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.
Do you concede that others don’t share those assumptions? Do you have any direct evidence to base those assumptions on?
Some others do. Only the bizarre steps in the creation of the Special Counsel not adhering to DoJ requirements.
And all the evidence that has come to light that this is actually an investigation into Russian actions like say today’s indictments are what? A deep state smokescreen?
(snip)
Today’s action is the last that will be seen of these indictments.
I remain very confused about who is accused of what. Was the Trump campaign under suspicion of … something? If so, what? Anyone who has plead guilty or in jail thanks to the investigation has nothing to do with Russia (I think. I am having trouble following all this)
That fact that there were Russians up to no good comes as no surprise; and if there was malfeasance (not that an indictment means that) I’m glad it’s been uncovered.
But wasn’t the original suspicion that the Trump campaign was somehow colluding with Russia? (to do what, I’m not sure) Hence wiretaps, etc?
Bob Thompson: THE OTTER DEFENSE is an absolutely perfect comparison. Congrats on your comic awareness. In the words of the Guinness Brothers: Brilliant!!!
Er, uh, perhaps the brilliance belongs to ontheleftcoast, who actually posted the Otter Defense, but I’m sure Bob Thompson is brilliant, too. It’s nice to be among the Ricochet cognoscenti. As Strzok would say, “I’ve tried to like other people, non-Beltway people, but they’re all such ****ing stupid, smelly, hillbillies.”
I think I figured this guy Strzok out. His facial expressions at the hearing were done on purpose hoping to make us become unhinged like his fellow leftists. While we did comment on them, we didn’t dress up in ski masks and go out to beat up on leftists . . .
Think of Catbert, the Evil HR Director from Dilbert . . .
No, Trump will declassify documents this fall. That will reveal the lies. Now, of the GOP is smart enough to capitalize on this is another question. The Paul Ryan ICE repeal bill action is promising.
No, the theory applies if an investigator had personal animosity against a particular suspect in a serial murder case.
As Andy McCarthy points out at NRO, investigators often have a lot of antipathy for the people they are investigating.
This would be people identified as suspects in the commission of an actual crime, most likely. Maybe does not apply to someone whose apparent ‘crime’ is seeking the office of POTUS.
Yes! As if there was a hint of a scintilla of a pretext for investigating the Trump campaign. They made the whole damn thing up! Because they hate Trump and lust for power. Bottom line.
No link?