from being exposed since they can avoid answering questions as long as anything plausibly related to an ongoing investigation can be invoked. Got it?

    And how did that hearing advance those goals?

    Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.

    That assumes a lot about the Mueller probe that isn’t so.

    The part that is most concerning to me about the Mueller probe was how it came into being and the part that included the notion of ‘obstruction of justice’ by the President. Everything would be OK if it were confined to Russian interference in the election, but then it could have been run from within the FBI, except the parties there had anti-Trump bias, and were determined to have him or his campaign to be part of it. An unbiased investigation would have revealed that if it were there.

    Take that up with the President. If he hadn’t told people on two occasions, once on national television, that he fired Comey to end the investigation this probably wouldn’t have happened.

    I do make assumptions about the Mueller probe. A bunch of them.

    That it was established primarily to impede, for an indefinite duration, any routine public inquiry or oversight that would reveal wrongdoing by DoJ, FBI, intelligence agencies, or national security advisors during the Obama Administration.

    That it was set-up in such a way to inhibit any action by the POTUS or the AG that would impair the first assumption.

    This was thought to be all that was needed and it is working well, so far. Inspector General Horowitz created a bump in the road. His product pretty much destroyed any ‘obstruction of justice’ notion related to the firing of James Comey by the POTUS. One other possible bump is the yet to be revealed work of US Attorney John Huber. Finally, after the mid-term election, the POTUS may very well drop his inhibitions and take actions that will bring transparency to this subject. 

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.