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.
Only if the hatred means they will fabricate evidence.
Basil,
I am already in favor of the next war.
Regards,
Jim
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.
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?
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.
And how did that hearing advance those goals?
The guy was reassigned to HR. That should be punishment enough for whatever he did.
Weakening public support for the Mueller probe.
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.
That would be enough to make me quit.
Are you kidding? HR is practically designed for the demon-possessed.
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.
Drew,
I think this video reflects the flavor of the interchange between Trey Gowdy and Strzok.
Regards,
Jim
That assumes a lot about the Mueller probe that isn’t so.
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.
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?
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.
If he has animosity against them in their day job role, then probably yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
Our Mollie:
5 Key Takeaways From The House Hearing With FBI Counterintelligence No. 2 Peter Strzok
Conclusion:
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1017436322947108864
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1017439061563379712
https://twitter.com/instavire/status/1017482658782294016
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.
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.
Hat tip to neo-neocon:
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.