Animal House, Christopher Wray, Congress, DOJ, Donald Trump, FBI, Jeff Sessions, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, the stupid party, Trey Gowdy
The July 12, 2018 public congressional hearings of FBI Agent Peter Strzok proved several things: (1) Republicans deserve the title “The Stupid Party,” and continue to earn it every day. (2) Democrats continue to demonstrate they are the post-constitution, current socialist and future communist party. (3) The Department of Justice and FBI continue to be led by hopelessly corrupt Democrat/deep state operatives. (4) Neither organization is trustworthy, and may never be trustworthy again. (5) Strzok’s testimony did even more damage to the FBI than any of the many blows to its credibility its former and current leaders have inflicted on it in the last several years. (6) The self-imagined elite’s hatred of normal Americans is virtually limitless.
During my police days, I occasionally worked with FBI agents. Some were decent, professional people. Most were very much like Strzok: arrogant, condescending, petty, deceptive, full of unmerited self-regard, and brimming with hubris. Considering what Strzok has been caught doing, considering he has been demoted–he was the number two man in the FBI intelligence division, an assistant deputy director–considering he was recently escorted out of FBI headquarters, and may–may–face firing, one would expect Strzok to display at least a bit of feigned contrition, the smallest glimmer of humility. At the very least, one would think he would not wear a constant smirk. One would be wrong. Fox News noted:
Strzok, throughout it all, remained defiant and maintained that he did not show bias in those infamous messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
SC Republican Trey Gowdy:
…questioned “how many witnesses” Strzok interviewed before an August 2016 text from Strzok to Page stating ‘we’ll stop’ then-candidate Trump from becoming president.
Strzok said he was not able to answer the question based on instructions from FBI counsel.
An FBI attorney was seated behind Strzok throughout the hearings. Threatened with contempt, Strzok later said the attorney said he could answer the question:
But after Gowdy asked it again, Strzok replied only:
‘I don’t recall. I’d have to check the case file.’
‘That’s eerily similar to what you said a couple of hours ago. I’m looking for a number,’ Gowdy said. ‘You don’t recall interviews conducted in the first week of an investigation you originated?”’
Strzok maintained that he did not remember, which touched off another heated exchange with Gowdy.
Granted, Congress is scarcely worthy of respect, but Strzok managed to make his questioners look like paragons of virtue. His opening statement cloaked Strzok in patriotism, equated him with the integrity of the FBI, and claimed so much as accusing him of wrongdoing played into “our enemies’ campaign to tear American apart.” He also invoked “Russia!” equating any criticism of him with helping Vladimir Putin.
It was the classic Animal House defense, from the scene where Otter, played by Tim Matheson, realizing he and his fellow Deltas were guilty as sin, wrapped them all in the flag. The only difference is Strzok and his FBI minders stuck around. The Deltas marched out, humming the National Anthem.
One of the most infamous, and troubling, text exchanges between Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page, which who Strzok was having an affair, occurred in August, 2016:
Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Strzok claimed he didn’t remember writing that text. However, he suddenly remembered that he wrote it “late at night, in shorthand.”
At another point during Thursday’s hearing, Strzok said he believes it was the result of the outrage at the time over Trump’s spat with Khizr Khan, whose son was killed during the Iraq War and who became a prominent critic of Trump.
‘You need to understand that that was written late at night, off-the-cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible disgusting behavior [was] that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States,’ Strzok said.
Strzok continually portrayed himself as a great patriot, and said the “we” that would prevent Donald Trump from becoming president were the American people. This is interesting in that nowhere in Strzok’s thousands of communications with Page does he use the American people or the electorate as a pronoun antecedent, just as he did not in that text exchange.
Strzok adamantly maintained that his non-stop, incredibly biased statements did not in any way indicate bias, and that they had no effect whatever on his work. He argued that there were many superiors over him and many others under him who would never have allowed any such thing to occur, and indignantly wrapped himself in a pristine reputation of the FBI that no longer exists. Considering what is known about the former Director–James Comey–and former Deputy Director–Andrew McCabe–Strzok’s assertion is as laughable as it is deceptive.
Questioned about his dismissal from the Mueller investigation, Strzok said he was not dismissed because of his bias, but because of “appearance” or “perception.” One of the reasons I seldom watch congressional hearings, apart from the clown show atmosphere and grotesque political posturing, is virtually no member of Congress has any idea how to conduct competent questioning, and few, if any ever ask intelligent, obvious follow up questions. In this case, the obvious follow up question, which was apparently not asked, would be: “Appearance or perception of what?” The only honest answer would be: “bias.”
Democrats did everything they could to obstruct, continually raising parliamentary points, making demands and motions and calling for votes. Their tactics appeared to catch the Republican majority by surprise–The Stupid Party; they never learn–and substantially disrupted the hearings, particularly whenever a Republican made a rare, telling point:
An already raucous hours-long Congressional hearing into FBI agent Peter Strzok’s apparent anti-Trump bias boiled over on Thursday afternoon, as a top Republican asked the ‘smirking’ Strzok whether he was lying under oath the same way he ‘lied’ to his wife while he carried on an affair with now-former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
‘The disgrace is what this man has done to our justice system,’ Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, shouted over objections by Democrats. ‘I can’t help but wonder, when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page?’
Democrats immediately erupted into more objections, with one yelling, ‘Mr. Chairman, this is intolerable harassment of the witness’ and another calling out, ‘You need your medication.
Democrats have now publicly defended adultery by a man particularly in danger of being compromised to the detriment of America’s national security. That is, of course, no surprise. They’ve been defending such things for years. Strzok continually lied. He knew he was lying, and everyone present knew he was lying. The Spectator observed:
One act of obvious perjury during the hearing was Strzok’s claim — which he presented as incontrovertible proof of his apolitical professionalism — that he ‘never’ spoke to reporters about the investigation before election day. Strzok didn’t even bother to coordinate this lie with his defense attorney, who has previously admitted that Strzok talked to reporters about the investigation. Strzok’s attorney wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today saying that ‘Peter and others’ at the FBI ‘actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation.’ How did he do that without talking to them?
According to the New York Times, Strzok’s team had been chatting with its reporters about the investigation for six weeks or so before election day. In the paper’s pre-election article on the FBI’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russian collusion, it stated: ‘Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate.
And in a related development, the Department of Justice has, once again, made a number of political indictments of people they know will never be arrested or tried. Fox News reports:
A federal grand jury has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for allegedly hacking emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party during the 2016 election, the Justice Department announced Friday.
‘The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,’ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said during a press conference.
All 12 defendants are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency.
The case stems from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. It comes as President Trump plans to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for a summit in Helsinki on Monday.
This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to divert attention away from Strzok’s disastrous testimony, could it? I’m sure readers recall Robert Mueller’s recent and previous indictment of several Russians. When at least one of the defendant’s attorneys appeared in court to answer the charges, Mueller’s lackeys panicked. Their indictments were entirely political-public relations. They never expected to have to prosecute anyone, and surely have no evidence to prove any crime. I suspect that’s the case with Rosenstein’s latest PR prosecution.
Despite the general fecklessness of Republicans and the predictable and juvenile obstructionism of Democrats, there were at least a few lessons. Bruce Ohr, former top DOJ official that worked closely with the DOJ’s #2 Rod Rosenstein, gave the FBI the Steele dossier. We now know the FBI obtained at least three separate versions of that dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC. The DOJ and FBI knew this–Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, the company that prepared the dossier–and knew it was entirely unverified, but used it to obtain FISA warrants against people associated with the Trump Campaign.
Strzok’s behavior, his violations of FBI and DOJ rules, and his obvious lies, should have been sufficient to end his FBI career, and long ago. In the not too distant past, involvement in an affair was sufficient grounds, particularly for any agent involved in counter intelligence, because of the very real threat of compromise. The IG’s report noted that Strzok was not credible (I addressed that report here, here and here). Yet Strzok continues to be employed, and is even provided FBI lawyers. It is not unreasonable to think Strzok’s despicable behavior is a result of his obvious belief he is untouchable. He surely knows where a great many skeletons and closets are.
All of this reveals, yet again, the continuing corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI. Both agencies continue to stonewall Congress.–all Americans. Rod Rosenstein is involved in every scandal of the last several years, and likely longer, up to his eyeballs, but continues to be the #2 man in the DOJ. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ photo should be on milk cartons under “have you seen this man?” captions. FBI Director Christopher Wray, like Rosenstein, has promised to conduct “training” for everyone in his agency. Apparently FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors have to be trained to be truthful, ethical, not to conduct illegal surveillance on American citizens, not to lie to the courts, and not to break the law in general. Oh yes, and the value of avoiding participating in coups. Fun facts to know and tell.
It is also no coincidence that Lisa Page managed to stall her behind- closed-doors appearance before Congress until Friday, July 13. All she had to do was make sure her testimony tracked with that of Strzok and she’s home free.
All of this could be resolved, and quickly, if Jess Sessions simply ordered his underlings to completely cooperate with Congress, and appointed an independent counsel–not a swamp dweller–to handle the obvious crimes of the Democrat operatives of the DOJ and FBI. The same is true of FBI Director Wray. And failing that, Mr. Trump has the power to do all of this, and more, fire both if they will not enforce the law, and see that high-ranking criminals are prosecuted.
Absent this, the FBI and DOJ will have no credibility, just political utility for the Democrat Party. Democrats are entirely comfortable with that. If our Republic is to survive, America cannot be. A good place to start, moving from there above and below, is Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
UPDATE, 07-13-18, 2110 CST: Take this link, provided by my favorite Bookworm, and view the video. I’ll let it speak for itself.
Wow! Maybe you should call up Congress and let them know you have got it all figured out, Mike… and with indisputable evidence to boot! (Well, if you get past all the “It’s so obvious” justifications).
Congress has it figured out as well, as do well informed citizens. Nearly half of Congress doesn’t care and has a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Sorry it isn’t as obvious to you.
It’s gotta be about facts and evidence, Allyn. This “It’s so obvious” garbage from conservatives is just fodder for maintaining the partisan split.
I’m guessing this will be like fingernails on a blackboard to you.. but I illustrate my point here……
Mike McDaniel said:
Fair enough. Please explain why the facts and evidence I’ve presented in this article are wrong.
Well, that’s the whole point, Mike. I see no facts and evidence you’ve presented. :)
Mike McDaniel said:
Oh dear. You see no facts or evidence, so you don’t need to engage them. Good one. Let’s try just two:
1) Strzok claimed he never talked to the press. The press, and others, have proof he did.
2) Strzok claimed he couldn’t remember writing the “we’ll stop him” text, yet remembered everything about writing it.
Is Strzok just mistaken, does he have a failing memory, or is he lying? If mistaken or if his memory fails, isn’t that rather serious in an FBI agent? It certainly is if he’s lying.
So facts/evidence. Comments?
Let’s say I agree to your two elements as being factual (and I could in theory) the greater question is just what does that prove? You trying to draw some parallel that if he’s “lying” about this then his entire Congressional testimony is suspect…. which then points directly to a grand FBI leadership conspiracy against Trump? The other point is.. if he IS lying (to your two elements) then why hasn’t the committee placed him in contempt.. or indict him? So.. what you are suggesting is that in the court of public opinion from watching TV coverage it’s obvious to you that he is lying.. at least pertaining to your two examples here.
Honestly… I go along with the IG report.. Why? If for nothing else other than I, as an American, I have to believe and trust in something from a federal law enforcement agency… until such time it’s proven untrue by my elected officials.
Mike McDaniel said:
Unlike most people, I have extensive police experience. I don’t think that makes be superior to anyone else, just more knowledgable in that area. I am always more than aware that I don’t have all of the facts, every document available to the Congress, the DOJ and FBI. I doubt the public will ever see more than a small portion of that information. But I can tell when police officers aren’t doing what they should be doing. I know the signs of incompetence, and worse, cover up. I am also skilled at detecting lies.
Peter Strzok was lying. I caught many “tells,” and as I pointed out in the article, there is evidence of his lies. His assertion that he was not in any way biased, though he did agree he detests Mr. Trump, was not remotely credible, and the IG agreed on that point.
Would you say, Doug, that anyone that spoke of his wife the way Strzok and Page spoke of Mr. Trump, would be able to treat her with fairness? Do you think anyone speaking of Barack Obama the same way Strzok and Page spoke of Mr. Trump wouldn’t be fired instantly?
I certainly could be wrong, and if and when evidence that indicates I am is revealed, I’ll alter my conclusions accordingly, as I always do. I certainly don’t have it all figured out, not even close, but I do know Strzok violated the policies and rules of the FBI and DOJ, has perjured himself, and, based on the elements of the statue, has arguably obstructed justice.
A fair reply, Mike. I am certainly unqualified to impugne your law enforcement background and skills. Yet it’s one thing to see someone’s “tells”… in this case that Strzok could be lying… and then asking yourself why might he be lying? I know y’all like this deep state conspiracy thing within the FBI and all agencies being united against Trump… but there’s NO evidence being revealed anywhere. I personally have little issue with Strzok being booted from the FBI.. he messed up. But there is nothing to suggest he was in some conspiracy. That’s just Trump diversion antics.
Criminal juries are asked to reach verdicts based on evidence. The standard for conviction is whether proof has been presented that, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty.
It is incumbent upon Judges that they rule based on facts, without being influenced by their biases. In confirmation hearings, Senators delve into the biases of prospective judges/justices. Why? They know that it is difficult for humans to remain open minded. But, judges have to write explanations of their rulings which always go against the interest of one of the parties. Very visible.
Now imagine that a high ranking FBI agent, not only has a bias against an individual, but literally hates everything about that individual. But more than that. He hates everyone who supports said individual and thinks they smell.
Now imagine that that very high ranking agent must investigate the binary alternative to this most hated person. He realizes that if the alternative (HRC) is indicted for what appears to be obvious crimes, the binary alternative that he hates everything about, will become President. President of the United States. The most powerful elected office in the world and yet this agent “knows”that he would be a disaster.
Is it hard to conclude that he thought his decision to change the language in Comey’s statement about her illegal activities, in order to protect HRC, were patriotic?
But what if he still could win? Not a chance. But, despite the very small odds, the agent felt he needed an insurance policy, should the highly remote possibility actually occur. Perhaps he could tilt the field to protect the country from a disaster. And unlike judges having to write lengthy documents justifying their decisions, this agent had no adversary to which he must explain. Only other sympathizers.
This particular agent didn’t factor in the OIG. Oops. Perhaps there was an unbiased arbiter who might look over his shoulder. Oh shit! What about all those texts that show the culpability and bias?
If anyone asks, I’ll just tell them that my bias never affected my work. The OIG didn’t buy it and neither would any honest individual who saw that he urged against a criminal referral for HRC but opened an investigation into the hated Trump. Lots of evidence against HRC but none against Trump.
I would have no problem, based on the evidence available publicly, in convicting the Agent of being biased and allowing that bias to influence his decisions. Not sure what crime that would be, but the violation of his sworn duties is obvious.
Allyn… I’ll agree he messed up professionally with the emails. The IG said no bias in his work.
You said… “Lots of evidence against HRC but none against Trump.” Nothing against Trump… so far. Unless you’ve been privy to the investigation?
Comey said evidence against HRC was not enough to indict. Trump said he fired Comey to block the investigation.
Your “if it smells like a duck” opinion is pretty much a duck outta water.
Doug, actually you are wrong on a couple of accounts. The OIG did not say no bias in his work. He said he found no written or testimonial evidence that his bias affected his investigatons. That means Strzok didn’t put in writing that he was letting HRC off because he hated Trump and he would not testify that was the case. Other portions of OIG report blast him for his bias.
Second, Comey didn’t say evidence was not enough to indict HRC. He said he found no evidence that HRC intended to break the law. He never said she didn’t break the law. (Intent is not required, merely negligence.) He said that no prosecutor would indict. How could he know that? He is not a prosecutor. Trey Gowdy, who was a prosecutor, said he could have easily indicted her. Remember that it was Strzok that changed the wording in Comey’s speech from gross negligence to extremely careless.
Since you are so sure that everything was above board on the HRC investigation, oops, I mean matter, perhaps you could explain why Cheryl Mills and Huma were given immunity without getting anything in exchange. And why fact witnesses were allowed to attend HRC interview. And why HRC was not under oath and no recordings were allowed. And why the FBI agreed to only look at portions of the computer and allowed it to be destroyed afterwards. And why did they physically destroy phones with hammers if no classified data was on them?
No evidence. Hard to find evidence when you voluntarily restrict the investigation the way Strzok did. But emails released and sworn testimony of what was found is adequate evidence for reasonable cause that a crime was committed.
By the way, it was Comey who swore that many statements made by HRC during her sworn testimony were false. Flynn inducted, but not HRC. No bias there.
Actually.. I would fully agree with all of what you said. Now.. tell me this… just what do you expect should happen with all this? Do you honestly think that groveling around to find someone who will throw HRC in jail because you and Trump think she’s guilty of some high crime.. how does that relate to ANYTHING in the here-and-now? Are you hoping Strzok will some lead to a trail of impure misdeeds to discredit Mueller? Or are you going to tell me that we simply can’t just ignore all this (obvious to you) criminal injustice because we are a nation of laws and our country will be a much greater America if HRC, Strzok, and all those conservatives-turned-liberals in the deep state are behind bars.. and that damn Mueller is tarred and feathered?
Are you going to remember any of this when the sky begins to fall on Trump?
We have FAR more important issues in this country than protecting Trump from his “enemies”.
Doug, I think the OIG report dismisses your contention.
“The IG specifically cited a text message in which Strzok told Page in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Trump from being elected.
“[I]t is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” the IG said. “Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.” “
I think that the Hillary investigation should be looked at again. I believe she broke many laws. Following are a few:
18 U.S.C. § 1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material: Class A Misdemeanor
It is undisputed that she retained classified information on her server. Over 1300 emails have been redacted because of various classification concerns. It is not material whether those documents had classification markings at the time of sending or receipt. I believe this is the crime to which Petraeus pled guilty, was fined $100,000and placed on probation for two years. The Army is considering a retroactive demotion which would result in the return of hundreds of thousands of dollars of compensation, and a lower pension, as further punishment.
18 U.S.C. § 793 Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information: Felony
Her staff cut and pasted information from classified DOD documents and sent the information to her private server where she controlled it. She printed portions of it and then attempted to delete it from her server.
18 U.S.C. § 2071 Concealment, Removal, Or Mutilation Generally: Felony
She deleted emails from her server. She concealed them for years. She mutilated the evidence by printing the text without preserving the associated meta data.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 Destruction, Alteration, Or Falsification Of Records In Federal Investigations And Bankruptcy: Felony “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.”
She did this in spades. At least one email was altered before it was printed and provided; mutilation of the meta data; deletion of 38,000 records if even one of them involves government business or was evidence of public corruption.
Additionally, she committed perjury when she swore that she had submitted all documents. This was proven when copies were found from other sources, such as Sid Blumenthal, that had been sent to her or sent to them by her.
Additionally, she allowed people without the proper clearance to view the classified data on her server, supposedly to help her determine which were personal and which were subject to the FOIA laws. 1,300+ emails with classified information times the number of individuals viewing those documents without proper clearance equals thousands of counts. Think Petraeus.
Additionally, she most likely violated FOIA laws by failing to turnover all documents in her possession upon her departure as SOS and or by deleting 38,000 records if even one of them involves government business.
You say “We have FAR more important issues in this country than protecting Trump from his “enemies”.”
I say we have FAR more important issues in this country than protecting Hillary and disrupting presidential duties.
Oh please. The future of the nation.. the FBI.. all the intel agencies.. Bank of America, the Boy Scouts of America, is NOT dependent on HRC an her alleged improprieties. No.. nada. I will not argue nor debate what you’ve given as speculation on what your hatred for Hillary wants to do a “get back”. Her damn 30,000 emails and conservative Trumpian hatred for her and Obama is doing nothing for the country. Your guy is President.. your party (or what used to be a party) is running Congress.. go spin whatever wheels are necessary for you to suck on the Hillary pacifier. Hell.. go toss her in jail.. who really cares at this stage?
Trump is screwing up everywhere.. and more importantly is NOT defending America against an enemy cyber attack. Jeez… get real here.
Mike McDaniel said:
Uh, the cyberattacks about which Rosenstein, et al are referring took place during the Obama years. He was told about them and did nothing.
You know… there was a time when we were all united Americans. Our country has been, and is being attacked by Russia. Now.. no one is yet dying.. the caskets are not arriving at Dover to graphically show the sacrifice being made on some remote battlefield. Mushroom clouds are not showing up on the skylines of our cities. But Conservatives are spending so much time defending Trump at all costs.. that they.. hell, you guys in here… have forgotten what it’s like to be an American.
Who cares where the damn blame falls in first discovering the Russians were messing around! What should matter to you and everyone else in this blog is that in the here-and-now Russia is attacking; our intel, our defense department, all the agencies we put in place to guard our freedom, are being ignored, disparaged, and maligned simply to protect the politics surrounding Trump. Recent polls are showing that 90% have no faith that Trump will address Putin with any vigor at the Monday meeting. I would worry far less about Hillary’s damn emails… what else can be blamed on Obama… your perceptions that illegals are running amok around the country.. and start to worry how we are going to defend the country come Tuesday morning when Trump starts with another round of lies.
Mike McDaniel said:
Russia has always been working to undermine us. There’s nothing at all new about that. That’s why we have an FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. We are only hearing about it now because it’s politically useful to the Democrats. Democrats have, since Mr. Trump took office, changed their attitude toward Russia 180°. Previously, any attempt to criticize the Russians was going to start WWIII. Remember how Ted Kennedy asked the Russians to help him undermine President Reagan? Now, any attempt to try to establish good relations with the Russians is high treason. Do remember too, please, that we have damaging sanctions in place against Russia, which Mr. Trump is maintaining.
There are millions of illegals in America, and more are seeking to come and stay every day. This is a good thing?
Defend the country? You’re aware that President Trump has reversed the precipitous decline Mr. Obama forced on our military? That he is restoring not only their materials, but their focus?
Doug, the Democrat party is screaming for socialism. Is that what’s it’s like to be an American?
What’s with the damn history lesson? That applies to now.. or is this more conservative Trump-is-good posturing being more important than the nation’s response to a cyber attack? And you are ex-military, Mike? Well.. I tell you what.. you protect Trump. I prefer calling for the to defense of the country what little I can.
“The Democrat party is screaming for socialism. Is that what’s it’s like to be an American?”
Maybe the better question is…. Is this what it’s like being a Conservative “American” these days… suspicious of everyone who doesn’t like what you like, intolerant of past traditional American values, totally inflexible to compromise at any cost, and so totally consumed from within to the point where the defense of the nation under direct threat is secondary to political posturing?
And you wonder why people are reflecting a degree of increased violent tendencies? It’s when we start looking at each other and seeing the enemy. Right now the true enemy resides in Moscow. At least that’s my perception.
This piece. This piece is what I refer to as… Journalism. Sure it’s an Editorial, but they once were based on facts (note the quotation marks and attribution). That’s facts and that’s evidentary based facts; words from the mouths of those under oath.
Washington Post, New York Times? Fish-wrap at best case scenario. Here they are: “an unnamed source close to the investigation said…” A source who declined to give his name told the news editor… JUNK. Shit.
This guy Mike Daniel knows how to write an unbiased piece, accurately and chocked full of informative news. This is golden. My hats off to you, Mike.
Family member, Mike? :)
Mike has a respectful following. He doesn’t need any shills!
Even if they butcher his last name!
Mike McDaniel said:
Nah. I thought they were one of yours.
Mike McDaniel said:
Thanks. I do try to attribute everything, and hope to be clear when I’m talking about fact and when I’m expressing opinion.
Rosenstein scored a two-fer by indicting the GRU officers.
Not only did he knock Strozk’s terrible performance off the news, but he also gave the NeverTrumpers, Democrats, and Russian Conspiracy Fans more to crow about just before President Trump meets with Vladimir Putin. I am surprised that more people besides Senator McCain haven’t tried to scuttle their summit meeting. Anything to keep the Russian Conspiracy alive, and attempting to keep President Trump from succeeding.
I wonder? Remember the last time Mueller indicted Russians? If the previous indictments against the Russian corporation fails or get thrown out, would Putin ask one of the new “desperadoes” to demand his day in court? Would Mueller and the FBI risk turning over evidence including sources and methods to the Russian defendant, especially a trained spy? Or would they punt and withdraw the charges? Imagine what a propaganda victory that would be for Vlad? Worse comes to worse, Vlad could offer to trade an “American Spy” for his GRU officer, which would have the side benefit of increasing Putin’s standing with the GRU.
Strzok’s demeanour tells the tale, the smugness and outrage.
This guy think’s he’s the smartest person in the room (reference: BHO). The hallmark of a liberal elitist. He believes that he knows what’s best for the peons and they simply do not have the sense to appreciate him for it, so he holds them in contempt.
Marty… Strzok is NOT the problem. The IG report says there was no bias from anyone involved in any investigation. Fire Strzok, throw him in jail for some Congressional contempt if he lied under oath in answering those nonsense questions, it doesn’t change a damn thing. Let’s deal with it and move on. Trump and his GOP minions can’t discredit the Mueller investigation. There’s other way more important things to work on.
Doug, what is more important than ensuring that the integrity and credibility of the nation’s premier law-enforcement agency is beyond question?
What is more important than ensuring that the individuals that the People put in trust of governing the nation do it in an honest, fair manner that first and foremost keeps the safety and welfare of the American people front and center?
I presume by “important things” you mean ensuring that Russia and no other nations can interfere in the US electoral process. Please explain how you can do that if the conditions in my first two paragraphs are not in place?
Odd coincidence. Just found this article. He says it much better than I did.
“Seemingly lost on Mr. Strzok and the oversight committees is a higher principle worth fighting for. You see, the FBI is more than an institution or an agency. It is an ideal of trust and fairness. It would be hard to name another agency more vital to the health of the Republic. It is the FBI that most directly preserves from corruption, on a daily basis, the underpinnings of democratic processes and protects the citizenry from abuse by those to whom it has granted authority.”
Ramirez’s cartoon sums it all up,
They stole the FBI Integrity, and destroyed it.
Actually, no they didn’t. They destroyed their own careers in the FBI perhaps. The credibility of the FBI is not destroyed. Rather, Conservatives sacrificed (and are perfectly willing to take any other agency down with it) the FBI’s credibility in their own minds simply to defend Trump… and we know a good portion of that defense of Trump requires a constant deflection to HRC and Obama. In fact.. that’s far more important than the Russians cyber-attacking America.
Let me go out on a limb here… You voted for Obama twice and then HRC after voting for Sanders in the primary.
Nope. But in typical Trump-base fashion you are trying to judge my response based on……. what exactly.. objectivity?
Nope. It means that unless you root out the rot at the highest levels of the FBI, CIA and any other alphabet agencies, you’re going to more and more susceptible to attacks by Russia and other bad actors.
Ohh jeez.. now we are blaming Russian hacking of our elections on some deep state conspiracy theory hell-bent on their own agenda to the point that all agencies are not being watchful and doing their jobs??
You really need to get a life, friend.
Actually, Marty is correct. Hillary was the highest level of DOS. She chose to put every email on a private, insecure server. Comey testified that at least 6 state actors hacked her. Marty was correct.
Comey, head of the FBI, didn’t recommend prosecuting HRC which would have been a huge deterrent to future abuses by others. Others who will no doubt be subject to Russian cyberattacks. Marty was correct.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, is rotten to the core. She gave unfettered access to Pakistani nationals to her Congrssioal computer system, the DNC system and encouraged 40 something of her Democrat peers to allow their systems to be accessed by these Pakistani nationals. When irregularities were brought to her attention, she defended them and resisted law enforcements efforts to secure and protect the data on these systems, Marty was correct.
Mike McDaniel said:
What you said.
Doug, I guess you think J Edgar Hoover wasn’t a problem either. The FBI leadership under Comey and McCabe became politically weaponized. I had great respect for Comey. I had never heard of McCabe or his merry band of conspirators until after the election. I have no doubt that they are extremely bright and served for most of their careers with integrity.
Rosenstein, the same guy who appointed Mueller, recommended Comey’s firing. The IG said Comey was insubordinate and basically reaffirmed his firing. He was fired, I believe, because Comey kept telling Trump that he was not under investigation (confirmed by Comey’s sworn testimony) but Comey would not “exonerate” Trump by saying that publicly.
The statement “a fish rots from the head down” means that leadership is the root cause of an organization’s failure and demise. No, I don’t believe that the FBI has lost its credibility. I do believe that some of those at the very top allowed themselves, and thus the direction of the FBI, to become corrupted from their core mission and principles. They signed off on a FISA warrant (4 times over a 1 year period) based primarily on the false dossier sponsored by Hillary and the DNC. They knew it should not have been used as the basis for the warrant as it was unverified and it was provided by political enemies of its target. Don’t take my word for it, Andrew McCabe swore that without the dossier that there would have been no warrant.
Do I think Hillary is corrupt and do I want to see her prosecuted for the crimes I believe she committed? Absolutely. Do I believe Trump has been treated unfairly by the DOJ /FBI? Absolutely. Does that mean I can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? No. Do you really believe that the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting was by chance and innocent?
Do I believe that the Russians tried to sow discontent into the results of the election? Yes. Did they try to affect who would win? I don’t know. I believe they wanted chaos more than they favored either candidate. Hillary was a lock to win. I’m sure that they did not want a US President made strong by an election landslide mandate. They ran propaganda against both candidates and were behind the “Not my President” rallies after the election. Were you concerned when you found that they promoted those!
Every intelligence agency and law enforcement agency who has opined has agreed that the Russian interference had no impact on the election. Obama said that it was ridiculous to suggest that the outcome of the presidential election could be hacked. So, get off your high horse about that. But, what if the US were to interfere in the free election of another country? How would you feel about that? How did you feel about that when Obama did that?
After over two years of investigating and about 30 individuals and companies indicted (25 of which are Russian), not one charge of conspiring with any US entity to affect the outcome of the election or to hack anyone. The subject of the year long FISA warrant has not been charged and is not even a target. Each US citizen indicted could have easily been investigated by the FBI/DOJ rather than a Special Cousel. In fact, Manafort and Page had been investigated by the FBI when Mueller was director! Charges were not pursued at the time as they were not felt to be prosecutable.
One ridiculous aspect of the entire “Russia” thing is that the Clintons have benefited greatly from their dealings with Russians with close ties to Putin, have received huge payments from Russians with close ties to Putin, and they conspired to launder money through a law firm in order to use foreign nationals, including Russians with ties to Putin, to produce a document used to initiate an investigation into their political opponents.
Am I concerned about Russian cyberattacks? Sure, but I will rely on our defense agencies to protect us against all threats from Russia by preventing as many as they can and by mitigating those that they cannot. That leaves the DOJ and FBI free to work on investigating our domestic bad actors, like Clinton!
My God, Allyn. Everything in your political world boils down to defending Trump and somehow vindicating the election for him, which he won?
I’d not presume to rely on any agencies to defend against the Russians attacks because the leader of this country refuses to give authorizing for the agencies to do anything in defense or offense to the attacks. Are you even living in this world?
You must be a bot. I did not defend Trump in any way. You didn’t address a single point except that you don’t trust agencies to protect us even though the budget increases defense spending.
You didn’t defend Trump in any way?? Your entire comment you are lamenting that I did not even attempt to address (intentionally, I might add) is so full of Trump diversion defensiveness. I told you before… arrest HRC.. throw Obama in chains.. who the hell cares! There’s a country to run in the here and now.. the Russians are attacking on a new battlefield… immigration at the borders is a huge boondoggle… Congress is more totally inept compared to anything in MY entire lifetime…. the deficit is skyrocketing and out of control… international diplomacy has nearly ruined our relations with our allies… we are in trade wars across hemispheres.. our own President loves dictators and political demagogues more than our allies, the democratic world is in relative political chaos………. and you and your buddies in here are worried about Obama, Clinton, and a couple FBI goof-ups who used a government connection to express their dislike for Trump… before the election that he won anyway??
As a fellow American concerned about his country (not his president, because the president does not respect his job) I might suggest you re-orient your priorities. But.. hey.. for now.. it’s a free country. That’s just a suggestion.
Mike McDaniel said:
You’re right. We need a far better immigration system, but one that controls our borders and allows in only people that will be a net benefit to America, not a drain on our resources. The Congress is a mess. But let’s be accurate: the deficit is dangerously high, but it was caused by both parties. However, let’s keep in mind Barack Obama raised it more than every other president before him, and in only 8 years. Yes, Mr. Trump has already added a trillion+, but let’s keep in mind the role of the Congress throughout. Let’s also keep in mind his stimulation of the economy to levels experts said were no longer attainable is the primary way we’ll ever pay the deficit down.
It was Barack Obama that made the world a far more dangerous place, not only because he attacked our allies and embraced our enemies–Iran, for example–but because he badly damaged our military. Mr. Trump has reversed all of that. Demanding our allies live up to their treaty obligations is not harming our alliance, but strengthening it. Mr. Trump loves dictators? That’s why he’s pressuring Iran and supporting Israel attacks on Iranians in Syria and Lebanon? That’s why we’re on the verge of ending the Korean War and denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula? True, that may not work out entirely, but no other president has done as much. That’s why he’s strengthening NATO and our military, repairing the damage Mr. Obama did?
We are not actually in a trade war in any real sense, but Mr. Trump is trying to adjust the trade balance in America’s favor. The results of the effort are not yet in.
It’s entirely possible, indeed, relatively easy to be concerned about the FBI, and related wrong doing in the Federal Government, and every other problem facing America, and the readers of this scruffy little blog demonstrate that ability on a daily basis.
And Doug, America’s not going to be a free country? Only if we don’t follow the Constitution and live under the rule of law, and Mr. Trump is ensuring both. Should you disagree, please provide one example, just one, of how Mr. Trump has actually done anything to damage the Constitution or the Rule of Law.
Oh, Mike.. to begin with I have never accused Trump of damaging the Constitution and/or rule of law. In fact… I’ve never thought of accusing any president of that. Unlike you and others, I tend to believe in our checks & balances.. hell, I even believe in the FBI, the CIA… and pretty much everything about our government Trumpian Conservatives want to drag through the Trumpian mud these days. I tend to believe in the basic good in people… and I suppose I tend to believe not everything in government is all about money & power.. and elitism (whatever the current definition of that is).
But I will admit to something… you Trumpsters must have been waiting for decades and decades for just this one guy to get elected… and I’ve said this to you before, I have never worshiped a president like you folks. You’ve placed so much hope and trust that he’s done good just because his renegade style matches your perception of what America should be. Here’s the truly sad part… you and your ilk are relishing every frustration being reflected by anti-Trump people; you’re honestly loving the turmoil and chaos Trump is responsible for with a measure of self-satisfaction in languishing in some “It’s about time!” vindictiveness.
The enemy is not your fellow Americans, Mike.
Mike, it is unfortunate your blog template squeezes multiple levels of replies to a comment into such a narrow column. There are many “responsive” WordPress templates available that address this problem. Just sayin’.
You gentlemen have clearly never heard the phrase “do not feed the troll.” ;-)
Seems you have two choices, friend… feed the troll to try and exchange some viewpoints.. or just go back to your own little world where everyone agrees with you.. and you can fingerpoint to the outside, to all those nasty liberals and anti-Trumpsters, blaming them for your sorry lot in life.. and then pat yourselves on the back for having all the answers.
sooooooo everybody…didja change doug’s mind?
Have you seen YOUR leader’s performance at the “Surrender Summit”? Has he changed your mind yet?
hey; it’s not like he sent plane loads of cash to him in the middle of the night. or signed a treaty (Yalta) consigning millions of people to their deaths in gulags or pogroms
To everyone debating with Doug, keep this in mind, “You can’t argue or reason with a person who has mental issues” You know, Riding the Crazy Train?
Weelll.. depends the kind of mental issues. For example, look at our President… he’s riding the crazy train both ways. Yet he is still able to make of fool of himself and America two days in a row, on the same subject.
Relish the moment, my friend. It’s gonna get worse.
Doug, its time to stop living in the past. Russia needs USA sanctions lifted and the USA needs Russia as a trading partner and ally. Who took out the ISIS faction in the Middle East? Russia. Putin is a strong leader and is loved by his people. Apparently Trump and Putin have a lot in common when it comes to putting their country first. Your tired old screaming about Trump is built on your ignorance from watching too much lamestream media.
Perhaps you are correct in that my “screaming” about Trump is tired and old. Russia’s GDP is about 12th in the world.. and hugely behind No. 1 U.S. We certainly don’t “need” Russia for our economic stability in the world. If anything, they need us. We need them as an ally? Not sure what history books you’ve been reading but other than being “quick” and expedient WW2 allies, Russia has not been an ally in the strictest political sense for the bulk of the 20th century and going into this century.
You are also correct.. the one major difference between Trump and Putin is that Putin is loved by his people more than Trump is “loved” by his people.
You might wanna un-bury your head from that FoxNews hole in the sand.
We don’t need Russia for our economic stability, you said. I agree. But we do need for Russia to have a fairly healthy economy. Why? Because they are an important military power with the second largest number of nuclear weapons. Healthy countries are less likely to attack their neighbors. A hungry man is more likely to rob his neighbor. A failing superpower might need to use military aggression to support its appetite.
I totally agree with the concept of encouraging a healthy economy as a political stabilizing measure. If you look at the Russian economy you will see a lot of American/Western influence.. in fact, to most Americans it would be quite surprising to see. There’s a fair amount of U.S. money in the coffers of the oligarchs because of business with U.S. firms… as well as consumer products, when to most living baby boomers we recall Soviet citizens standing in long lines for standard staples items like toiler paper. A lot has changed since the Cold War days. In fact, a major cause of the fall of the Soviets was economic bankruptcy as result of all the defense spending to try and keep up with us; they simply ran out of economic gas.
On the nuclear fear.. I’ve lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation through the Cold War years and the nuclear threats posed around the world.. Russia, North Korea, Pakistan/India, China… et al, The current “threat” (quotes to de-emphasize the meaning) is nothing like it was… and the idea we need to give a primary worry is probably as close to fake news as anyone can get. The reason is that there’s no singular ideology.. like communism… feeding the impetus to threaten all-out nuclear war. Now it’s up to regional political nutjob leaders, terrorists with manpack nukes, to launch a couple at another nation.. knowing damn well anyone launching even one will be annihilated as a result.. and the world will still go on. It’s like all the hub-bub with Kim… he launches even a conventional SCUD-style missile he pretty much is history himself.. and he’s hugely into self-preservation. Putin is hugely into self-preservation.
Most demagogues are.
It’s like Trump was given a loaded gun and he has absolute no idea how to operate it or where to point it… but he loves waving it around.
Mike McDaniel said:
It would see that to date, America’s enemies have no doubt that Mr. Trump knows what to do with that metaphorical loaded gun, and fear his willingness to use it in America’a–and the civilized world’s–interests. This is commonly known as a good thing.
Don’t hold your breath on that one, friend. We can’t even determine who are enemies are…. or the enemy from within.
Not a fan of fake news media giants, including Fox. If you read history books then you’ve really been lost if they are what is approved for public education. Why don’t you try going places, seeing the world, engaging with other people and cultures on their turf. What you’ll find is there is a world full of people with very much the same wants and needs as we in America. Forget all your bullshit about these governments, and realize people are not governments… and vice-versa.
Yikes. This topic and post was over a year ago. I didn’t know that I was still following Mike’s blog here anymore. An awful lot has transpired in this country in that time frame. Well.. ok…
You don’t like the media giants, you don’t believe in books. You prefer visiting the people directly to get your perceptions of life. Fair enough.. if you can afford the time away from work to travel like that more power to you. In the end I tend to agree to the point that we are, indeed, all human and have the same or similar dreams, etc.
But when it comes to real world worldy problems.. international politics is the name of the game so one really can’t ignore governments. In democracies people defer to their government; in authoritarian and theocratic regimes people march to another beat of the drum without a voice. Now sure I understand your point in your reply.. other than maybe “travel more”.
Mike McDaniel said:
Hey there. I wondered what happened to you. I trust all is with you and yours?
Yeah.. thanks and I hope you as well. I drifted away to cool down :) but got this reply to something from a year back on your blog.. so I wandered back in that way.
Mike McDaniel said:
Well, there are always cold showers…
yeah.. been taking a lot of those the last couple years… two today alone.
Pingback: The SMM Top 15 Articles of 2018 | Stately McDaniel Manor