Peter Strzok is back in the news this week. Career colleagues at the Justice Department previously referred Strzok for possible criminal charges and he was fired for his bias and unprofessional conduct. However, Strzok was immediately embraced by many in the media and establishment for his anti-Trump sentiments. After he was fired, the former special agent was given a lucrative book deal, lionized on the left, featured prominently as an expert by CNN, and given a teaching job at Georgetown. It was an extraordinary recovery from a scandal where he showed flagrant bias, engaged in an affair with another married colleague at the FBI, and fought to continue to investigate Russian collusion claims despite early warnings over the questionable basis of the allegations pushed by the Clinton campaign. (Strzok’s colleague and former paramour, Lisa Page, was given a contract as a legal analyst with NBC and MSNBC). Now, Strzok appears liberated in showing precisely the bias and unhinged hostility alleged by his critics. He has been in the news lashing out at Trump and trolling his objections to the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
The seizure of Trump’s passports has raised more doubts about the seemingly unlimited scope of the search. One of the passports taken in the raid was Trump’s active diplomatic passport, according to an email from the Justice Department made public by the Trump team. The other two passports reportedly were expired.
Last week, Strzok was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon with CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell, who blasted out a tweet claiming DOJ sources refuting Trump’s claim that the FBI took his passports. The “CBS Evening News” anchor reported that the Department of Justice did not have Trump’s passports, tweeting, “According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump’s passports.”
In fact, the FBI did take the passports and had to later return them. The clear import of O’Donnell’s tweet was that Trump was lying. That was clearly the message received by various critics, including Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who is purportedly serving as an unbiased member of the January 6th committee. Kinzinger, R-Ill., wrote, “Lies lies lies and more lies.”
Notably, Strzok was also among those eager to spread the O’Donnell report, tweeting, “And unsurprisingly, Trump’s statement turns out not to be true.” He later deleted it.
Strzok has sounded at times like a virtual troll on social media. Recently, he again lashed out at the story that the FBI took Trump’s passport and mocked Trump’s call to lower the temperature in the country after the raid. Strzok tweeted “Please oh please keep asking how you can turn down the temperature in the country,. And why does he have two passports? The Russian passport, of course, is kept in a vault at Yasenevo and only swapped out at third country meets, so it can’t be that one.”
Strzok often seems to lack any self-awareness of his past controversy. He has been on MSNBC defending the raid and insisting that “absolutely the American public should trust what the FBI is doing.” He insisted that any doubts over the FBI’s objectivity are ridiculous: “It’s not that the FBI is targeting any one side or the other. What you see is the FBI going out on a day-in, day-out basis objectively investigating allegations of law.” Yet, it is Strzok’s own conduct that had led to many having doubt about the motivation and independence of the department.
Blah, blah,blah. Strzok is able to thumb his nose at the justice system and get away with it. We can’t legislate morality but with the thicket of laws we must all abide by, there must be one in there to prosecute former officials for lying.
Should Trump be prosecuted for lying about his home address on his FL absentee voter application?
There should be. Strzok, Schiff, Swallwell. They’re all liars, suffering TDS. Thought O’Donell was smarter. The tentacles of Trump fear and hatred cast a wide net. Can’t help but pity them. Am only curious if they really believe their garbage or know they are lying.
Strzok was just the tip of the iceberg. His colleagues remained with the agency and are the ones behind the raid. They raided Trump’s home to obtain the documents he had declassified and the DOJ refused to release – because they KNOW those declassified documents contain information damning to THEM!!!
Anonymous didn’t post that, I did.
Hate is so destructive–it destroyed his marriage, his relationship, his employment. He must be such a joy to be around. He disparages Walmart shoppers. With so many lies by many from so many people over the past 6+ years, why would we not question the raid at Mar-a-Lago? Donald Trump is certainly not perfect (and no, Joe BIden is not either), but he did dig into that swamp.
Strzok is like a cockroach one sees in their home…you only see one, but you know there are hundreds of others that you don’t see. Which is another way of saying the FBI is infested with hundreds, if not more, Strzok’s.
Even if unintentionally, Trump exposed the reality of the Deep State, the MSM, and corporate culture that many of us had long suspected anyway. That isn’t shocking to me personally. That they have so fully and flagrantly embraced their malfeasance and aggression is what is to me, rather than their mere existence.
The aristocracy did not die after the Revolutionary War, they just traded bullets for attrition. Now that attrition has failed to pan out as planned, they appear to be ready to switch back to bullets. Forget mythological non-dem ‘extremists’; someone specifically *hired* to shoot people who are in a state of tax arrears is a Jackboot, plain and simple. This could get ugly, real fast.
Not sure about your comment about “the aristocracy” not dying in the Revolution, which was against the English King, and supported by the colonial aristocracy. It wasn’t peasants revolting against their masters, the peasants were fighting the aristocrats war against their king.
As I said, Shakespeare once wrote, sort of, “Some are born stupid. Some achieve stupidity. And some have stupidity thrust upon them.” Svelaz and Anonymous (the cretinsque one) prove that all three can exist in a single creature.
Shakespeare once wrote, sort of, “Some are born stupid. Some achieve stupidity. And some have stupidity thrust upon them.” Svelaz and Anonymous (the cretinsque one) prove that all three can exist in a single creature.
“ Kinzinger, R-Ill., wrote, “Lies lies lies and more lies.”
Well, he wasn’t wrong. Trump furiously lied so often in a pathetic attempt to make excuses for having stolen documents he was not allowed to have. First he lied about the FBI planting documents, then he lied about giving back all of the documents, then he lied about declassifying documents when his lawyer specific told the FBI trump returned classified documents. Only the guilty throw out lying excuses like that. His mouth is getting him in a deeper and deeper hole every time he opens it.
Mr. Trump ignores Miller’s First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in one, quit freaking digging.
It would appear that the left is not just comprised of irrational idologues , but they are peopled by “true believers” not simply following where their scewed logic leads them, but impassioned by the fire of true belief in a myth upon which the have hung their entire life. This man,(and how many more within the bureaucracy/academia/media) is compelled by his emotional hatred of the “other”.
Wow, Turley went on full Trump lying mode. He mentions Peter Strzok as overly biased and a liar. Turley is projecting his own biases and lies in a desperate attempt to deflect from Trump’s serious legal troubles.
The longer Turley’s column is the more it shows the level of desperation and attempt to deflect. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his penchant for desperate lying as a result of the search warrant being executed at his residence. Turley’s a lawyer and he still didn’t understand how warrants and affidavits work.
Trump is desperate to find experienced lawyers. The best ones wouldn’t touch him with a 100 foot pole. If Turley is such a “good” defender of all things Trump why doesn’t he offer his services as a credible lawyer. Obviously Turley’s analysis that Trump’s case is not a slam dunk should be encouraging for Turley to take on the case.
Peter Strzok IS a liar. Go back to sleep.
Svelaz, a disciple of ATS philosophy:
To get ahead, tear the person in front down. That way, one can remain free of the burden of critical thinking skills and knowledge.
Anonymous (S. Meyer) says,
“ Svelaz, a disciple of ATS philosophy:
To get ahead, tear the person in front down. That way, one can remain free of the burden of critical thinking skills and knowledge.”
It’s easy for him to criticize because he’s unable to refute the fact that Trump has been lying nonstop since the “raid”. He’s in big trouble and Anonymous (S. Meyer) is defending his dear leader against the unfairness of getting caught with stolen government property.
Svelaz the Clueless, were you too ignorant to realize that my discussion involved your feeble attempts to climb the ladder by pulling others down.
If you think Trump lied you can provide the quote and your explanation proving it is a lie. So far Trump is batting 1,000. You won’t provide fact. Instead you will run away.
“ If you think Trump lied you can provide the quote and your explanation proving it is a lie. So far Trump is batting 1,000. You won’t provide fact. Instead you will run away.”
S. Meyer, no amount of quotes will be considered facts to you. You will dismiss them out of hand when you can’t refute them. But let’s try shall we?
Trump lied about the FBI planting evidence. How do we know? Trump observed the entire operation from his own CCTV which he lied about not being able do witness it. His own lawyer and Trump himself admitted they saw the whole thing.
Trump claimed he turned over all classified documents to the archives. He lied when classified documents were still found in his possession.
Trump lied about his “standing order” declassifying documents. His own lawyer turned in an affidavit attesting that all classified documents were turned in. Trump never produced the “order” he claimed he issued. That’s also a lie. Trump has been lying and making excuses that have been proven to be just that, lies and excuses.
I was right. You are going to run away and not provide the FACTS that you based your comment on. Instead of proving facts, you provide comments that are not lies when taken in context. Worse yet, you rely on your own mind which is of little value.
Everyone is worried that the FBI could plant evidence.
“Trump observed the entire operation from his own CCTV which he lied about not being able do witness it.”
Pure stupidity since cameras cannot see everything. Not only that, have you seen the footage from the cameras? If any were on, could they possibly show everything? How dumb are you? Everyone wants to know.
“He lied when classified documents were still found in his possession.“
You are making stuff up. What do you care? You have no reputation to worry about. Most think you are a dunce and the rest learn it daily.
“Trump lied about his “standing order” declassifying documents.”
Prove it while thinking about all the earlier EOs.
So far, no lies. Opinion, yes, conjecture on your part, yes. Lies No. You remain Svelaz the Clueless, who needs a dictionary to explain what a lie is.
Garbage in Garbage Out, When Strzok is embellished this Country of ours is in big trouble. I don’t care whose Party you belong to.
What would be “good” for the Country would be to clean. house at the DOJ,FBI and Intelligence organizations,DOD, the State Department, and the DHS.
Fire them, prosecute them…remove them from their positions of power immediately upon any willful violation of Regulation, Policy, Law, SOP…..and do so for ten years running.
You either live u to your Oath of Office or be gone!
Then perhaps we might begin to regain a bit of trust and respect for Government.
RE:”What would be “good” for the Country would be to clean. house ..” Wishful thinking, of course !” I trust you understand the protections afforded government employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the POTUS.
Trump had his passports in boxes of other documents. Dumb Trump.
So the FBI ignored the warrant. That’s the crime we’re speaking of
RE:”So the FBI ignored the warrant. That’s the crime we’re speaking of..” What has been spoken of whether or not the warrant was structured in such a fashion as to exceed its purpose. It is reported that Trump’s legal team is preparing a challenge on the grounds of 4th Amendment violation. Now I expect a trove of responses by the self-proclaimed constitutional scholars and masters of law within the ranks of contributors herein, because they need to have something to say, but I’m satisfied to sit here on the bank and watch the river flow. In this harvest, the wheat will eventually separate out from the chaff and we can endeavor to bake bread with it.
Nope.
If Trump stored his passports in a box that had contents responsive to the warrant, then they weren’t ignoring the warrant to take the entire box and then return the passports. I suspect that you haven’t read the warrant.
There were 30+ agents on site, for 9+ hours. 270 man hours. That is almost 7 weeks of labor.
1st you have to believe that Trump stored his passports in document boxes.
Then you have to believe in 270 hours, a cursory examination of what might be in a box, is too onerous a requirement.
Thanks for confirming that you haven’t read the manifest. Had you read it, you’d know that “document boxes” weren’t all they took and one of the boxes was leatherbound. I can imagine Trump storing his passports in a leatherbound box; if you cannot, that’s on you.
You should also learn the difference between a filter team and a scope team. The filter team was onsite and they left the majority of the numbered boxes. The scope team isn’t on site, reviews what was taken, and returns the items that are outside the scope; in this case, that includes the passports.
“The filter team was onsite . . .”
I hear they also swore a pinky promise.
Can’t get any more credible than that.
In other words, you have no facts to counter with.
RE:”I suspect that you haven’t read the warrant..” The issue at hand is an alleged violation of the 4th Amendment to which the Trump legal team is entering into motion practice to challenge. Authorizing seizure of items adjacent to those specified in the warrant is seen as realizing the document a general warrant which is unconstitutional.
I was responding to iowan2’s claim that “the FBI ignored the warrant.”
As for your claim about “the issue at hand,” Trump’s legal team stated several days ago that they were going to file a motion alleging a violation of the 4th Amendment, but so far, they haven’t done so. You can see for yourself on the case docket. Maybe they’ll still do so, but we won’t know their argument unless/until they actually file a motion with the court.
RE:”we won’t know their argument unless/until they actually file a motion with the court…” Which is why I take the position, as with other matters yet unresolved, that any further yada yada is time one will never get back.
And that gives the FBI an excuse or something?
RE:”And that gives the FBI an excuse or something?..” No! The way the warrant was crafted it ‘gave them leave’! News reports are to the effect that a violation of the 4th Amendment charge is being prepared by the Trump team. Of course, this is kind of ‘nasty-nasty’ which I’ve taken to calling ‘Pulling a Harry Reid’ Right or wrong, they’ve ‘eyes’ on whatever they’ve taken…..”Yet Reid (D-Nev.) not only refuses to retract the allegation but also seems to take great pride in it. When pressed by CNN’s Dana Bash last year about continuing to defend a statement that is not true, Reid responded, “Romney didn’t win, did he?”…’Washington Post’ 9/15/2016′ Simply said…’Reid lied and changed the course of history.’
Strzok was never “fired” by the FBI. Strzok was and is, in fact, a CIA operative and has served in a dual capacity as an FBI employee. The FBI can make the false claim via word games that they they “fired” him, but, make no mistake, he’s still working for them through one of the FBI’s affiliate off-the-books companies. The Deep State takes care of their own, and Strzok continues as a CIA-FBI operative who also moonlights as a social media disinformation specialist.
https://c.tenor.com/CvaS4g6mVwcAAAAd/peter-strzok.gif
Reptilian evil.
Not anonymous…I posted that. Not sure why it came up anonymous.
https://c.tenor.com/wo2OXmd-FgkAAAAd/peter-strzok.gif
And for the slow of learning, here’s the Cliff Notes version:
https://c.tenor.com/HKBoP0raa78AAAAC/evil-laugh.gif
Exactly!!
https://spectator.org/peter-strzok-remains-exhibit-a-of-the-fbis-politicization/
This one was from me too. Why is it coming up anonymous, when my name is there when I post it??
“The seizure of Trump’s passports has raised more doubts about the seemingly unlimited scope of the search.”
What BS. One can read the warrant and see that it did not have “seemingly unlimited scope.” The passports were likely either stored in a box that contained classified documents or stored in a closet with other boxes that contained classified documents and so were seized initially, but they were promptly returned — before Trump even remarked on them — because they fall outside the scope of the investigation. As the FBI stated: “In executing search warrants, the FBI follows search and seizure procedures ordered by courts, then returns items that do not need to be retained for law enforcement purposes.”
“Last week, Strzok was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon with CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell, who blasted out a tweet claiming DOJ sources refuting Trump’s claim that the FBI took his passports. The “CBS Evening News” anchor reported that the Department of Justice did not have Trump’s passports, tweeting, “According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump’s passports.””
More BS. Turley should be intelligent enough to understand the difference between whether the passports were seized (they were) and whether the passports were still in the FBI’s possession (by the time O’Donnell tweeted, they were not). Her tweet saying that the FBI was not in possession of the passports does not say that the FBI never took the passports. Either Turley is really sloppy for a lawyer (and a law professor!) or he’s purposefully being misleading, because he likes to feed “the age of rage” he frequently complains about.
“The clear import of O’Donnell’s tweet was that Trump was lying. ”
Trump WAS lying. He said “Wow! In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three Passports…” They did NOT steal the passports.
“That exchange is not as disconcerting as Strzok’s actions.”
And Trump’s exchange is not as disconcerting as Trump’s actions.
Ha ha ha. OK Strzok.
As a layperson, Norah’s tweet carries the implication that Trump’s statement regarding the seizure of his passports were an outright lie. Norah lied by omission. Trump may be guilty of the same, but only the former is supposed to be trusted to give an honest report. Instead, she tweeted soft-propaganda. She either intentionally misled anyone not watching everything Trump & the FBI’s search/raid or is too lazy to qualify as a journalist.
I can’t say if the FBI intentionally seized Trump’s passports, and that’s disturbing.
A former President isn’t “supposed to be trusted to give an honest report”?!?
If the FBI had intentionally seized Trump’s passports, they would still be in the FBI’s possession.
RE:”I can’t say if the FBI intentionally seized Trump’s passports, and that’s disturbing…” Much of what is termed ‘lying’ in these discourses is nothing more than rhetoric for public consumption. Yet respondents insist on this as ‘lying’. ‘They ‘stole’ my passport..i.e. ‘they took my passport without my permission.” as opposed to ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman’. When fellatio is officially declared NOT a form of sexual relation, then the response is NOT a lie. Until then, it remains a false statement..i.e.a lie.
If you think that taking something covered by a warrant constitutes stealing, simply because they are taking it without the owner’s permission — even though a judge signed the warrant that law enforcement has probable cause — then you’d have to conclude that law enforcement steals every single time it executes a search warrant.
RE:”If you think that taking something covered by a warrant constitutes stealing,..” I never took that position. My position is taken regarding so called ‘figures of speech’. Warrant or not, his utterance, “They ‘stole’ my passport’ means they took it without HIS permission. But he did not LIE!! in the sense of ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman’, when the blue dress belies the denial.
Everything they took that day was taken without his permission.
then you’d have to conclude that law enforcement steals every single time it executes a search warrant.
In a criminal case, the check on illegal warrants is the judge refusing to allow the seized evidence in trial. But since the DoJ has no intention of ever using the fruit of this poisonous tree. It was always a fishing expedition to find and steal any Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor evidence, show the corruption of the DoJ/FBI
Don’t pretend that your imaginings are anything other than that.
“[T]he FBI intentionally seized Trump’s passports . . .”
They did it as a warning:
“Nice plane you have there. Be a shame if you weren’t able to use it.”
While reading the tea leaves you have many excuses.
“More BS. Turley should be intelligent enough to understand “
It sounds like we have another Jeff Silberman on the blog.
“Trump WAS lying. He said “Wow! In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three Passports…” They did NOT steal the passports.”
Meriam Webster’s definition of steal:
to take the property of another wrongfully
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
to take away by force or unjust means
to take surreptitiously or without permission
to seize, gain, or win by trickery
The FBI committed this act wrongfully, under false pretenses, unjustly b force, without permission, and tried to hide that malfeasance by tricking the public to believe differently.
RE:”While reading the tea leaves you have many excuses..” Well writ, and so do others. Instead of pontificating and opinionating, thoughtfully structured and worded contributions would go a long way to improving the discourse. When here, participants should place what has been established in the public arena as fact on the table and reserve your bias, prejudices, and fond hopes and dreams for your pillow.
S. Meyer the FBI had a warrant that specifically said anything near or within those boxes was to be seized. It was completely legal. When the FBI noted his passports were inside a pouch that was stated in the warrant they promptly returned them because they had no correlation to the investigation.
Anything else found will be reviewed and decided on it’s relevancy to their OR other investigations.
They had permission and they executed it by the book. Why are you lying again?
Svelaz the Clueless, what you think to be perfectly legal might not be criminal, but it isn’t following the rule of law. Discussion of this idea took place numerous times, but you neglected it because you do not have the intellect to deal with these things.
The FBI should not have taken the passports. They are easy to spot, especially with the number of agents and the time they were at MAL.
Stalin permitted people to do all sorts of things. That permission was legal because Stalin was the law. The law is supposed to function under the concept of the rule of law. Unfortunately, that concept is beyond your abilities.
“ Svelaz the Clueless, what you think to be perfectly legal might not be criminal, but it isn’t following the rule of law.”
It’s not that I think it is perfectly legal. It’s that it IS perfectly legal. The warrant was legally issued, legally signed ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
“ Discussion of this idea took place numerous times, but you neglected it because you do not have the intellect to deal with these things.”
Huh? S. Meyer you idiot. You’re the one neglecting the facts on this issue. You’re starting your incoherent rants again. Stop and think before you say anything else. It’s embarrassing to watch you try to make an argument.
Svelaz the Clueless, it’s hard to deal with one who lacks the facts and has no critical thinking skills. What might be bad might not be criminal. Do you know what the rule of law means?
A person in power decides to use his position to cause you harm. He uses an anonymous report of drug trafficking to get a warrant to have the police search your home, You would call that search legal because it was legally granted.
Is it legal? Abuses of power are dangerous and we try to curtail them, but you seem very much in favor of the abuse of power when your aims are satisfied. You don’t have the intellectual capacity to recognize the dangers.
“ Svelaz the Clueless, it’s hard to deal with one who lacks the facts and has no critical thinking skills. What might be bad might not be criminal. Do you know what the rule of law means?”
No, S. Meyer. You’re the one who is clueless here. The wars and was legal. Period. There is no ambiguity in the fact that it was done according to the law.
“ You would call that search legal because it was legally granted.”
Well Duh S. Meyer. That’s exactly why it’s legal. Because it was done according to the law. Man you really are a dumba$$. The LAW is what deems it legal. Obviously you don’t know what the rule of law means. You really are stupid sometimes and your post clearly demonstrated that.
Wars= warrant
” The wa[rrant] and was legal. Period. There is no ambiguity in the fact that it was done according to the law.”
Explain the altered FISA requests. The warrant granted has the same flaw as the FISA requests.
“That’s exactly why it’s legal.”
Were the FISA requests legal? Why should we trust those that lied before?
You seem to have a problem with memory as well as facts. I’ll wait for the explanations, but as usual, you will run away.
Passports were stored in Melania’s underwear drawer. They returned the passports but not the underwear
You sure that they weren’t stored in your underwear drawer?
Got me! You are so clever. You must have a keen eye for that sort of thing
Under where? Her drawers were in the underwear drawer with the passports.
Strzok is a living example of how lying, cheating, misdirecting, and evil are to be rewarded in this here USA. When such miscreants are not prosecuted for their crimes there is reason not for others to follow suit.
RE:”Strzok is a living example of how lying, cheating, misdirecting, and evil are to be rewarded in this here USA Likewise when the sort of an Andrew Weissman, of Mueller infamy, and whose ‘work’ was unanimously overturned by SCOTUS, is raised to educating and training future practitioners of law, one wonders if Shakespeare didn’t have a point.
Trump is the better example of lying, cheating, and evil. Oh and let’s not forget vindictiveness and playing the poor victim.
You love him so much, he is embedded in your head 24/7. Don’t you think of anybody else, or is he the love of your life?? Jeez.
Trump had 1-1/2 years to return the stolen documents. He even received a very friendly reminder and he still wouldn’t comply. Trump may not even be prosecuted for those crimes. No other president has ever done this in American history after leaving office.
What happened to the party of small limited government that takes personal responsibility for their actions? Imagine if Obama had done 10% of what Trump did?
He did. Only. with thousands more documents.
Do a little research and you will find that Barry Soertero has thousands of documents for “his library”, yet to be built. There was a battle over him taking them and I believe it is still going on. Barry decided what he wanted to take and told the Archivist to “pound sand”! Anything classified? We’ll never be told and he won’t be raided. Unequal Justice.
BS.
The National Archives even released a statement to correct people’s false claims about this: “The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.”
“The Obama Foundation, working with the National Archives, promised to digitize and put them online. Almost six years after the records arrived at a Chicago-area warehouse, that hasn’t happened.”
—
“But the National Archives blocks access to official records at the behest of every former president and his designated officials.”
“But journalists should be outraged by this perpetual stonewalling. Barack and Michelle Obama collected a $65 million advance for their memoirs, but Americans are still effectively prohibited from seeing his official records.”
“In 2011, Obama’s Justice Department formally proposed to permit federal agencies to falsely claim that FOIA-requested documents did not exist. The American Civil Liberties Union complained that the plan perverted “a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people.”
NYPost
—
Obama people claim digitalization is a tremendous task. 10 high speed printers could have everything of Obama’s digitalized in a month.
“ The Obama Foundation, working with the National Archives, promised to digitize and put them online. Almost six years after the records arrived at a Chicago-area warehouse, that hasn’t happened.”
The library hasn’t been built yet. The archives may have already created the digital version of the records, but until the library is built those records can remain sealed until the library opens.
One doesn’t need a completed library to digitalize and release the records to the public. It’s a convenient excuse, something you are filled with, but the excuse doesn’t hold water.
The most “transparent President” is a lie. He is the most effective stonewaller around. His Presidency was not clean.
This person is clearly an agent of The Leviathan
Old Greek saying: “Those whom the Gods would destroy, they give TDS first.”
These people are unhinged and don’t care how much damage they do in pursuit of their prey.
Look at “Moby Dick” for a literary example of this mental illness.
The FBI needs to be reorganized and its counterespionage responsibilities turned over to either the CIA or a new agency formed for this purpose. Some of the current agents assigned to FCI work could be transferred over along with their cases. The problem with the current configuration is simple. At the FBI Academy agents are taught the strict rules of domestic criminal investigations. Simultaneously, they are taught the ways of the FCIA in which many of the domestic law enforcement procedures are exempted wither by statute or through executive authority of agency supervisors and Department officials. All agents are expected to work both sides of the house as part of their career development. Where this becomes problematic is when tactics from one side of the house are used by those working in the other side of the house. After all, they carry the same badge, salute the same flag, and obey the same Constitution so why not do what needs to be done for the good of the country?
No new agencies, please. Remember what the creation of a Department of Homeland Security was supposed to accomplish? How’s that working out?
I am sure that you are aware that in being discharged for cause, government employees enjoy protections of due process, not afforded to those who serve at the pleasure of the Chief Executive.;You might endeavor to ask the likes of Strzok to hand in their resignation, but it would have to be accompanied with an offer he can’t refuse and will not admit to having received.
I’m not sure I understand your question but the FBI and a handful of other agencies are exempted from the protections of the civil service act, meaning that they can be fired for cause and their protections are limited.
RE:”I’m not sure I understand your question but the FBI…” Thank you for clarifying the matter with respect to the FBI. We can put this arrow in our collective quivers to employ as circumstances dictate.