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.”
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.
245 thoughts on “The Return of Peter Strzok: How a Fired FBI Official Is Making the Case Against Himself”
Talking about making the case against oneself, Turley would be wise to pay attention.
That sounds like a not so veiled threat. There might have been a time when threats from our progressive overlords might have carried some weight, but those times have passed. Progressives are losing their grip on power, and they are terrified.
Doesn’t sound like a threat to me. Strange that you think it does.
A word to the wise is sufficient, isn’t it Professor?
There was a time, not so long ago, where the threat of being called a racist, misogynist, Trumpist, or the -ist of the day was enough to keep the people in line. We have learned that all of those words are just synonyms for ‘progressives’ political enemy.’
Now that the tide is turning, we know that’s an ok thing to be. A real life application of Alinsky’s rule number 9.
Still doesn’t sound like a threat.
OIG 6/18: A Review of Various Actions by the FBI and DoJ in Advance of the 2016 Election” (500 pages + attachments)
“Department policies require all Department officials to “enforce the laws…in a neutral and impartial manner” and to remain “particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.” 
“Strzok”/”Page” (the former  fired on 8/10/18, the later left FBI 5/4/18) were mentioned 581/358 times within the report. Here are some assumptions:
1. “[…]W e were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations” .
2. “[T]he suggestion in certain Russia related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views, […] We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence”.
3. “In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”
To conclude: “The damage caused by these employees’actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence”
BTW: On 7/10/15 FBI opened a criminal investigation (“Midyear Exam”) – according to AG Lynch “a matter” Then FBI Director James “told the OIG that as he began to realize the investigation was likely to result in a declination, began to think of ways to credibly announce its closing. Comey engaged then DAG Yates in discussions in April 2016 about the “endgame” for the Midyear investigation. The interview of Hillary Clinton took place on 7/2/16..
 Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum for all Department Employees, Election Year Sensitivities, April 11, 2016, 1
 FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok & Page filed lawsuits against DoJ, because they were fired from their positions at the FBI in an act of political retaliation that finds its source in the Oval Office. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee and also assigned to Roger Stone case, refuses to dismiss their cases.AFAIK, these lawsuits are still pending. On a different note: Donald Middlebrooks (Southern District of Florida), a judge appointed by President Clinton dismissed a civil case againe Strzok & Page.
 .Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review.
1535, SIR THOMAS MORE EXECUTED FOR A “SNUB”
“…TO DEPRIVE THE KING OF HIS ‘DIGNITY, TITLE, OR NAME’ WAS TO BE CONSIDERED TREASON.”
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
Peter Strzok, co-conspirators Lisa Page, Barack Obama et al. “…deprived the [Constitutional President] of his dignity, title, or name [so as] to be considered treason.”
In 16th Century England, America’s Mother Country, the penalty for challenging the authority of the King was Drawing and Quartering.
Treasons Act 1534
The Treasons Act 1534 (26 Hen. 8. c. 13) was an Act passed by the Parliament of England in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII.
This Act was passed after the Act of Supremacy 1534, which made the king the “Only Head of the Church of England on Earth so far as the Law of God allows.” The 1534 Act made it treason, punishable by death, to disavow the Act of Supremacy. Sir Thomas More was executed under this Act.
It was introduced as a blanket law in order to deal with the minority of cases who would refuse to accept Cromwell’s and Henry’s changes in policies, instead of using the more traditional method of attainders.
The Act specified that all those were guilty of high treason who:
do maliciously wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king’s most royal person, the queen’s or the heirs apparent [Elizabeth], or to deprive them of any of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or slanderously and maliciously publish and pronounce, by express writing or words, that the king should be heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown…
The word ‘maliciously’ was added in several cases to require evil intent, and the Act meant that it was very dangerous to say anything against what the King had done.
Sir Thomas More
Indictment, trial and execution
In 1533, More refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn as the Queen of England. Technically, this was not an act of treason, as More had written to Henry seemingly acknowledging Anne’s queenship and expressing his desire for the King’s happiness and the new Queen’s health. Despite this, his refusal to attend was widely interpreted as a snub against Anne, and Henry took action against him…
More was pleading that the Statute of Supremacy was contrary to the Magna Carta, to Church laws and to the laws of England, attempting to void the entire indictment against him. He was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered (the usual punishment for traitors who were not the nobility), but the King commuted this to execution by decapitation.The execution took place on 6 July 1535 at Tower Hill.
“OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”
If the personnel was flipped here (“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok To where DT was the stated, then all hell would have broken at that point accusing DT of heading up a coup.
Strzok’s unique career pattern in the FBI has led some to conclude that he imay actually be a CIA operative, in deep cover at FBI because the law prohibits the CIA from engaging in domestic espionage.
How is his career unique? Consider:
He is the only FBI agent known NOT to have graduated from or even attended the FBI training academy at Quantico, NOT to have worked or served in any field office, and chosen specifically by CIA Director Brennan to work on the rigged 2016 multi-agency “counterintelligence investigation” on Trump.
Is that enough to confirm Strzok is really a CIA operative under deep cover in the FBI? No, but it does raise the antenna a bit, especially in the context of the lawless arrogance of Brennan in the Obama years, when he brazenly bugged Congress and then lied about it. Everyone knows CIA has operatives in the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies. Why not in DOJ too?
It also raises an interesting question: even though Strzok was fired from the FBI, is he still working for the CIA?
The country will not be satisfied until “accountability” includes stripping these corrupt pos’s like Strzk, McCabe, Page, Comey, et al, of their government pensions — every red cent.
Why? They obviously weren’t found guilty of any crime. They are just annoying or incompetent. That’s no different than Trump. He’s not losing his “pension” or ex-president privileges….yet.
Klinesmith was found guilty.
“They” referred to “Strzk, McCabe, Page, Comey.”
Gnawing off your leg to try and escape won’t work. I referred to Klinesmith.
Are you unable to follow the exchange that precedes your comment?
The fact that this lying fired FBI employee was hired by GTU in addition to that propagandist outlet known as MSNBC tells you everything you need to know about our elite institution
Darren, your loyal Diogenes here. I’ve lost my avatar and moniker.
Are you shielding me from an FBI warrant? If so, please, disregard this message.
I don’t know what might have happened. You might try clearing out your web browsers cache and saved user names and restart the browser. After that try logging in / out from the service that provides your login/user account. The account does appear valid, at least by clicking on the publicly visible profile from a 3rd party account.
Thanks, Darren, as always. I bet that will work 🙂
Testing, testing, 1-2-3
So happy that you are back, Diogenes! We’ve missed you.
Thank you, Catherine 🙂
“SHIT-FOR-BRAINS-STRZOK!!” is just that! Furthermore, he is without a doubt a lying-piece-of-scum. And he is like every other leftist / and, DEMOCRAT—VOTER. All of them including the entire Democrat party, the most dangerous people in our nation!! there is one good thing about the show, “THE—HAND-MAIDS—TALE,
Is how the religious right wound up wiping the hell out of the Opposite party that is A carbon copy of our disgusting evil vile anything goes, Democrat Party.
They killed that entire party and everybody that had anything associated to it and I absolutely love that part because that’s what needs to happen to everybody that votes Democrat and everyone that is, a Democrat. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE-WIPED OUT!
The whaaaambulance has been called. Your whining was getting out of hand.
RE:”EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE-WIPED OUT!.. The content of your rant is precisely why I defended the use of screen names in these blogs. Where you as a true ‘hater’ are concerned ‘In this my own counsel keep I will!”
Darren said he banned Jeff S. for saying “this is your final warning,” without any reference to violence, but apparently has no problem with “EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE-WIPED OUT!”
Storzk. Waco, Whitey Bulger. Martin Luther King. Larry Nassar. Klinesmith. Big Dan in the Detroit office. The list is long, going back years, and the list is deep including at least three of the former directors and covering everyone from assistant directors to confidential human sources (or whatever they call Mifsud and Halper). I still remember when 20 of the scumbag bozos came and raided at dawn the house of a lady with three little kids near where I lived at the time 20 years ago. Her house was at 10 Oriole Drive. The pervert porn dealer the FBI wanted lived one street over on 10 Bluebird Lane and he went free for another 10 years while the FBI scumbags put her and her kids through hell and never apologized (never even returned the stuff they stole from her).
If you are standing by the lighthouse on Cape Hatteras at dawn on a clear March or September 21 and an FBI agent asks you which way is East, take the Fifth. The FBI are scum.
Correct. 100% necessary to ABOLISH the FBI. They are the American Stasi.
What would you replace it with? Federal law would still need to be enforced. Who would do that?
You mean enforcing the law against attempting to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland?
Based on how that operation went down, no federal law enforcement manpower is required.
The public trust has been eroded to the point where the reputation of the FBI has become *more of a threat* to the survival of the republic than the ‘trusted premier investigative agency’ of federal law enforcement.
There are many options for recreating a slimmed down “investigative division” within the DOJ.
The FBI as currently constituted is too corrupt to be salvaged. Disband, dismantle, take it down to the studs.
The FBI does not “enforce” the law. It is an “investigative” agency. It is bloated and corrupt to the core as it has been since Hoover.
You do realize that peace officers under state and local control can arrest people as well. You should also realize that the FBI has engaged in bad practices and hasn’t reformed. It is probably time to get rid of all the leadership of the FBI and perhaps place the organization under the US marshal service.
Our media is so scary———-we need more eyes to open up.
There’s a pattern in family businesses: the first generation creates the business, the second generation expands the business, and the third generation squanders the business.
Maybe nations are not that different from family businesses?
The greatest generation created globalist America by winning WW II and establishing Bretton Woods. The boomer generation expanded globalist America by winning the cold war and building the nervous system of the globalist order known as the internet.
Millennials appear to be squandering the whole thing by letting globalism control them rather than the other way around.
Maybe some gifted psychologist like John Haidt should study this to see if the family-business syndrome is scalable to democracies. Obama “didn’t build that” republic, but his minions like Strzok and Page sure are destroying it. I look at clueless Strzok, and it just seems he is symptomatic of some broader malaise.
I really don’t blame the millennials, though. The Founding Fathers warned us about getting too wrapped up in the world. The greatest generation decided to play with that fire, and now Beijing is buying off our Chamber of Commerce. The boomers went along with taking religion out of the schools, and now public schools are godless hells that pervert our children. I could go on and on. We all bear some responsibility.
Maybe it’s time for a reset. The globe will provide that in any event. That’s how the world rolls. We were warned.
I hope that every day for Peter Stzok is like the feeling he would get when he and his wife run into Pisa Page and her husband. That arrogant SOB lost his job, he ruined his marriage and he embarrassed himself nationwide and that is the karma he deserves.
Of course Svelaz, Anonymous and a few other morons will never actually respond to the column as written, they only come on to Turley’s site, see Turley’s issue and then ignore it to attack Trump, Turley or Republicans. It is lame, it is juvenile and it is just plain old stupid.
“ Of course Svelaz, Anonymous and a few other morons will never actually respond to the column as written, they only come on to Turley’s site, see Turley’s issue and then ignore it to attack Trump, Turley or Republicans.”
It’s cute when genuine criticism is seen as an “attack”.
Turley is a hypocrite. That much is obvious in this column. He’s also being disingenuous with the facts. Trump has obviously been lying and we know that liars are guilty according to Fox News and Turley.
If Turley is going to criticize Strzok then he needs to be much more honest about what he’s disingenuously trying to portray.
Turley has room to criticize Strzok once he addresses the thousands of liesTrump has told and still tells, including, and especially the Big Lie, AND after he addresses the issues of: 1. Trump’s taking of TS/SCI documents; 2. returning only a few after being asked several times; then, there’s the lying about “if they had only asked me”–the NARA DID ask him repeatedly; 3. in response to forcing the NARA to subpoena the documents, only returning 15 boxes and having his lawyer lie about all such documents being returned; 4. after a tip from an informant that there were even more TS/SCI papers, forcing the NARA to obtain a search warrant, falsely claiming that the FBI would “plant” TS/SCI documents (even though the seizure was captured on CCTV, which Trump hasn’t released); 5. falsely claiming that any papers he took became automatically “declassified” due to a “standing order” that doesn’t exist, and that NO ONE recalls hearing about, much less seeing, including John Bolton, Trump’s head of national security; 6. claiming that the TS/SCI documents were HIS property, not that of the NARA; 7. profiting off of the seizure by calling it a “raid”, falsely accusing the FBI of being directed to harass him by Biden, and seeking contributions for the “outrageousness of invading my beautiful home”. You’ve already admitted, Turley, that Trump had NO right to possess the documents, and that even if he could prove any had been declassified, this would not matter–he still would be criminally liable not only for taking them, but keeping them after demand had been made to return them. His refusal to voluntarily return them and lying about having done so in response to a subpoena creates a clear case of obstruction of justice. That you use your platform to defend a sick narcissist who lies about and profits off of such an outrageous breach of national security and who isn’t even man enought to admit he lost an election is beneath you, Turley. Even before Trump was nominated, Marco Rubio said, prophetically, that Trump couldn’t be trusted with nuclear secrets. I hate to admit it, but he was right.
Also, Turley knows that agents do NOT sort through boxes to weed out relevant and irrelevant materials at the location of the seizure. If a box contains ANY documents described in a search warrant, the entire box is seized, and a “taint team” later goes through the box to remove irrelevant articles, such as Trump’s passport, as well as attorney-client letters, for example, and returns them, which was done in this case. So, Turley’s harping about the passports being initially seized and returned is just more Fox blater calculated to cover up the crimes of Trump stealing the papers in the first place, refusing to return them and lying about them. Turley KNOWS this is how it works, and he also KNOWS that Trump had the benefit of quality attorneys to advise him about applicable law. Trump is the one who caused all of this–and what for–to sell them, use them for leverage or just to show them off to guests? That is the question, but there’s no question that the DOJ had NO choice other than to force Trump to give them back. He cannot be allowed to get away with stealing our most-precious national security secrets. AND…why would Trump be so careless with his passports in the first place?
Natacha: Amusing that you would pseudo-authoritatively mention “taint teams” (the slang word for “filter teams”) in reviewing contents of warrant seizures—–something I had mentioned way back on August 11 (posted at 2:14 p.m.). But on that day, you spent several paragraphs ridiculing my comment and waxing prolix on “subpoenas” (which had nothing to do with the topic warrant). When the good professor first mentioned a “special master” three days later on August 14, you posted something like, “now I know where Lin got her [idea]” or something similar.
Glad to see you come around, Natach, -even if you are still learning on the job.
Keep up the good work. We need you here. Research is sooo easy on the Internet, isn’t it? Thanks.
You are SUCH a phony. I’ve asked you before: do you claim to be an attorney? YOU are the one who doesn’t understand the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant, and cited the O’Sullivan case that has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation of Trump stealing TS/SCI documents, refusing to return them and then lying about that. In the O’Sullivan case, BOTH PARTIES agreed there were attorney-client materials included, and the dispute was over a special master reviewing the materials.
Here’s the big difference: when the subpoena was served on Trump, he did NOT object on the grounds of privilege or anything else. And, as required by the FRCP, a written response was provided in which his lawyer lied, on his behalf, that all TS/SCI documents had been returned. Then, the FBI was tipped that Trump still had some–20 or so boxes of them. Trump DID not seek to quash the search warrant. To my knowledge, there has been NO claim of attorney-client privileged materials included in the documents seized, but the FBI did have a taint team go through the papers, and they found and returned Trump’s passports. The O’Sullivan case is completely irrelevant, and only someone who THINKS she knows the law would fail to see the difference.
So answer me: are you an attorney, or, like Karen S., somebody who likes to play one on the blogosphere, like she enjoys playing physician and scientist?
And, BTW, why haven’t you come up with any defense to Trump’s fundamental wrongdoing: stealing TS./SCI documents, refusing to return them upon request, lying about having returned them, and then profiting off of his claimed “victimhood” that he brought on himself?
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
I did not have sex with that woman
Inflation is transitory
we are not in a recession
hunters laptop is russian disinformation.
The collusion delusion
Repudiating what you call “the big lie” – would have been trivial:
Conduct the election according to the law.
Allow scrutiny after the fact.
I have been fighting for election integrity since 2000.
This should not be a partisan issue.
For voters it is not.
But for politicians it is bitterly partisan.
It is not that hard to conduct trustworthy elections.
Vote in person
on election day
with voter id
count votes at the polling place as they are cast
report counts publicly in real time
Allow the public to oversee everything.
As you deviate from that the opportunities for fraud and error increase exponentially.
Random audits after the fact help too.
One big easy things that can be done immediately after an election is to insist on a Signature Match.
IE: A few years back there was a massive anomaly in a state wide race. All Rep candidates won by 100,000 or over, except for the Govenor, he lost by a 100,000 or so.
Signature Matchs should have been used in every swing state.
IDs, No Drop Boxes,” Vote Harvesting”, etc..
RE:” Lies like: If you like your doctor you can keep them.”””” Technically, Obama did not lie.He was going by the language in the law. This is from the text of the law:Public Law 111–148
111th Congress . When they gave it to the bureaucrats it was realized that the govt couldn’t finance it as written so they passed the Reconciliation Act with all the changes. It’s what happens when Congress passes a law they haven’t read. Not the first time either.
PART II—OTHER PROVISIONS
SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health
insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.—With respect to a group
health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual
was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act, this subtitle
and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles)
shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether
the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment.
(b) ALLOWANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO JOIN CURRENT COVERAGE.—With respect to a group health plan or health insurance
coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act and which is renewed after such date, family
members of such individual shall be permitted to enroll in such
plan or coverage if such enrollment is permitted under the terms
of the plan in effect as of such date of enactment.
(c) ALLOWANCE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES TO JOIN CURRENT PLAN.—
A group health plan that provides coverage on the date of enactment
of this Act may provide for the enrolling of new employees (and
their families) in such plan, and this subtitle and subtitle A (and
the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply with
respect to such plan and such new employees (and their families).
Verification of the eligability of a voter MUST be done BEFORE they vote
This was core to many of the court decisions against Trump.
Contra the left, many of the “merit” claims essentially were coda’s that said – even if you proved much of the fraud you are alleging – there is nothing we can do about it.
Secret balloting means that it is not possible to un-count a fraudulent vote detected AFTER the vote is case.
This is what is so wrong with mailin voting – fraud is easy, hard to detect and impossible to fix.
Worse in 2020 states willy nilly violated all their own laws making the few safeguards that could work impossible.
AZ as an example ran out of ballots and precincts photocopied blank ballots – instantly destroying all ability to detect forged ballots.
You know that you are on target when the flak starts flying. Your last paragraph nailed the description of our current crop of trolls. It is just an added bonus that both Svelaz and Natacha showed up to prove your point true.
Has Turley ever complained about Oliver North or Mark Fuhrman on Fox News?
He wasnt on foxnews at the time.
RE:”Has Turley ever complained about Oliver North or Mark Fuhrman on Fox News?..”Holy ‘what difference does it make’, Batman!!” Did Turley ever complain about Obama awarding the Medal of Freedom to draft dodger Bruce Springsteen!?!?!? How deep into the cesspool of sociopoltical history do we have to dive in order to challenge or discredit. We can all find them. These are the kind of ‘whataboutisms’ which I was alluding to yesterday. Time wasted in reply that you and I will never get back. Give it up!!
Obama cheapened every “prestigious” award there is…or was….from the Nobel Prize to the Presidential Medal Of Freedom. “Freedom” of what? Of Obama to give them out like candy to his useful idiots and ‘friends’? Make no mistake, cheapening, devaluing, deprecating — has always been precisely Obama’s intent.
RE:”Obama cheapened every “prestigious” award there is…or was..” I wouldn’t paint all his recipients with such a broad brush. However your observation is an unfortunate reminder where those who were truly deserving are concerned.
Good point, however when Obama presented his VP Joe Biden with the Medal of Freedom *with distinction* –for doing his job, that included Hunter and Biden, Inc. shaking down foreign actors for ‘access’ while he was VP, is simply disgusting. At least Biden spoke the truth at the time, “I don’t deserve this.” No he did not.
Therefore I dismiss them all simply because they were given by Obama, a total fraud, who quite literally disgusts me.
Did ABC, NBSC, CNN report on Hunter Biden?
Anonymous, what about Strozk? Answer the darn question for once and stop with the Whatboutism.
You really are a sickening fool.
Which Anonymous commenter are you asking? There are a bunch of us.
“ Anonymous, what about Strozk? Answer the darn question for once and stop with the Whatboutism.
You really are a sickening fool.”
What about him? He’s free to be as biased as he wants to be. He can’t have an opinion?
Turley is also very biased in his columns.
As for the whataboutisms, hey it’s no different than the rampant whataboutisms trump supporters went into when Trump got caught illegally keeping classified documents on his property. They cited Hillary Clinton so many times it was comical.
Dumb statement anonymous.
Svelaz and Strzok went on a field trip to Walmart to smell the Trump voters. What else could be expected by a couple of elitist snobs. Being fired by the FBI is a very difficult task but Strzok was able to get it done. His defenders are the ones who are now telling us to trust the FBI. Taking this into account why are our leftist friends not willing to accept the judgement of the FBI in firing Strzok. They say, we should trust the FBI when it comes to Trump but we shouldn’t trust the FBI when it comes Strzok. Perhaps other motivations should be considered by the trust the FBI don’t trust the FBI crowd. Moralistic viewpoints be damned when there’s a mission to be accomplished.
“ Taking this into account why are our leftist friends not willing to accept the judgement of the FBI in firing Strzok. They say, we should trust the FBI when it comes to Trump but we shouldn’t trust the FBI when it comes Strzok.”
Nice strawman there. Problem is “they” are not saying “they” are not willing to accept the judgment of the FBI in firing Strzok. YOU are the one saying that.
Three points about the FBI interview of Gen Flynn. First, James Comey violated protocol in failing to arrange it through the White House counsel. (“You would work through the White House counsel and there were discussions and approvals and it would be there and I thought, it’s early enough. Let’s just send a couple of guys over.”) [www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ 2020/04/30/ comey_i_ sent_ fbi_agents_into_ the_white_house.html.] Second, the agents apparently failed to disclose to Flynn that he was the target of a criminal investigation, which, according to Andrew McCarthy, is customary (“, , , if General Flynn was a gangbanger or mafia guy, they would have sat down with them, they would have told them this is a criminal investigation [.] [ibid] Third, the agents who interviewed him did not think he was lying. [“Comey himself has testified that the agents who interviewed Flynn in January 2017 did not believe he was deliberately misleading them.” [www,boston herald.com/2020/05/05/new-revelations-make-case-against-michael-flynn-look-weaker/] One of those agents was Peter Strzok.
RE:”Three points about the FBI interview of Gen Flynn…” This, now being a matter of public record, as well as what we also know as fact about the Steele Dossier and its employment in obtaining the FISA court warrants, has made patently clear that law enforcement will intentionally skirt proper procedure, violate the law and ones civil rights, with the target having no recourse at law for remedy or recovery to be made whole if the charge is proved wrong. Hence, why should anything about this FBI/DOJ action against a former President, against his private property, beginning with Judge Reinhardt, having publicly admitted and expressed extreme bias against the target of the warrant he signed, not spawn controversy? .
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!!!
Hubris born of concerted fear.
There is a shocking number of high level people in this country who have a well warranted anxiety in the likely event that the political pendulum will smack them in the face.
And they richly deserve cumupance.
How far are they willing to go?
I don’t recall Norah O’Donnell publicly apologizing for her blatant, clearly 100% wrong statement re: the passports. If she did, so be it. If she didn’t, why not. Why is it OK for a bold-faced untruthful statement on a national news station like CBS to go out, and then immediately upon learning of the falsehood, clearing it up for viewers? Doesn’t some gov’t agency, such as the FCC, have rules about this.
Come on Richard! “COME-ON-MAN!!” you know as well as I do that, “Damnable— O’Donnell“, never did apologize!!
And, neither has she ever apologized!! And neither has any other far leftist like her ever apologized!! They are the, most dangerous folks in America!!
Strzok’s behavior is sociopathic. It’s often said that Trump broke the Democratic party; or that people suffer from TDS. I now believe they didn’t break, or suddenly suffer TDS. They didn’t suddenly develop a habit of lying. The FBI and other agencies didn’t only become weaponized as a result of the election of Donald Trump. They are who they have always been. They just haven’t had to defend themselves against someone with more legitimate power than they have.
Sam Harris showed who these people really are and the lengths they will go to defend their unamerican and unconstitutional worldview.
One thing has been proven so often, it’s almost a law of the Left’s nature: take whatever comes out of their mouth and the exact opposite is where you will find the truth.
OLLY YOU NAILED IT MY FRIEND!! you absolutely nailed it old buddy!!
It’s unfortunate that so many of our government agencies have been, and continue to be, populated with civil servants who have severe undiagnosed personality disorders.
Megalomania seems to be spreading faster than monkey pox in D.C.