Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

FBI Fires Peter Strzok

peter-strzok-and-lisa-pageControversial FBI official Peter Strzok has been fired by the FBI — joining former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe in the ignoble distinction of being terminated by an agency that rarely jettisons its own.  The firing creates an obvious dissonant element to the Democratic defense of Strzok as someone unfairly hounded by the Republicans. The terminations of McCabe and Strzok are based on the view of officials who viewed their conduct as unacceptable and, in McCabe’s case, potentially criminal.

:

One notable controversy was raised by Strzok attorney Aitan Goelman, who maintained that Deputy Director David Bowdich “overruled” the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility to remove him. The suggestion is that career officials did not view Strzok’s conduct as warranting such action.

Strzok was with the FBI for 21 years.  It did not take time for Trump to tweet out the news:

 

 

Strzok was removed from the special counsel probe last year after the discovery that his incendiary text messages with FBI lawyer, who had an affair with Strzok.

I am interested in the basis for Strzok’s attorney claiming that  the deputy director “reversed the decision of the career FBI official responsible for employee discipline who concluded, through an independent review process, that a 60-day suspension and demotion from supervisory duties was the appropriate punishment.”  There should be some explanation from Goelman as to whether that is true and, if so, the basis for such a reversal.  Generally, the recommendation of the OPR carries considerable weight in such matters. However, the ultimate decisions rests with officials like Goelman on whether the findings warrant more serious sanctions.

261 thoughts on “FBI Fires Peter Strzok”

    1. This is the deputy director of the Counter-Intelligence Division at the FBI doing this. It’s as if the FBI runs on the Peter Principle.

  2. Strzok is just the tip of the iceberg the question is how is black supremacist Obama, Lynch and Valerie Jarrett are connected pseudonym is the Obama administration norm…

  3. WITHIN PAST 2 HOURS TRUMP SENT THESE TWEETS

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

    “Strzok started the illegal Rigged Witch Hunt – why isn’t this so-called “probe” ended immediately? Why aren’t these angry and conflicted Democrats instead looking at Crooked Hillary?”

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

    “Fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok is a fraud, as is the rigged investigation he started. There was no Collusion or Obstruction with Russia, and everybody, including the Democrats, know it. The only Collusion and Obstruction was by Crooked Hillary, the Democrats and the DNC!”

    Here we have the president of the United State claiming a former FBI Agent somehow fabricated an “Illegal, rigged witch hunt”. Not only is this claim blatantly irrational, but Trump is clearly trying to intimidate ‘anyone’ who opposes him in any way at all. Right now Peter Strzok has good reason to fear harassment and possible harm by deluded Trump supporters.

    And both tweets imply that “Crooked Hillary” is behind this ‘conspiracy’. The clear implication is that Hillary Clinton should be arrested immediately. In other words our president wants to jail political opponents!

    Folks, this isn’t a normal president. Donald Trump is a wanna-be dictator publicly threatening opponents. Even Richard Nixon kept his Enemies List private. Trump, however, names his enemies in daily tweets Again, this isn’t normal for America. Trump supporters are delusional if they can’t see how perverted this is.

    1. Peter Hill – since Strzok started the counter-intelligence campaign into the Trump campaign, Trump is absolutely right. You are just going to have to admit it.

      1. Strzok wasn’t alone! No one man in the FBI can launch an ‘illegal, rigged witch hunt”! It’s irrational to think one man could pull that off.

        2. Peter Hill – he launched it, we just do not know who else was involved besides Ohr and Page. I have a feeling that Page was willing to sing like a canary.

          1. Counter-Intelligence was a entire unit of personnel. It’s not like one guy can fabricate a witch hunt. It’s ridiculous to think that’s possible. Which goes to show how ridiculous Trumpers are.

            1. Peter Hill – he was head of the unit and also heading up the Hillary emails? Are the FBI that short staffed?

              1. Paul, I read this morning that the Counter Intelligence Unit was already in place when Strzok was given that job. The people in that unit apparently have certain expertise. According the Wa Po article, no one in that unit was aware of Strzok’s politics. He seemed just as determined to investigate Hillary as Trump. Strzok had had a great career up to that point and was considered one the FBI’s finest.

                1. I’m afraid we’re all very aware of his politics, of Lisa Page’s politics, and of his disposition toward both investigations of which he was a part. You may resume spinning,

                3. “He seemed just as determined to investigate Hillary as Trump. ”

                  Prove it.

    2. ” Not only is this claim blatantly irrational,”

      Based on the events and Stroik’s own emails along with those of his lover it’s hard to reach any other conclusion, not impossible but quite hard. Tell us, Peter Shill, why the claim is blatantly irrational?

      While you are at it tell us again how Democrats are strong border advocates because LA is only 3 miles away. I understand why you couldn’t respond to the comparison between JFK and Trump. You don’t know very much of anything and every day you respond that becomes clearer and clearer.

    3. Mr. Hill, Strzok wanted to interview members of the Trump campaign as soon as the FBI launched its investigation on July 31st, 2016, so that they would know that the FBI was investigating them and so that Trump could bellyache to the press about his campaign being investigated by the FBI. Strzok was overruled by Priestap, McCabe, Comey, Yates and Lynch. If you’ll recall, Trey Gowdy was particularly keen on asking Strzok how many interviews of Trump campaign members Strzok had conducted in the first week or so of the FBI investigation. Gowdy already knew that the answer to his question was zero from Strzok’s closed session testimony. But Gowdy wanted to get Strzok on the record in open session as refusing to answer that question. Why? Because the simple fact that Strzok was not allowed to interview members of the Trump campaign before the 2016 election effectively exonerates both Strzok and The FBI from the otherwise obviously false allegation that they attempted to prevent Trump from being elected. So why does Trump need to keep that obviously false allegation in play? Because the text messages exchanged between Strzok and Lisa Page have to be imbued with double meaning in order to allege a partisan political witch hunt to remove Trump from office in the event Trump won the 2016 election. If that makes no sense to you, Mr. Hill, then be advised that you are not alone in your objection to that risible nonsense.

  5. Long overdue. The former counterintelligence chief made statements via Twitter, to his FBI attorney girlfriend, that, at minimum evinced a desire to engage in political interference prohibited by the Hatch Act. Long Overdue!

  6. Update — It took one day for fired special agent Strzok to shamelessly cash-in on his firing with about $250k so far collected from his GoFundMe campaign that upped his goal from $150k to $350k.

    Now idiots are donating to Strzok’s shameless ‘needy greedy fund’ so he doesn’t have to pay for his own legal bills due to his own unethical and possibly criminal actions that caused this mess for himself in the first place. No, he’ll let the public pay his way.

    His corrupt fired FBI colleague, Andy McCabe, raked in about $500k for himself. This is the new model: Get fired ‘for cause’ and then let the public GoFundMe. Next we’ll see him on The View shamelessly plugging his six figure book deal.

    And let’s not forget about Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, who has her own high-powered government job over at the SEC as a Director in the Enforcement Division.

    https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-217.html

    1. News Flash! Partisan Democrats don’t disapprove of what he did.

      It’s quite difficult to maintain a constitutional system when one competitor fancies the referees should all be corrupt in their favor.

      1. You’re right, Spastic. Being named as an ‘enemy of the people’ by Donald Trump doesn’t mean that person is evil. Usually the opposite is true.

        1. Well, let’s have a look:

          FBI Agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Unit: demoted, then FIRED for cause

          FBI Director Comey: fired for cause
          Deputy FBI Director McCabe: fired for cause
          FBI Chief Counsel Baker: demoted, then quit
          Comey Chief of Staff Rybicki: quit, now works as analyst for CNN
          FBI Counsel Page: demoted, then quit

          Anyone I missed?

            1. Where’s your evidence of that?

              The DOJ Inspector General made a criminal referral to prosecutors on McCabe’s case based on an internal investigation. Chief Counsel Baker had been investigated for leaking classified information about the “Trump dossier” to reporters and was demoted. We’ve all seen the evidence against Strzok and Page who were both fired from the Mueller investigation. And Trump’s own Attorney General recused himself from all of it at the outset.

                1. Question, DSS. When Peter Shill puts his fingers into his ears do you think one finger touches the other?

              2. All demoted or fired because they acted inappropriately and perhaps illegally.

      1. Watch him keep on collecting till the public gives him half a million bucks. Watch his GoFundMe go to $500k. Why not pay his legal bills and buy him a new house too? Disgusting.

        1. TBob – I wonder if the GoFundMe becomes part of the divorce? 😉 I am sure his wife is checking that out right now. 🙂

          1. Between her high-powered gig at the SEC and both of their cushy government pensions for the rest of their lives, plus Social Security, plus the public paying their bills (and then some) thru a greedy GoFundMe – they will be multi-millionaires. It disgusts me.

        2. Some kids might need that money for a new leg, arm or heart but the Liberals don’t give a sh-t so instead, they give the money to a piece of sh-t. That is Liberal generosity.

          1. Exactly. And here’s what it says on Strzok’s GoFundMe page: besides calling himself “a proud husband and father”….it goes on to say that he, “is not politically connected, he’s not a wealthy lobbyist and he’s not interested in using his notoriety for personal gain.”

            Say what?!!!! Did you catch that? “…he’s not interested in using his notoriety for personal gain.”

            Newsflash: This slimeball will have multiple lucrative employment opportunites available to him at a moment’s notice PLUS his government benefits, plus his wife’s salary and benefits, PLUS the half a mil or more he just mooched off the public!

            Both he and McCabe – whose GoFundMe camapaign netted him a disgusting $500k – are total grifters and make me sick thinking of all the truly needy people whose GoFundMe camapaigns are struggling to even collect a few thousand bucks.

      3. does his wife get a cut of the boodle? oh wait they’re not getting divorced. people in DC swamp often have marriages of convenience

    3. “Now idiots are donating to Strzok’s shameless ‘needy greedy fund’ so he doesn’t have to pay for his own legal bills due to his own unethical and possibly criminal actions that caused this mess for himself in the first place. No, he’ll let the public pay his way.”

      These people are shameless pieces of garbage.

      1. not likely a bunch of nobodies prolly a few well heeled donors who are making the point to other LEO that favoritism pays

        Sztroke should be deplatformed as a hater

  7. Nunes, who heads Congress’ investigation into the matter, said it was likely that information “was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now colluded (with) nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. Absolutely amazing.”
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russian-collusion-hillary-clinton/

    In a word, Lawfare.

    2. How would those anti-Trumpers feel if the shoe were on the other foot? I took the article linked above and reversed the roles. Does it change your support of Lawfare?

      Russian Collusion: It Was Donald Trump All Along

      Russia Investigation: It’s beginning to look as if claims of monstrous collusion between Russian officials and U.S. political operatives were true. But it wasn’t Hillary Clinton who was guilty of Russian collusion. It was Donald Trump and U.S. intelligence officials who worked with Russians and others to entrap Clinton.

      That’s the stunning conclusion of a RealClear Investigations report by Lee Smith, who looked in-depth at the controversial June 2016 Clinton Tower meeting between officials of then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff and a Russian lawyer known to have ties with high-level officials in Vladimir Putin’s government.

      The media have spun a tale of Clinton selling her soul to the Russians for campaign dirt to use against Donald, beginning with the now-infamous Clinton Tower meeting.

      But “a growing body of evidence … indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Clinton campaign involving Donald Trump operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials,” wrote Smith.
      UP NOW!

      Smith painstakingly weaves together the evidence that’s already out there but has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, which have become so seized with Clinton-hatred that their reporting even on routine matters can no longer be trusted.

      But he adds in more evidence that the Justice Department only recently handed over to Congress. And It’s damning.

      Memos, emails and texts now in Congress’ possession show that the Justice Department and the FBI worked together both before and after the election with Fusion GPS and their main link to the scandal, former British spy and longtime FBI informant Chris Steele.

      As a former British spook in Moscow, Steele had extensive ties to Russia. That’s why he was picked as the primary researcher to compile the “unverified and salacious” Clinton dossier, as former FBI Director James Comey once described it.

      Steele’s dossier, for which Fusion reportedly received $1 million, was largely based on interviews with Russian officials. And who paid that $1 million? As we and others have reported, it was Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee, then under Donald’s control.

      The media knew all this, of course, but largely ignored it.

      The great irony here is that, after more than two years of investigating, the only real evidence of collusion with Russians at all points to Donald Trump. It was he who hired Steele to dig up dirt on Clinton using Russian sources.

      But now, it turns out, it goes even deeper than that.

      Events surrounding that now-famous June 2016 Clinton meeting suggest it, too, was a concoction of Donald Trump and his deep-state allies. And that meeting was the basis for much of the later Russian collusion “investigation,” if it can even be called that.

      Bruce Ohr, the No. 4-ranking official at the Justice Department, “coordinated before, during and after the election” with both Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and with Steele, notes Smith.

      This shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that Ohr’s wife Nellie, a sometime employee of the CIA, was also working for Fusion GPS.
      The FBI fired Steele in October 2016 after it discovered that he leaked information to the press. But that meant nothing. Bruce Ohr merely continued as the conduit from Fusion GPS for information related to Steele’s bogus Clinton dossier.

      The FBI and Justice used information from that 35-page document as the pretense for the FISA wiretap on Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Far from being limited in scope, those wiretaps in essence provided a backdoor key to the entire Clinton campaign — and the basis for the Russian investigation.

      So far so good.

      But an earlier investigation by RealClearPolitics showed that as early as March 2016, the FBI, other Western intelligence sources and Trump campaign operatives contacted the Clinton campaign about potentially damaging information about Trump.

      They were in effect live-trolling the campaign.

      This is significant. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Putin-connected lawyer who contacted the Clinton campaign about having dirt on Donald Trump, was a client of Fusion GPS when she met with John Podesta, and others in the Clinton campaign.

      And she was accompanied by a former Soviet military counterintelligence official, now working as a lobbyist, named Rinat Akhmetshin.

      Let that sink in for a moment.

      What’s especially curious is that GPS’ Glenn Simpson admits he had dinner with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after the Clinton Tower meeting.

      Any possibility there was no discussion of the meeting between the two? Seems highly unlikely. Veselnitskaya herself subsequently claimed that the talking points for her meeting with the Clinton people were provided to her by Simpson.

      Once in the meeting, she quickly dropped the promises of having dirt on Donald Trump and instead brought up Russia’s long-standing desire to get rid of the Magnitsky Act, under which the U.S. imposed sanctions on a number of Russian moguls and government officials.
      In short, they were baiting a trap for the Clinton campaign to make it appear as if they were colluding with Russian officials.

      Given the nonstop media coverage following leaks by the FBI and Justice, it seems the meeting served its purpose: It sowed the seeds of suspicion about the Clinton campaign’s supposed Russian collusion.

      The evidence goes even deeper than what we have summarized here. We suggest you read Smith’s piece, linked above.

      Congress, using the documents it pried out of the Justice Department after repeated requests, is busy getting at what might turn out to be the scandal of the century. And Congress is now doing the work the Justice Department and FBI won’t.

      “So here you have information flowing from the Trump campaign from the Russians,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News on Sunday.

      Was Trump The Real Colluder?

      Nunes, who heads Congress’ investigation into the matter, said it was likely that information “was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Trump campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now colluded (with) nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. Absolutely amazing.”

      We have to agree. If all that is true, it is absolutely amazing. After all, these are serious felonies, using the federal agencies to spy on a political opponent in league with a hostile foreign power.

      As we said, the only real collusion appears to be on the part of the Trump campaign — aided by the Obama administration, CIA chief John Brennan and a handful of high-level officials at the Department of Justice and FBI.

      What’s next? It’s possible the collusion investigation soon will turn from Clinton to Trump. If so, it could lead to more resignations and possibly jail time for those involved. That includes perhaps even Donald Trump, who sits at the political epicenter of all this illegality.

  8. Grassley also summarized the information gleaned to date, writing that “[n]umerous FD-302s demonstrate[] that Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr continued to pass along allegations from Mr. Steele to the FBI after the FBI suspended its formal relationship with Mr. Steele for unauthorized contact with the media, and demonstrate[e] that Mr. Ohr otherwise funneled allegations from Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele to the FBI.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/14/notes-suggest-fbi-employees-plotted-keep-using-steele-broke-fbi-rules/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=e63ef10f28-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-e63ef10f28-79248369

  9. Let’s sanitize the discussion from mention of Hillary Clinton and Strzok’s extramarital fling. Strzok’s mention of an “insurance policy” against the election of an opposition party candidate to the Presidency to ANYONE, Email or verbal, when he was investigating the primary opposition party candidate in a Presidential election was enough for me. The remark was not disputed, and it tainted any findings of any investigation Strzok led.

    Any of us may find ourselves under the microscope of a Federal investigation at any time. Our only hope in such cases is that the men and women investigating us view their work as so important it cannot be influenced by personal animosity. Strzok is documented to have failed in that respect.

    1. Our only hope in such cases is that the men and women investigating us view their work as so important it cannot be influenced by personal animosity.

      Good post Jean. That would be the opposite of Lawfare.

  10. Strzok is the third FBI employee to be fired for daring to investigate the Trump campaign.

    Add L4D to the list of hole-digging trolls (Nutchacha, Issac and Shill) that cannot differentiate between Lawfare and the rule of law. There will be more. It’s about time they are left to chat amongst themselves.

    1. I congratulated you on your historic victory, Spoiled Sport. If the only way you Trump Troupers can finish this marathon is to ban your competitors from the sideshow attractions, then you no longer deserve anymore popcorn, Chief.

  11. Congratulations on another historic victory, Trump Troupers. Strzok is the third FBI employee to be fired for daring to investigate the Trump campaign. You only have several thousand FBI employees left to fire before you will have ridden Trump of those meddlesome law enforcement officers. Perhaps your most recent premature victory lap will give you all the kick you need to finish the race, for real. Or not. How’s your stamina doing? Is there still enough gas in the tank to go the distance?

    Or might the firings of Comey, McCabe and Strzok someday prove a suitable substitute for shutting down He Who Will Not Be Deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third? How’s that contempt citation against Rosenstein coming along? And those articles of impeachment against Rosenstein? What the blazes has the vaunted Huber been doing lately? Still chipping away? When? O! When will Trump deliver on his campaign promise “Crooked H, lock her up”?????

    Congratulations, once again, on your historic victory, Trump Troupers. [Pshaw!]

    1. Strok would have gotten fired if he acted in similar manner against Obama during 2008 or 2012 general elections.

      1. Bill Martin,…
        I think what she meant to say was “He Who Fired Peter Strzok from the Special Counsel Team Before the FBI Fired Him, Robert Swan Mueller the Third”.😊

        1. Strok acted unprofessionally and not in accordance with FBI standards. He deserved get fired from both special counsel and FBI. The name of president or fantasy president can be changed from Trump to Obama or HRC. Result should be the same: “Your fired!”.

          1. The name of president or fantasy president can be changed from Trump to Obama or HRC. Result should be the same: “Your fired!”

            That’s exactly right Bill; something the Lawfare supporters are loathe to admit.

            1. Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory. The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare.

              Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in the 1975 manuscript Whither Goeth the Law, which argues that the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.

              A more frequently cited use of the term was Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.’s 2001 essay authored for Harvard’s Carr Center. In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war”. He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

              1. Putin practices lawfare in keeping with Dunlap’s definition. Trump practices lawfare in keeping with the definition in the first paragraph cited above [from Wikipedia]–especially the public-relations “victory” model of lawfare. Chief Olly’s definition of lawfare is just about anybody’s guess. But of the three cited definitions above, the one in the second paragraph is the only one that stands a chance of conforming, loosely, to The Chief’s usage of the term.

                1. The biggest proponent of lawfare to reach our highest office was Obama. Obama and the left live off of Lawfare. We could coin a new word for some members of the list like Diane, Peter Shill, Issac and a few others, Innuendofare.

              2. thank you good backround info the bottom line is that the law is weaponized but that before people observed the phenom it was well known to garden variety lawyers and business people too.

                it’s a technique of LIC or as you say asymmetric warfare which has also been around long time

                genie’s not going in the bottle. send lawyers guns and money.

        2. Mueller is still standing. Rosenstein is still standing. Your historic victory is still short of the mark.

          1. Mueller is still standing. Rosenstein is still standing. L4D is still babbling. Trump is still sitting in the Oval Office. Strzok is standing in the unemployment line.

            1. Cazart! You’ve restored the rule of law in the act of making Strzok stand in the unemployment line. You know, that probably is the real reason the MAGA cultists wanted Trump to be President from the get-go. They want Trump to deploy his registered trademark phrase “You’re fired” against all manner and type of federal employees–including, especially, those whom Trump, himself, hired for the express purpose of firing them. I’m looking at you, Omarosa. Now there’s your historic victory for you. Congratulations Trump Troupers. [Pshaw!]

        3. What is this nonsense? She has Borg type of mentality apparently absent any intellectual ability.

          1. Firing Strzok is not going to save Trump from Mueller and Rosenstein. The pardon power, and only the pardon power, will save Trump from Mueller and Rosenstein. Trouble is, the American people might reelect an incumbent President who pardons himself, his son, his son-in-law, his former campaign manager and his old pal, the dirty trickster, Roger Stone. Unless Putin goes back, Vlad, does it again. Wheels turning around and ’round.

            1. Trump’s not in much danger from Mueller and Rosenstein because that pair don’t even have a pair of deuces.

            2. “Wheels turning around and ’round.”
              I think those are actually screws loosening.

            3. Trump is guilty of nothing as proven by a total lack of evidence from the FBI, Mueller, and Rosenstein. With every new twist or turn, Diane fantasies a new story. Trump may be impeached because of politics but there will be no conviction and the following election will be hotter than ever. If Trump succeeds in his plans in later years he will be considered a great President and people will wonder how anyone ever listened to the likes of Diane.

      2. None of the FBI agents from the New York Office of the FBI have yet to face any disciplinary action at all, let alone to be fired, for any of the numerous, unauthorized and unethical contacts they had with the press, Giuliani and the Trump campaign in 2016–many of which involved planting stories harmful to Clinton with Devlin Barrett of The Wall Street Journal (at the time).

        1. Dear Late4Yoga: Don’t forget to stretch before you reach so far. Just like you stretch before yoga class? Actually you are a good sport and I am glad to see you post that comment because it illustrates how Russian hoax is getting further and further out of reach of lefty loon conspiracy theorists.

          1. IG Horowitz is on that case, as well. Don’t be surprised if the NYO FBI agents end up going the same way as Strzok and McCabe.

    2. And yesterday Trump officially named Strzok an enemy of the people. Therefore the Trumpers on this blog are raging with indignation. Us liberals are supposed to observe their indignation and refrain from commenting. To say anything supportive of Strzok is considered ‘bitterly partisan’.

        1. Here’s a Trump tweet from this morning:

          “Strzok started the illegal Rigged Witch Hunt – why isn’t this so-called “probe” ended immediately? Why aren’t these angry and conflicted Democrats instead looking at Crooked Hillary?”

          Obviously our so-called president is labeling Stzok a criminal. He claims that Strzok started an “illegal, rigged witch hunt”. In the minds of stupid people (most Trump supporters), those are vile terms. It sounds like the president is encouraging supporters to harass and possibly harm Strzok.

          1. That’s too bad because the more Trump tweets, the more the public will donate to Strzok’s ‘needy greedy I’m a victim fund’. He’ll be a millionaire before you know it – if he isn’t already. Corruption in Washington DC pays very well. Just look at James Comey’s net worth.

            1. Comey was hired by an investment bank in 2005 and spent the next 8 years in their employ. I can never figure out why I-banks hire quondam government officials who know nothing of business and appear often to be people of quite ordinary intellect. Dan Quayle, John Kasich, and Rahm Emmanuel all received handsome positions from that venue. Rahm Emmanuel was paid an eight figure sum of money for ‘investment banking services’ by Wasserstein, Perella. His only previous commercial employment had been working for Arby’s as a student. I think he had a BA in theater-and-dance.

              1. Is Rahm Emanuel paid per kid that is killed in Chicago? It is beginning to seem that way.

              2. Actually, Comey went from the Department of Justice to none other than Lockheed Martin. Check out how much he got paid for that gig as General Counsel. He also sits on the board for HSBC bank.

                Jimmy Dore shares his thoughts on the revolving door of “corruption” that former Obama officials are now cashing in on:

          2. Apparently, Peter Shill, you don’t understand the English language and you like to lie a lot.

          3. Yes, but where did he officially name Strzok as an enemy of the people?
            Your quote:
            “And yesterday Trump officially named Strzok an enemy of the people. “

            1. Mr. Hill did not put quotation marks around that paraphrase. But it’s good to see Finicky Finicky Stickler admit that Trump’s tweets are not “official statements”.

  13. Bringing the threads together.

    Clinton feels she has been made untouchable more recently because of the Comey McCable Strzok collusion Her part leads back to several different areas. Multiple national security violations over a period of time is just one, Pay for play another , Pay for information a third, That list is more like the spider in the web reaching in all directioins.

    Comey gives her a false sense of having beaten the rap by using no intent. which was worse than no protection. It made her in some cases openly admit to a few things

    Offering protection a third and a few more.

    Meuller is given the job of President to Russia Collusion and that has alwys been a strange choice of words. Meuller though now has wide latitude.

    Strzok is the the set up man sort of a one size fit’s all bag man.

    Meuller sets iui the Manafort operationi to give himsef a way to get around all the protections that the others are enjoying . Strzok for example.

    Even though the Manafort stuff is fruit of the poison tree once it’s been brough iup pujbliclly with the related threads attached and even though disallowed he has automatic access to the whole web.

    In fact tihie public is demanding it.

    That means it iprovides a path all the way back to the beginnings of everythning. Now Clinton has no cover, nor does Comey, or anyh of the others.

    Meuller can now open the last and most useful thread or use the one Sessions has ready plus the best one Huma Abedin. The fly on the wall witness particpant to everything. No poison fruit, nothing to hide behind, everything already in the open.

    They really ought to make a movie of this one. Especially the last walk in the woods……

  14. PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE ENTITLED TO FEELINGS

    THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY CAN’T PERFORM THEIR DUTIES

    Every teacher has students they don’t honestly like. Yet most teachers make an effort to maintain some degree of professionalism when addressing those students in class.

    Every cop takes complaints from citizens who come across as less than sympathetic. Complaints are often filed by vindictive types, or people seeking lawsuits. Cops have to suppress their personal feelings when taking some reports.

    Paramedics are often called to rescue hypochondriacs. Or people who injured themselves through sheer recklessness. But paramedics put aside their feelings and make sure the subject is properly attended to.

    One could list many professions where employees must assist people they don’t honestly like. Half of all working people probably hate their bosses.

    So this idea that Peter Strzok is vile for not liking Donald Trump is really more disturbing than anything Strzok did. Strrzok shouldn’t be cheating on his wife. And he shouldn’t be sending texts regarding investigations.

    But if Strzok found Trump loathsome or suspicious, he may have good reason. There’s always something abnormal with Donald Trump. And Peter Strzok was hardly alone in judging Donald Trump unfit for the presidency. Mitt Romney and John McCain felt the same way.

  15. Well it’s marginally comforting knowing we’re down to one out of three members of the Strzok-Hodgman-Page love triangle bilking the taxpayers for a handsome six-figure salary.

    What the public really wants to know is if Strzok and Page are still bumping uglies somewhere or if Hodgman has cut Strzok’s Anthony Weiner off.

    1. Doubtmeister – we do know that Lisa Page cut him off and his Go-Fund-Me page lists him as a proud husband and father, so your guess is as good as mine. If he was my spouse he would be sleeping in another room (assuming I hadn’t filed for divorce).

  16. re: “However, the ultimate decisions rests with officials like Goelman [sic] on whether the findings warrant more serious sanctions.”:
    Aitan Goelman is Strzok’s attorney, not a government official. i believe you meant to say (Deputy Director) David Bowdich.

    1. He could have been played by Larry Linville. Order the man a Shirley Temple.

  18. As regards that other person who got fired, Omarosa, this apparently wasn’t her first rodeo. . .:

    ”
    FLASHBACK: That Time Omarosa Was Fired from the Clinton White House

    Omarosa Manigault Newman is no stranger to failing in The White House. She became well known by television viewers of NBC’s hit show “The Apprentice” with Donald Trump.

    Now, after being let go for personal issues, she’s using that closeness to President Trump to make millions by calling her former boss a racist and a liar. She made the situation worse by illegally recording herself insecure parts of the White House. (RELATED: Omarosa Could be in Legal Trouble Over Secret White House Recordings).

    But this isn’t Omarosa’s first series of White House problems. She worked in the Clinton Administration under Vice President Al Gore. As Al Gore’s former office administrator Mary Margaret Overbey said at the time, Omarosa “was the worst hire (the Office of the Vice President) ever made.”

    People magazine reported in 2004, she was “banished from four jobs in two years with the Clinton administration.” The White House personnel office transferred her to the Commerce Department briefly. At her last short-lived administration role, Cheryl Shavers, the former Under Secretary for Technology at the Clinton Commerce Department, opined, “She was asked to leave as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive. One woman wanted to slug her.” Omarosa only lasted in that final role for several weeks.

    Another Clinton administration official reported she was fired “because she couldn’t get along with people.” Another former Gore staffer noted, “she didn’t do her job, and it got everyone in trouble.”

    She has been busted for exaggerating her roles in the Clinton administration, too. As Omarosa told an audience in Washington, D.C. on March 19, 2004, at a panel discussion on “Wearing the Pants: A Woman’s Experience in a Man’s World”:

    “I have done logistics and advance and event planning for the White House under the Gore staff. … At 23, I got appointed to the White House. That was not a place to learn how to be a young professional. That’s a very difficult environment, because they don’t believe in training. They just kind of throw you in the fire.”

    The problem? Anonymous Gore staffers confirmed Omarosa never was involved in advance work or logistics. Her job was “to respond to invitations.”

    When asked about her employment history, Omarosa falsely claimed the shifting was due to her marriage to Aaron Stallworth. They have since divorced, and Omarosa married John Newman in 2017.

    https://thepoliticalinsider.com/omarosa-fired-from-clinton-white-house/
    ”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. True. Most of them are as belligerent as all get out, and have huge chips on their shoulders. Add in a good dose of ignorance, a refusal to listen, and a tendency to think that they can get away with being pains in the a$$ to get their way, and you have a prescription for disaster in the workplace. That is why no one wants a black wait person at their table.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky – I was listening to a woman interviewed who knew her growing up. The team in their town is known as The Scrappers. Evidently, Omarosa came up the hard way and did it all herself.

          1. Wikipedia says both her father and brother were murdered. Either they were both involved in very high risk activities, or they both had personalities that set people off.

        1. Yeow! I wonder if the kind of behavior exhibited by the young woman in the restaurant is a recent phenomenon, or they were always like this and we’ve only become aware of it due to the pervasiveness of cameras….?

        2. Squeeky, the black women I know are really nice and smart. Look up Candace Owens a young woman of character and then look up Rosie O’Donnell. Compare the two and let me know which one is a lady.

      3. TIN – it seems she was moved 4 times during the Clinton WH years before they finally had enough.

        1. I’m surprised Trump would hire her, given her reputation. It seems that he was trying to give her a break and she stabbed him in the back.

          1. TIN – being a back-stabber was her thing on The Apprentice, so we should not be surprised. It was actually her go-to defense in the Clinton WH.

    2. Well what do you expect from a Reality Show Contestant? That’s Omarosa’s real career. As matter of fact, that was Trump’s career. That’s how Trump knew Omarosa!

      1. As matter of fact, that was Trump’s career.

        Never mind the commercial real estate development, the hotel and resort properties, the entertainment properties, and the franchises.

        Partisan Democrats never stop lying. To themselves and to others.

        1. The way Peter Shill speaks it sounds as if he has never left his parents basement,

          1. You’re confusing Peter Shill with Fishwings and Marky Marky Mark. Peter Shill and Late4Yoga read like people getting piece rates from Correct the Record (only Late4Yoga / anonymous / R. Lien is paid by the word).

            1. Everybody is well acquainted with TStD’s position on blogging unopposed: The opposition is “almost” devoid of value.

  19. Lying shill. You said, “Personally I regret that Strzok didn’t expose Trump when he had the chance.

    What exactly was TRUMP doing that needed exposing???

    Nothing. But, you are such a piece of crap shill for the DNC, that you think phony SMEAR Campaigns are a great thing.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  20. STRZOK COULD HAVE LEAKED RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.. BUT DIDN’T

    Had Peter Strzok (and Lisa Page) really wanted to ‘stop’ Donald Trump, they could have put out word that Trump was under investigation regarding odd ties to Russia. Had that information leaked, in the summer of 2016, it might well have defeated Trump that November. Trump, one should note, lost the Popular Vote by almost 3 million.

    A series of leaks that summer would have encouraged journalists to come forward with what they heard about Steele’s dossier. A national conversation might have developed regarding Russian interference. Invariably The Obama White House would have been asked to confirm or deny said interference.

    Obama, for the record, had wanted to issue a bipartisan statement regarding Russian meddling. However Senate Majority Leader McConnell vehemently opposed such a statement; compelling Obama to drop the idea. But Peter Strzok could have outed the whole issue had he really been a rogue agent.

    Trump should be grateful that Strzok retained his professionalism. Had the Russian story leaked two summers ago, Trump more than likely would have responded with overly defensive language. “I think he protests too much”, pundits may have concluded.

    Personally I regret that Strzok didn’t expose Trump when he had the chance.

    1. Posted reply in wrong place.

      Lying shill. You said, “Personally I regret that Strzok didn’t expose Trump when he had the chance.

      What exactly was TRUMP doing that needed exposing???

      Nothing. But, you are such a piece of crap shill for the DNC, that you think phony SMEAR Campaigns are a great thing.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. I don’t think this has been brought up in the comments, but Strzok was not enthusiastic about joining the Special Counsel’s team.
        He had led the FBI Trump-Russia probe since July 2016, and re joining Mueller’s team c. 10 months later, he was disheartened that his “gut feeling ” was that “there’s no big there”.
        This was in a text to Page, sometime after Mueller was appointed in May 2017.
        That text is an indication that the FBI investigation had uncovered “no big there” in its investigation prior to May 2017.

          1. Strzok wrote that email before the Trump Tower meeting was reported in the press on July 8th, 2017. BTW, Trump had a semi-private conversations with Putin at the G20 Spouses’ Dinner on July 7th, 2017. Just one day before The NYT broke the story about the Trump Tower meeting. Do the necessary head-scratching on that one.

            1. So you’re saying that it’s “likely”, or “highly probable”, that Strzok changed his mind when he heard of the Trump Tower meeting.
              Uh hum.

    2. “Trump should be grateful that Strzok retained his professionalism. Had the Russian story leaked two summers ago, Trump more than likely would have responded with overly defensive language. “I think he protests too much”, pundits may have concluded.”

      ****************************

      The Russia investigation leaks occurred in the Summer of 2016 and continued unabated. Maybe you think Strzok et gang weren’t involved and if so, I’d like to offer you some oceanfront property in Arizona.

      I’m guessing you don’t get the newspaper. Any newspaper. Here’s story about that in the opposition party newsletter … er the NYT published a week plus a day before the 2016 election:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

      Lying is a bad thing.

      1. Peter Shill doesn’t give a hoot whether something is true or not. All a shill cares about is selling his product, by hook or by crook. Peter Shill is no different than the guys who told people cigarettes were good for them! And not harmful. Or Patent Medicine pushers. Peter Shill’s product is the Democratic Party, and he has just admitted to being quite content about a phony story getting out! Because he could care less about anything other than the DNC winning.

        Peter Shill is quite comfortable with lying and deception if it serves his purposes. Peter Shill is a horrible, bad person. And he has just admitted it.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. Thanks for posting this, Mespo. It’s interesting to read this now and see how it previewed the whole Mueller Probe.

        1. I referenced that same article several times in the past.
          When I mentioned it to Peter Hill on April 14, 2018, his response was “Since when do Trumpers care about the New York Times?”

          1. Question: “Do Trumpers care about The New York Times?”

            Answer: “When it suits their purposes”.

            If The Times makes favorable mention of a Republican politician. Or a Republican court appointee. Conservatives will regard it as establishment approval.

            But if The Times is critical of a Republican politician or policy, Republicans will blow it off as just a ‘liberal bias’.

            And yes, Tom, I remember you referencing this article. It seemed disingenuous. The article was published days before the election. The Times had to note, for legal reasons, that Trump was in no apparent legal jeopardy. Trump wasn’t officially a ‘person of interest’.

            Peter Strzok had kept his mouth shut. We, the American public, didn’t know what Stzok was investigating. I can’t see where Trump was possibly the victim. Should the FBI not care if a nominee has unseemly business links?

            But interestingly this article reads like a roadmap to The Mueller Probe.

            1. Peter Hill,..-Better late than never that you seen to now take an interest in the history of the Trump Russia investigation….I think it was in that same exchange that you kept insisting that the investigation only began in mid-May 2017 with the appointment of Mueller.
              What’s “disingenuous” is that you were dismissive of any evidence presented to you that dealt with the FBI investigation which started in July 2016.
              And now you’re interested in what preceded the appointment of the Special Counsel.
              As I said, it’s better late than never that you’re actually interested in the history of these investigations, when you previously went to great lengths to dismiss any evidence that did not fit in neatly with what you “believed”.

            2. You can do all of the verbal gymnastics you like, Shill.
              You seem to be blind, deaf, and dumb to anything that interferes with, or run counter to, what you want to believe.
              You can drop the act that you have any intellectual honesty or integrity, shill.

              1. Tom, Officially the investigation began when Mueller accepted the job of Special Counsel. So I was not incorrect in making that assertion.

                IMPORTANT TO NOTE!

                Had Trump been nominated for a cabinet post or White House job, he would have had to undergo an FBI background check. But Presidents are exempted from those checks. For that reason Tax Returns were long seen as something of a background check. Tax Returns provided us with a window into the candidate’s finances.

                Through tax returns we learned Mitt Romney has Swiss Bank accounts. Which didn’t look patriotic. But Mitt showed his returns as a sign of good faith.

                But Trump just said, “Naw, I ain’t gonna show demt”.

                That refusal alone would be a red flag to any veteran cop. The fact that Trump said ‘No’ was reason enough for the FBI to investigate. They had to learn what Trump was hiding.

                So Tom, I can’t grasp why you’re fuming with indignation. We’re talking about Trump; a man who never held public office. A businessman that business journals long suspected of odd links with Russian billionaires.

                Why should Peter Strzok be vilified for investigating Trump? What obligation did Strzok have to ‘like’ Donald Trump? Trump has never polled above 43% Most Americans ‘don’t like’ Donald Trump.

                1. Peter Hill – officially the investigation began in July of 2016 with the opening of the counter-intelligence unit.

                  1. Paul, did any Counter-Intellegence Unit exist before that time? Seems like there would have been a need for one. Are you sure it wasn’t pre-existing unit?

                    1. Peter Hill – that is an excellent question, however, we know that Strzok was heading the Hillary email investigation until July 2016 when he switched over to the counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. Did it exist before that? I do not know.

                2. I’m not sure why you’re now going back to your previous position that “Officially, the investigation began when Mueller accepted the job of Special Counsel”.
                  There’s been TWO phases of the Trump-Russia investigation….The Strzok-led FBI investigation started in July 2016, and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation.
                  Now if you want to pretend that the FBI investigation preceeding Mueller’s appointment was not “official”, or that Strzok did not have strong motivation to find something on Trump as the head of that investigation, do so.
                  It’s not realistic, but if it fits in more neatly with a narrative that you prefer, cling to that.

                  1. An FBI check and a Special Counsel probe are two different animals. Surely one can see the difference.

                    Again I should emphasize that Trump refused to show his tax returns. And again, business journals had long suspected Donald Trump of being cozy with Russian billionaires. The FBI would have been remiss in its duties had it ‘not’ investigated Trump. Because he never held public office, Trump had no public record.

                    Secondly it’s worth noting that Hillary Clinton has been investigated more than any living politician. House committees spent like 4 years on Benghazi and two years on the emails in addition the FBI’s email investigation. As a Clinton supporter I resent the fact that Hillary had to spend so much time and energy responding to those probes.

                    But you don’t hear Clinton supporters fuming with rage that Hillary was investigated. Hillary isn’t sending tweets insulting Trey Gowdy or Darrell Issa. I haven’t been raging against Gowdy or Issa on this or any thread.

                    Yet somehow there’s this attitude, among Trump supporters, that Peter Strzok is like traitor to the nation. Like he’s someone who really belongs in a concentration camp. That’s how it gets with Trump and his supporters; an endless parade of enemies his supporters must hate! And anyone who defends those enemies must be hated as well.

                    1. “An FBI check and a Specual Counsel probe are two different animals”.
                      Yeah, that’s why I said for umpteenth time that there a two phases to the Trump-Russia investigation which began in July 2016.
                      Given that Strzok prioritized the Trump investigation over the Hillary email investigation, I wouldn’t categorize it as a”check”.
                      That’s just another attempt to brush aside the FBI INVESTIGATION that was done prior to Mueller’s appointment.

                    3. How idiotic can one person be”

                      Peter, you realize the IRS has every one of his tax forms, right? You realize that even more scrutiny was performed by states and localities everytime a building went up or a casino was built by him?

                      His taxes were released to the government. There is no need for you to see them personally. If you don’t like it don’t vote for him. Obama didn’t release a lot of things that I think were far more important than the tax forms Trump gave to the IRS.

                      “long suspected Donald Trump of being cozy with Russian billionaires.” Your implications are a blatant lie. Yes, Trump sold property to wealthy Russians just like every other developer. There is nothing wrong with that. He sold property to the English and French as well but that doesn’t have the innuendo liars like to use.

                      All this junk is coming from a guy who doesn’t know the policies of JFK and how similar they were to the policies Trump is now pursuing. Keep making things up Peter Shill.That keeps Professor Turley’s blog one that gets noted for the number of posters.

                3. Right….we need more like Strzok in the FBI making comments like “we’ll stop him” when they don’t “like” a candidate.
                  It’s more of a curiosity how Peter Hill can repeatedly find reasons to dismiss the New York Times pre-election article about “Investigating Trump”, then have an epiphany and say it’s interesting to see what preceded the Mueller investigation, then try in some way to discredit the New York Times pre-election article, then deflect and keep changing the subject.
                  That’s a lot of work, even for an experienced flip-flopper like Peter.
                  So it is more a matter of curiosity to see just how many different contortions he’ll go through, more than indignation.

            1. Olly,…
              – It’s become too much work to figure out which side of his mouth Peter Hill is speaking out of.

              1. Tom,
                It’s actually not that difficult. Anyone that would suggest Lawfare is an appropriate tool for government, has no other side to their mouth.

                1. Chief Olly, you’re suggesting that one department of the executive branch of the federal government is exploiting the law to wage war against the Chief Executive Officer of that very same federal government. It’s an unusual use of the term lawfare. Perhaps even an idiosyncratic use of the term.

      3. mespo…….it is unbelievable that this was published 11/1/16.
        Thank you.

      4. Mespo727272 said that lying is a bad thing appended to a link to an NYT article headlined “Investigating Trump, F.B.I Sees No Clear Link to Russia” dated November 1st, 2016. Mespo727272 insinuates that the article somehow proves that Strzok leaked the FBI’s Russia investigation to The NYT. Even if that were true–which it probably is not–it is not immediately clear how an article that expressly headlines that the FBI sees no clear link between Trump and Russia would constitute an illegal, partisan, political witch hunt led by Strzok and L. Page et al to prevent Trump from being elected President in the first place. If Strzok leaked that story to The NYT, then Strzok’s diabolically fiendish plot to prevent the election of Trump was either hopelessly inept or effectively stymied by . . . [O! Lookee! Lookee!] . . . The New York Times.

        Maybe Mespo727272 can tell us all whether either The FBI or The NYT knew anything at all about the Trump Tower meeting on November 1st, 2016, when the cited article was published.

        1. Ambiguity correction: The Trump Tower meeting took place on June 9th, 2016. The NYT article to which Mespo linked was published on November 1st, 2016.

      5. Excerpted from the article to which Mespo727272 linked upstream from here as a favor for those of you who, for whatever reason, refuse to click on links and read the articles at issue:

        Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC.

      6. The first two paragraphs from The NYT article to which Mespo727272 linked upstream:

        Oct. 31, 2016

        WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

        Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

        1. And so you see, you actually have to click on the links and actually read the articles in order to understand what Mespo727272 is trying to fob off on this blawg as supposed proof of an alleged FBI conspiracy to prevent the election of Trump. Although, the headline for that article, itself, really ought to have been enough to pique the curiosity of blawg hounds who hew to that particular lame-brained conspiracy theory as well as those who scoff at the same.

    3. Personally I regret that Strzok didn’t expose Trump when he had the chance.

      So Peter Shill openly calls for Lawfare operators like Strzok and Page to violate the law. What Nutchacha, Issac and Shill have proven today is they have absolutely ZERO credibility on this blog and deserve to be treated as such.

        1. Squeeky,
          The sad truth is the Left is playing with house money. They can go all in with their radical ideology and they lose nothing. Conservatives want to secure rights, for everyone. So when conservatives control the levers of government, the Left know conservatives won’t support the use of Lawfare against them. Is there any doubt what things would be like if the Democrats had the power? This government would be weaponized like we’ve never seen it before.

        2. Good video. He’s exactly right. When Obama was elected, and then reelected (with a whole lot of help from Bill Clinton and the friendly, complicit MSM), at least half of this country saw who he was, did not agree with his policies, and did not vote for him.

          And then by the time Obama was well into his second term, something like 75% of the country disagreed with the direction he was taking the country — and even though Obama retained high popularity numbers (b/c he worked hard at keeping them up), the people did not like his policies. But did we see violence against Obama supporters? Or rioting and violence in the streets in protest of Obama and his unpopular policies? No, we did not. Today it is physically unsafe for someone to declare themselves a Trump supporter because of the hatred, violence, and intolerance coming from Democrats and Hollywood. And this is America?

        3. Thank you Squeeky! That man is intellectually honest and factually correct…Bless him!

    4. you think people believe the FBI agent a little more than they really do.

      The public especially working people are suspicious of law enforcement and they see this as having about as much credibility as any other phony op.

    5. “Personally I regret that Strzok didn’t expose Trump when he had the chance.”

      Peter, that is because you have no respect for the FBI, any government office, the law or the Constitution. They leaked plenty in their attempt to destroy Trump even though none of the Russian cr-p was true. Had they done more they might have ended up in jail and the effect of such a lie might have given Trump a bigger win. The news media and heads of the FBI did everything they could to defeat Trump and Trump won.

      You don’t even know what JFK did in office. Why should we expect you to know anything about the law or Constitution? You are an expert at cheating and a poor expert at deception who should never be placed in a position of trust.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

Discover more from JONATHAN TURLEY

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading