CNN BLASTS STRZOK

The biggest tragedy of all is that the conduct of Strzok, Page and ultimately Comey may well have been far more damaging than any covert actions against the United States by the Russians. They have destroyed the institutional credibility of a sacred American institution, the FBI.

Click to expand...

sailordeac said:

Strzok, with his obvious often repeated prejudices, being the lead investigator in the most politically sensitive cases of recent times is straight out of Alice in Wonderland, "verdict first, 'investigation' later." The belief that Hillary would win probably played an important role in this fuckup for the ages by the senior leadership of the FBI.

Click to expand...

sailordeac said:

Strzok, with his obvious often repeated prejudices, being the lead investigator in the most politically sensitive cases of recent times is straight out of Alice in Wonderland, "verdict first, 'investigation' later." The belief that Hillary would win probably played an important role in this fuckup for the ages by the senior leadership of the FBI.

Click to expand...

PhDeac said:

That’s because you’re biased against him. You’ve been primed by the conservative echo chamber.

Click to expand...

Peter Strzok, the FBI’s former head of counterespionage, owed the American public explanations about the vitriolic messages he sent on his work devices while investigating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And he deserved the opportunity to be heard.

In testifying to Congress last week, Strzok ended up side-stepping many questions, stating that the FBI had directed him not to answer. But we still discovered a lot.

ADVERTISEMENT
Here are ten things we learned from Peter Strzok’s testimony to Congress about his text messages and other actions:


1. Strzok’s hatred for Trump did not impact any of his professional actions or judgments. How do we know? Because he said so. And he would never lie — he assured us of that, too.
2. Strzok wrote that Loudoun County, Virginia, residents are “ignorant hillbillys [sic].” But we learned that Loudoun residents were wrong to take that as disparaging in any way. Strzok was simply partaking in good-natured banter involving the friendly competition between Loudoun and Fairfax County, Virginia, where Strzok lives.

3. Strzok said he could “smell” Trump supporters at a Wal-Mart store. But we learned what he meant was that he could “see” or “hear” Trump supporters at the Wal-Mart. In reality, Strzok totally respects and honors the “millions and millions and millions of Americans … who voted for Mr. Trump.”

4. Strzok wrote that he “loathed Congress.” But he didn’t mean that, either. It turns out he has “the utmost respect” for Congress.

5. Strzok wrote that he and unnamed others would join to “stop” Trump from ever getting elected. That might appear to be the definition of a conspiracy — or collusion — by a top FBI official to interfere in an election. But we learned Strzok has no memory of writing those words. And, in any event, the “we” referred to the American public —not to anybody in the FBI.

6. Strzok wrote of working with other top FBI officials to develop an “insurance policy” in case Trump were elected. But, again, we learned he would never really do such a thing.

7. Strzok wrote of the “impeachment” of Trump before he’d interviewed a single witness in the Russia probe. But we learned he didn’t prejudge anything.

8. We also learned a lot of important context that justified and recast Strzok’s messages. For example, when Strzok wrote that candidate “Trump is a disaster” and lamented how “destabilizing” a Trump presidency would be, it was after he heard Trump question whether the U.S. should honor its commitment to NATO. What top FBI official in his right mind wouldn’t fire off a message like that on his work phone? It was Trump’s fault for driving Strzok to write the words.

9. We learned that the authority responsible for sorting through Strzok’s personal accounts for additional relevant messages to turn over to Congress is — well, Strzok. And we learned that the number of messages he plans to hand over is exactly zero.

10. We learned from Strzok that all Americans are pretty much like him in terms of having deeply held political beliefs, so it’s not really possible or necessary to find more disconnected arbiters to lead the FBI’s sensitive investigations like the historic probes into 2016 presidential candidates. We learned that nobody at the FBI has ever allowed their personal beliefs to impact their job. It’s nothing more than coincidence that so many official FBI activities in which Strzok took part were very much in line with the vitriol he’d privately expressed against Trump.

Still, after all we learned, a modicum of confusion remains. If Strzok wrote so many things in private to his girlfriend that he now says didn’t really mean — what are we to believe now?

Never mind. We learned from Strzok that questions like that simply fall under the category of “misrepresentations of extreme folks in the media” and “conspiracy theorists.”

If only the Department of Justice’s inspector general hadn’t recovered the controversial messages Strzok sent to his FBI girlfriend, using his work devices, after the messages had been deleted in an unusual technical glitch at the FBI, Strzok likely would still be serving on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team — fairly and impartially investigating a president he despises.

It’s great that Strzok cleared everything up. It was not only appropriate for him to send the messages that he did, it was downright “patriotic.” It sure looks like a major injustice was committed in taking him off the job.

Just ask him.

Click to expand...

TexasDeac10 said:

Please explain which investigative or prosecutorial action was a result of said "often repeated prejudices."

The inability to separate personal political opinions and prosecutorial bias is so, so strange. I always expected better from WFU grads, but alas...

Click to expand...

The words "gross negligence" are used in a federal criminal statute related to misuse of classified information. Strzok then changed the wording to the legally tepid "extremely careless," thereby enabling his boss, Comey, to sound credible when saying that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Clinton based on these facts.

Click to expand...

WFcatamount22 said:

That seems like a pretty clear and fucking huge example of prosecutorial actions that were a direct result of bias by Strzok. Do you disagree??

As far as your second statement, that's a kin to saying, "well we all know that police officer down the street attends an occasional klan rally, but we really don't think it affects his police work, I see no reason to be concerned".

Click to expand...