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. 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):

    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.

    Do you concede that others don’t share those assumptions? Do you have any direct evidence to base those assumptions on?

    • #91
  2. 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):

    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.

    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.

    • #92
  3. 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):

    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.

    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?

    • #93
  4. 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):

    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.(sn

    (snip)

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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?

    Today’s action is the last that will be seen of these indictments.

     

    • #94
  5. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    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):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    • snip
    •  

    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.

    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?

    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?

    • #95
  6. MichaelHenry Member
    MichaelHenry
    @MichaelHenry

    Bob Thompson: THE OTTER DEFENSE is an absolutely perfect comparison. Congrats on your comic awareness. In the words of the Guinness Brothers: Brilliant!!!

    • #96
  7. MichaelHenry Member
    MichaelHenry
    @MichaelHenry

    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.”

    • #97
  8. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    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 . . .

    • #98
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    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.

    Think of Catbert, the Evil HR Director from Dilbert . . .

    • #99
  10. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Bob W (View Comment):
    My bet is that both collusiongate and spygate will fizzle out. 

    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.

    • #100
  11. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    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?

    No, the theory applies if an investigator had personal animosity against a particular suspect in a serial murder case.

    • #101
  12. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Suspira (View Comment):

    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?

    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. 

    • #102
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Suspira (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    • #103
  14. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Suspira (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    • #104
  15. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Suspira (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    No link?

    • #105
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.