The Return of Peter Strzok: How a Fired FBI Official Is Making the Case Against Himself

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.”

CBS News anchor Norah O'Donnell suggested 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.

Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and ultimately led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.

On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Michael Flynn.  Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Michael Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws.  The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.”  The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”

That exchange is not as disconcerting as Strzok’s actions.  After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law.

As with those like Laurence Tribe claiming a “slam dunk” case for conviction before any real evidence, let alone a charge, there is a familiar pattern to this coverage. Many of us have said that there could be criminal conduct revealed by this raid, but we simply do not know. There is much that we do not know to establish such a case, let alone speculate on its outcome. That is why some of us have called for greater transparency from the Justice Department, including the release of substantive portions of a redacted affidavit.

For his part, Strzok appears eager to confirm the allegations made against him. Yet, these public statements only fuel the concern of many that the raid was another “insurance policy” by the FBI. For his former colleagues at the FBI, Strzok’s trolling can hardly be a welcomed addition to the public controversy over their investigation.

245 thoughts on “The Return of Peter Strzok: How a Fired FBI Official Is Making the Case Against Himself”

  1. Who wants to party with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin? Remember back in 2013 when President “dude’s got an eye for the ladies” Obama told the donors at a fundraiser that Kamala Harris was his favorite best looking AG? Emblematic of the shifting political climate, early polls are suggesting that Americans have broken ranks with President Obama and now prefer Marin over Vice President Harris by a nearly two to one margin.

    Meanwhile, Lisa Page had to settle for an affair with her officemate Peter Strzok. Or was it Peter that settled for Lisa? Maybe that’s why they both seem so angry all the time.

    Not that their little off-the-record dalliance could possibly have affected their judgment as they carried out their official duties at the FBI or anything. A old-school curmudgeon might say that their dalliance was reflective of their judgment. And the judgment of their superiors, who either failed to prevent it or looked the other way.

    But all is fair in love and the war against the evil Orange Man. Right?

  2. A properly administered FBI would not contain one person like Strozk. Yet by all accounts it contains hundreds if not thousands.

    1. I thought all along that Peter Strozk was a Russian agent straight from the KGB. Sure looks and acts like it to me.

      1. Much if not all the deep states bitter vitriole and illegal action against Trump is not driven by left/right politics.

        It is driven by the last vestiges of the cold war striving to retain power.

        It is self evident that China is the great geopolitical threat to the US today. For the foreseable future the FOCUS of US foreign policy will be Asia not Europe and Russia.

        Russia is a third rate superpower that would barely be a regional power but for its cache of nuclear weapons.

        The Russia desks of State, CIA, FBI, …. have all be the premier postings in the US for decades.
        That is changing. Trump was instrumental to changing that. Those whose self worth was tied to the importance of their Russia post are fighting back.

        The collusion delusion was about that.
        The Hunter Biden mess is about that.
        Faux impeachment 1 was about that.

        There are lots of progressives in government – with far to free reign screwing the country.
        But the problems in DOJ/FBI – deep state, are not driven by right/left politics so much as east/west power politics in government.

    2. The right is currently agreived because the political interests of many in the FBI or CIA or …. align more with the left – or more accurately are actively hostile to Trump.

      But the political corruption we see with Strzok and company have been present throughout my lifetime – in the CIA, in the FBI, in the DOJ, all that is new is the blatantcy and the fact that the deep states interests align with the left – atleast with regard to Trump.

      It is not important whether the FBI is corrupt to the right or corrupt to the left.
      What matters is that they are politically corrupt – and have been so for along time.

      The conduct with respect to Trump is arguably to an entirely new level. But the
      corruption itself is not new.

  3. You have to be living on Venus not to look at Obama who weaponized both the DOJ and FBI on Trump . And right now through Susan Rice I believe Obama is the one who pulled the strings on the raid at Mar-A -Largo .And one better Obama was also the one who called the shot on spying on Trump . No government agency would go out on a limb to spy on a duley elected president without that order coming from the top .

  4. No, Storck isn’t lacking self awareness, he just has blind arrogance. He knows that the fix is in and nothing is going to happen to any of them, including fired agents. Seriously, when was the last time a scandal of this magnitude happened and the guilty parties were punished? I’ll leave out the Rosenberg’s here.

  5. If i were guilty of treason, which Stryzok is for taking it upon himself to use his position in the FBI to create a lie to unseat a duly elected president because he hated him, I would be keeping my mouth shut and out of the news.

  6. Anyone that is not a fool knows they stole the election, including you Turley, just stop it with the BS propaganda that there is no proof, we have votes that lack Chain of Custody in the millions. As per unto their being a possible crime, you can read can’t you Turley? An Obama judged (Jackson) stated that the Presidential Records Act does not supersede the Constitution which gives any President the authority to Declassify anything he so wishes, thus she ruled that anything Bill Clinton took with him was his via his own authority. This is a ruling the DOJ could have gotten if they took it to the DOJ lawyers, which of course is why they didn’t, its time for men like you to stop pussyfooting around and call for these men to be fired and locked up.

  7. Anyone that is not a fool knows they stole the election, including you Turley, just stop it with the BS propaganda that there is no proof, we have votes that lack Chain of Custody in the millions. As per unto their being a possible crime, you can read can’t you Turley? An Obama judged (Jackson) stated that the Presidential Records Act does not supersede the Constitution which gives the President the authority to Declassify anything he so wishes, thus she ruled that anything Bill Clinton took with him was his via his own authority. There is a ruling the DOJ could have gotten if they took it to the DOJ lawyers, which s why they didn’t, its time for men like you to stop pussyfooting around and call for these men to be fired and locked up.

  8. Some days I wonder if it was stroke I met with when I called the osi….just wondering? Peter Peter pumpkin eater.. Via dude. Who who meeting asking if I found anything weird about the ladder trucks. no there on business…what’s weird is you backing in…And ignoring the dudes casing my place….like that’s normal? It’s not Peter Peter pumpkin eater….but I think I have your lying if I card. Oh bc you ain’t fbi. Are you? Cia. Liar list pants on fire. Posing as osi. Posing as osi. Psosser.

  9. Jonathan: Reading some of the comments in this chatroom you would think this country is approaching armageddon. The FBI acted like the “Gestapo” in “raiding” a former president’s home. They say the FBI is part of the “Democrat Marxist/ Communist” plot to take away our “freedoms”. Some are calling for a “Civil War No. 2”. Others have given up and are thinking of just immigrating to someplace where their “freedoms” are not threatened. So where would they go? A little history might offer an option.

    After the first Civil War many defeated Confederate soldiers decided they didn’t want to be surrounded by emancipated slaves so they moved to Brazil, a country that still protected slavery. It wasn’t abolished there until 1888. So Confederate soldiers fled to a place in Brazil called “Santa Barbara d’Oeste”, bought slaves and settled down. The descendants are still there and every year celebrate that exodus with a festival–including wearing period costumes, food and country music and the flying of the Confederate flag. The descendants formed a group called “Fraternidade Descendencia Americana” (FDA). One of the group’s leaders says: “For us, the Confederate flag does not represent slavery but carries the symbolism of resistance to tyranny”. Sound familiar?

    But the descendants of the Confederate soldiers are under attack. The community where they live is proposing a new law that would ban “racist” symbols at public festivals and make the FDA annual festival impossible. The FDA is fighting the proposed law. They are inspired by the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville in 2017. But they need support. Perhaps this is an opportunity for those here who have given up on the American “democratic” experiment to go to Brazil. You will be surrounded by people of like minds and you can dedicate yourselves to protecting the “freedoms” you seem to think no longer exist here. Brazil is a beautiful country. I have been there many times. And it has a president, Jair Bolsonaro, who is a big supporter of Donald Trump and has implemented many of our former president’s policies. What’s not to like about Brazil?

    1. RE:”carries the symbolism of resistance to tyranny”…” For those ‘commenters’ whom you address in your opening, the flag which carries the symbolism of resistance to tyranny is that of the United States of America. There’s been enough incontrovertible fact established across the past 7 years to adequately characterize the clandestine activities of the FBI/DOJ as tyrannous behavior. Parents exercising their rights of free speech in addressing local school boards wherein the indoctrination of their children is being condoned and implemented are not the kind of exigencies which warrant them being declared domestic terrorists at risk of facing disciplinary action at law. This is the kind of ‘tea’ which deserves to be thrown overboard.

      1. ZZDoc: I was disappointed you didn’t take my offer to move to Brazil. It’s a lovely country. Stay and fight! So what exactly are you fighting for? You say over the past 7 years (which covers both the Obama and Trump administrations) the FBI/DOJ have engaged in “clandestine activities” amounting to “tyrannous behavior”. Give me some examples. Do you think the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago is one such example? Even though a federal judge, appointed by Trump, approved the search warrant as based on “probable cause” under the Constitution.

        As to parents participation in school board meetings I think that is a good thing. Parents should be more involved in their kids education–beyond the usual parent/teacher night. But what has happened in states like Florida, Texas and elsewhere in the South? Conservative backed candidates have taken over school boards claiming teachers are “indoctrinating” school children. In what? Teachers have been trying to introduce topics like gay identity, the racial history of the country–believe it or not topics kids are interested in because of what they see around them and in the news. What is wrong with kids learning about the contribution of Black people in the arts, literature, science and politics? That’s not “indoctrination” but showing the diversity of how this country developed. It was wasn’t accomplished just by white people. In one Florida school now a gay teacher cannot display a photo of their partner, name their partner or their kids names nor explain how that person fits into the teacher’s life. Isn’t that also “tyrannous behavior” by the school?

        Under the regimes in Florida, Texas and elsewhere in the south school districts are actually banning books from school libraries–books by Black and gay and other important authors. Even “Ann Frank’s Diary” is verboten reading. Do you think kids should not learn something about the Holocaust? When school boards and school districts start banning books we have an existential threat to the rights of free speech. Wouldn’t you agree? This is the kind of “tyranny” which, to use your words, “deserves to be thrown over board”. But then maybe I am preaching to the choir. I hope so.

        1. D McI – You should be addressing your remarks to the racists that advocate racism to balance past racism. Those would be Democrats.

        2. RE:”Give me some examples.: You cite Mar-A-Lago yet not the entire “Steele Dossier/FISA court debacle in all of its sundry details from its host of bad actors who colluded and conspired both here and abroad, its conception/inception, the victims of that sanction, to its conclusion, and that which were reached. NO!, the last 7 years includes the last roughtly18 mos of the Obama second term. It does not COVER the Obama Administration;.RE:” Isn’t that also “tyrannous behavior” by the school? As to the ‘banning of books’ you paint the issue with a broad brush. Something I refuse to entertain.. I will not address the issue of the Anne Frank matter not knowing the nature of the controversy in that community nor any others for same. . As to the other curriculum areas you offer up, their purpose, and the curriculum development for them are best addressed individually, not collectively, and within the context of each jurisdictions educational goals and purposes. In closing, in the present state of flux, it remains the province of the parents concerned as to whether or not it is acceptable or permissible for a classroom teacher to display a photo of their partner, name their partner or their kids names nor explain how that person fits into the teacher’s life, gender notwithstanding, during the course of the school day. In Florida, the substance of the law will govern that when it concerns same sex partners.

          1. “you paint the issue with a broad brush. Something I refuse to entertain.. I will not address the issue of the Anne Frank matter not knowing the nature of the controversy in that community”

            ZZDoc, I have learned that one needs care when reading things coming from our leftist bloggers. Left-wing media sites have a goal, so they only inform their readership of part of the discussion. Therefore what seems unreasonable to some parents is made to look racist or sexist. What follows is an explanation of what happened.

            The Jerusalem Post focused on the Anne Frank book, which tells the story of a young Jewish girl in World War II, and noted the version in the library was “a 2019 illustrated adaptation” that references “female genitalia, same-sex attraction and other sexual matters.”


            That is not a good enough explanation to tell us what is in the minds of others, and it didn’t directly link to the Jerusalem Post. Therefore I don’t know what is happening.

            It could be hypersensitive people that complained, or the complaint might be legitimate. Her diary was to document her life while she was alive. It is not a sexual education book. Was that the publisher’s motive? I don’t know.

            There is nothing wrong with the Diary of Anne Frank, but its use should not be to indoctrinate. To do so would be very objectionable for many reasons.

            Elsewhere I read the book was temporarily removed pending a review which might be a correct way of handling these things.

            Presently, my response is I don’t have direct information, and spin is on both sides. I recognize spin for what it is. You do as well, based on your comment. Dennis does not.

            1. RE:”The Jerusalem Post focused on the Anne Frank book,…I preface my remarks by advising you that my wife’s parents were survivors of the Shoah and that she was born in a DP camp in Southern Italy in 1946. Hence, were are steeped in the learning and understand of these matters. There is nothing in the work, the ‘Diary of Anne Frank’, which requires the kind of illustrative embellishment described in the printing under dispute. I would be questioning, in depth, if the original, absent the objectionable ‘art’ were also rejected. That has not yet entered the conversaiton. To borrow from a public comment by a Disney employee, an author with an agenda may be attempting to introduce ‘queer’ into the Anne Frank work. That, given the subject matter, to put it mildly, is an abomination and why some components of the LBGT community often hoist themselves by its own petard. As to the matter of ‘The Bible’, one cannot speak to that without knowing more about the rationale for rejection. The provisions of Florida’s ‘Parental Rights’ law likely address these issue as to the where, when, how, and who of guiding this aspect of social education.

              1. ZZDoc, we have something in common. My mother-in-law was in Auschwitz and my father-in-law was all over. When the allies arrived in his camp he was comatose but survived. My wife is not American born. To get here she crossed minefields carrying microfilm braided in her hair.

                I don’t know the truth with reasonable certainty so I won’t be like the leftists stating something I don’t know. That doesn’t stop the leftists. All sorts of craziness is done by both sides, though the left is substantially more crazy, dangerous, and careless with their facts.

                The last reasonable information I read was the book was under reviewal. Personally I feel you are right. The left might have been trying to inject queer into the book. There are plenty of Disney folk that want that.

                1. RE:”we have something in common. My mother-in-law was in Auschwitz and my father-in-law was all over.” Ditto!: Mom; born in Munkasc taken to Birkenau; Dad: born in Lodz: passed through Czestochowa, Dora-Mittelbau, Rottleberode; Ludvigslust.from which liberated May 3, 1945. Every picture tells a story. Their was just two of millions.

          2. ZZDoc: Re the banning of books you say you “refuse to entertain” the subject because you know nothing about the banning of the adaptation of Anne Frank’s book. Either because of lack of interest or mental laziness reveals you have a very narrow view on “rights of free speech”. So let me give some examples of books that have been banned in school districts–mostly in the South. “Banned” means books that have been removed from school curriculum or school libraries. My source is the American Library Association (ALA) that indicates in 2021 alone 1,597 titles were targeted–double the figure in 2020. Many of the banned books involve the history of racism and LGBTQ characters. But even many classics have been banned like:
            *”To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee
            *The Catcher in the Rye” by JD Salinger
            *The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck
            *The Color Purple” by Alice Walker
            The list is too long to repeat here. In January, the McMinn County School Board in Tennessee voted 10-0 to remove Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel “Maus” (about the Holocaust) from the school curriculum. The Tennessee school board has a short memory. In the 1920s the state banned the teaching of evolution which led to the famous Scopes trial. Kind of ironic Tennessee still believes certain topics are taboo. Last month in Fort worth Texas, a school district pulled the graphic adaption of Anne Frank’s Diary, all versions of the Bible and numerous books with LGBTQ themes or characters. Due to an outcry of protest the school superintendent now says the Frank book will be returned to shelves “very soon”. We’ll see. Now I can understand why you might be ignorant on this important “free speech” issue since Professor Turley has yet to address the issue. But ignorance is no defense.

            Notice that “S. Meyer” has come to your defense in his comment. He tells you to beware of “leftist bloggers” like me. He admits: “I don’t know what is happening” re the Anne Frank book but still opines the book “shouldn’t be to indoctrinate”. S. Meyer isn’t known for his command of practically any subject. That said, what “indoctrination” does he have in mind? Some think learning about a Jewish girl’s horrific experiences during the Holocaust is something that children today should not learn about. Why? Because some are Holocaust deniers and they don’t want any discussion of Nazi atrocities.

            As you can tell I have a big problem with allowing certain parent groups to dictate school curriculum or what books should be allowed on library bookshelves. As a “leftist blogger” even I wouldn’t do that. If some parents don’t want their kids to read certain books that’s fine–that is their right. But should they be able to dictate what other parents would permit their kids to read? I don’t think so. So I have a proposal. For parents that don’t want their kids to read “Maus” or the Anne Frank book or any other book on the banned list they could just submit a list of those books to the school, the school librarian and the kid’s teacher. Problem solved, right? Not exactly. The right-wing agenda in this country is to dictate school curriculum and book policy for EVERY student. As an opponent of “tyrannous behavior” and an advocate of the “rights of free speech” I would think you would recognize how book banning and dictating what teachers can discuss is a fundamental attack on the 1st Amendment. Don’t let S. Meyer influence your thinking. He often uses nonsensical labels when he disagrees with someone. Read “Maus” or the Anne Frank book or any of the books listed above and decide for yourself whether schools are trying to “indoctrinate” their students.

            1. RE:” Read “Maus” or the Anne Frank book or any of the books listed above and decide for yourself’….I’ve read them all and years ago for that matter. I’d be interested in knowing the rationale for removing these books. Your narrative presents something of a thought there but not the entire case.

              1. ZZDoc, unfortunately in my discussions with Dennis he sometimes has something to say, but there is too much stuff that is erroneous or misinterpreted. He would be better off staying away from politics and dealing with what he wants and expects. Anecdotes don’t create policy.

                1. RE:”ZZDoc, unfortunately in my discussions with Dennis………………………”I’ve grown accustomed to his face…

            2. “Notice that “S. Meyer” has come to your defense in his comment. He tells you to beware of “leftist bloggers” like me. He admits: “I don’t know what is happening” re the Anne Frank book but still opines the book “shouldn’t be to indoctrinate”. S. Meyer isn’t known for his command of practically any subject. ”

              Unfortunately for your position Dennis, based on our discussions, you have been proven wrong, and in every one of them, you ran away. I understand some of the things you are saying, but you must tie things together with fact, not anecdotes or historical fiction.

              You can try to prove my lack of command on any subject, but to date, you have failed. Do you wish to try again?

              Are you trying to change history or link me to something I didn’t say? I pointed out some of the controversy involving the Anne Frank book. If the left was playing games (they do that a lot), what they did was awful. If some on the right were too sensitive to the truth, then a review of the book should solve the problem. I find nothing wrong with Anne Frank’s Diary if it is published as it is written.

              Your problem Dennis, is that you speak before having reasonable answers. If you can tell us what happened with the book, do so, but provide a first-hand or near first-hand account that we can evaluate for ourselves.

            3. Dennis, this old post to you documents a prior discussion. Anyone can look at the link scrolling to find what our opinions were. You can also continue that prior discussion.

              “Dennis, you continue your quest to impugn people’s character rather than ideas while you close the doors to intelligent discussion. You haven’t provided your case, expecting everyone to do the research you lack.

              If you wish to discuss colonialism, start with India. That rids the idea of black racism from the discussion.”


              Take note Dennis. I am always willing to back up what I say. Are you?

              1. Oh, the irony that Meyer criticizes anyone for behavior that he engages in daily: “you continue your quest to impugn people’s character rather than ideas while you close the doors to intelligent discussion.”

                1. Anonymous the Stupid instead of making your meaningless comments you could have commented on the topic. My guess is you are unable.

            4. Banning books and removing books from school libraries is NOT the same.

              No one has forced Amazon to quit selling any books.

              Actual public libraries – do not carry “Hustler”.
              While the librarians of public libraries have a great deal of discretion – they also do not have infinite resources, and their resources come from the public

              It is not “banning” for the public to say they would prefer that public libraries do not spend their money on pedophilia.

              The discretion of school librarians is even more limited.
              They have far less resources and their focus is the core education of students – according to the wishes of their parents.

              There is no violation of the first amendment in dictating to school librarians what texts they can spend their limited funds that come from the pockets of parents.

              I would note that “to kill a mockingbird” is being banned by THE LEFT – just as “Tom Sawyer” is.

              Did the TX school board pull “Anne Frank’s diary” – if not, then I do not care that they chose not to put “Anne Frank” the comic book on the shelves.

              What are LGBTQ themed books doing in schools ? Do we need to teach Pedophilia too ?

              When students in these schools are reading and writing an doing math at grade level.

              I would also suggest that you actually learn something about the scopes trial – beyond the false narative.

              First it was a publicity stunt.
              Next. Scopes lost.
              Finally, it is reasonable to teach evolution in school science classes – because it is the best science we have on the development of life on this planet.
              It is however STILL within the power of parents to decide their children should NOT be taught evolution or anything else.

              You are free to criticise or think that is stupid. But you do not have the right to demand to control what other peoples children are taught.

              My children have read most of the books you think are being banned, as well as the books and ideas that those of you on the left seek to ban.

              1. RE:”But you do not have the right to demand to control what other peoples children are taught…” Interesting observation.Seems to me that there are people who have assumed that mantle. Let’s see what’s said about that:;

            5. Are you going to allow teaching Charles Murray’s “the Bell Curve” ?

              Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” ?

              Fredrick Hayek’s “The road to Serfdom” ?

              John S. Mill’s “On liberty” ?

              Have you read any of them ?

            6. Parents that want their children to read “Maus” or “Abbe Frank” the comicbook, are free to get that for their children themselves.

              A free society REQUIRES that we can only use force to achieve the Lowest common denominator.

              That values that are not near universally shared, can only be taught by parents – not the sate.

              Anything less is not Freedom. It is tryanny.

    2. Not sure why you would equate racism to people that see that the Marxists long march through our institutions is near completion. The military was the last bastion against cultural marxism.

      Obama set the table by firing over 200 flag officers during his term and President Select is just putting the finishing touches on its co-option.

      A bloodless coup d’etat is near completion

    3. Silly, overblown comment. The FBI has show increasing bias and incompetence over the last 6 years. The leaders at that agency should be sacked with prejudice. Strzok & McCabe keeping their pensions is a travesty. How did Kevin Clinesmith get his Law license back and NOT go to jail (because he didn’t roll over on the FBI agent who told him to forge the CIA email)? Trump may be a boorish DB, but he inadvertaently exposed the rot in DC. And its deep.

  10. It’s at the point where the more accurate question is: Are there any Democratic operatives who are NOT hysterical liars? If so, the time to stand up and be counted is now. Because your party is sinking under the weight of delusion and delirium.



    “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.

    – Wiki

    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.[57] 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.[51] 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.[75]The execution took place on 6 July 1535 at Tower Hill.

    – Wiki

  12. Executive Order 14067.

    If we do not stop them from implementing this Chinese Social Credit Score system here in America, we are in for very dark times.

    They KNOW Trump WILL stop it. Therefore TPTB will do everything they can to stop him. Thus the raid on Mar a Lago. Thus 87,000 new IRS agents being trained to use force if necessary. Because they know it WILL be necessary.

    Vote Republican up and down the ballot as if your freedom and liberty depend on it.

    1. Watch what is currently being rolled out in Canada under the dictatorship of Trudeaux. (Who is, btw, the chosen successor to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum of Psychopaths).

    2. Vote only MAGA America First Republicans. No RINOS. Plug your nose if need be and vote MAGA up and down the ticket to save this country.

    3. RE:”Please, turn off FOX NEWS!” Seriously!?!?! There’s a very good reason why Stelter was sent packing in a skelter, CNN+ failed and FOX has the rating it does.

  13. A stiff dick has no conscience.
    -Enduring American proverb. One that goes double for FBI agents conspiring with their office mates in the pursuit of ‘justice.’

  14. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    – Barack Obama

    “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

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page

    “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

    – Bill Priestap

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,

    James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

    Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

    Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

    Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

    Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

    Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

    Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.

      1. Keep it up, George! Repetition is the mother of skill! Repeat it often enough and it becomes ‘the truth’.

      2. Uh, oh! Looks like I hit a ninny nerve again.

        I do so apologize and thanks again for reading…again.

        Ah, repetition.

        I dearly hope you don’t gather your ire and assail the sun tomorrow for repeating itself and rising, yet again and again and again…

        I think we all still need it.

        We all still need the sun to shine light in dark places revealing truth.

        Light and truth appear to be the dreaded effects of your heinous repetition.

        So be it.

  15. Turley and other Trump defenders never apply any standards of conduct to Trump that they apply to Democrats.

    Strzok had an affair? Turley will go on and I about the details in an effort to discredit him. Trump had many affairs, had a slew of sexual assault and harassment allegations? Turley does not care and it does not warrant a mention. I mean, when Strzok was testifying in Congress, Republican moralizers were tut tutting how immoral his affair was.

    1. Elected and appointed officials reveal personality flaws and expose themselves to “influence” and blackmail when they philander in “affairs” of the heart and other anatomical regions.

      Most sinners seek and are granted forgiveness and salvation – cheaters, corrupt double agents, spies and traitors, not so much.

      What does it mean to backstab your family, colleagues, your agency, fellow citizens and your country in one fell swoop?

      What does that mean regarding the entire 7th Floor?

      Divorce and prosecution are appropriate in romance and intrigue.

      Strzok and Page broke the Ten Commandments, every rule of etiquette, morality and ethics, and every relevant law on the books.

    2. Is an affair our business? Usually not. However, Strzok had an affair with his colleague’s wife. More than 108 million adult females in the US and he picks a colleague’s wife. His bitter animus to Trump would have been fine, but he used his position to keep a dead investigation open solely because of his bitterness of Trump (and perhaps to impress his girlfriend).

      You can hate Trump. You can point out Trump’s affairs. But Strzok was a federal employee using his position (and our tax dollars) to undermine the campaign of a candidate (and at the time civilian) whom he didn’t like. This wasn’t Strzok being a hero. This was Strzok, a self serving and egotistical man, that misled everyone as an FBI employee and now as some media darling.

      1. Lock him up! And shame these pos’s every time you see them out in public. Like the Dems do it — Do not allow them any peace in public. Spit on them. Let them know how reviled they are.

      2. Pecker Stroker & others are still running a Coup from inside the Govt robbing us/me & 250 plus Millions of other’s USC Rights!!!

        American Hating Trash!

  16. Quoting: Strzok’s trolling can hardly be a welcomed addition to the public controversy over their investigation.

    Alternative take. The FBI is so far gone, it’s far more likely that senior management at the FBI are actually encouraging Strzok’s freewheeling commentary…because they consider it helpful.

  17. DUDHAM

    …and William “Mr. Deep Deep State Swamp” Barr brought in the heavy artillery, the highly touted U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut and Special Counsel, John Durham, who, with great haste, entered the arena only to lay down in surrender – to lose in “Mr. Deep Deep State Swamp’s” Great Feint.

    What shall be your legacy John “Dudley Do-Wrong” Dudham, the preservation and advancement of Ben Franklin’s American “republic,” or the casting of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution over the precipice into the abyss of Abraham Lincoln’s Marxist despotism, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” lying at the bottom?

  18. I am enjoying the “tutting” of our lefty scolds.

    They can’t really argue with the substance of Turley’s column, so their attacks are full of “I am not a fan…”, Ditto, +100.

    Not insightful comments, but the lefties still get to feel good about objecting to Turley.

    Self important little people who validate their little lives by “refuting” Turley.

    1. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

      A disorder in which a person has an inflated sense of self-importance.

      SYMPTOMS: An excessive need for admiration, grandiosity, disregard for others’ feelings, a lack of empathy for others, an inability to handle any criticism, and a sense of entitlement – they pronounce judgments on people they perceive as inferior—which is almost everyone.

      TREATMENTS: NPD needs to be diagnosed by a professional; treatment involves talk therapy.

  19. I am not big fan of JT columns and posts like this where the main focus is to go after fellow media contributors and/or professors.

    1. Strzok and his partner in infidelity Lisa Page are poster children for the sickness and rot at the top of the FBI. The American people are in Turley’s debt for calling them out.

    2. That’s because you’re part of the problem. Head in the sand or worse… hands over your ears. You are un-American.

    3. I am not big fan of JT columns

      I’m not a big fan of ad hominem attacks.

      The question. Do YOU think it is ethical of MSNBC to hire Strzok, an FBI agent fired from the FBI for his actions violating of the FBI’s manual, of procedure and ethics.

      Why should these facts not be exposed? Confirming the FBI is a full partner with the media. A team to spread lies.

        1. the main focus is to go after fellow media contributors and/or professors.

          My question is directly on point to your comment.

          What is the problem with building the proof about the media ignoring all journalistic standards, to push a phony narrative? Hiring a proven liar to offer opinions, using only his past credentials to prop up his proven lies.

          Turley has been consistent calling out the media for ignoring known facts, to push a Democrat Party narrative. The reason you don’t like it, is because you want to believe the lies, and these constant reminders your core beliefs are based on media lies

          1. It simply rubs me the wrong way when a column or post appears to focus on an individual instead of a topic (had a similar reaction to Tribe post a couple days ago).

            1. It is not personal. It does focus on the topic. The topic of a media fully in the pocket of the Democrat Party.
              We leared the same thing from the DNC emails, as they discussed all the different media folks that would gladly put their byline on a column wholly written by the Democrat Party.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: