Peter Strzok is absolutely shameless

[dukkha]

FBI agent Peter Strzok was full of indignant outrage Thursday as he testified before Congress, and all sides reacted accordingly.

Heck, The New York Times didn’t even wait for him to say Word One before posting a story headlined, “FBI Agent at Center of Russia Probe Turns Tables on GOP.”

But then, the Times knew Strzok planned to say that the mere fact of his being questioned is a “victory notch in Putin’s belt.”

This, from a guy who’s been slammed by the Justice Department inspector general for his highly unprofessional conduct while serving on the investigations of Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign.

His worst breach of ethics was to conduct an affair with another member of the team. That relationship couldn’t help but compromise his judgment, and hers.

Add to that the bias evidenced by all the lovers’ Trump-bashing text messages — and by the fact that they couldn’t even resist sending them on a system that they had to know their superiors could access.

Strzok and his inamorata, Lisa Page, can insist forever that their bias didn’t impact either probe, but their lack of restraint is proof that they’d lost all objectivity.

And the fact that their colleagues either saw no sign of the romance, or didn’t care, speaks poorly of their professionalism, too.

Democrats took Strzok’s claims at face value, literally applauding him at one point. Republicans stuck to their partisan points, too.

But the basic facts speak for themselves: With his flagrant misconduct, Peter Strzok brought shame to the FBI and the entire Justice Department. He should be ashamed of himself, rather than playing the victim.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/peter-...ely-shameless/

[dukkha]

somebody ought to smack that smrik off his face. Then fire him.

Like I said long ago the deep state plays the Russiaphobes, and the rubes eat it up.

Strzok is still standing / Rosenweasel plays the same Russian card yet again.
Brennan would be proud .

[Stretch]

How do think the conversation will go with Putin when Trump brings up the Russian Generals charges?

[dukkha]

Strzok at Thursday’s hearing is a reflection of the immunity that ruling-class mandarins enjoy in liberal Washington. He was testifying from the safety of the deep state and thus knew that he could lie his head off without consequence. How else to explain his unrepentant opening statement, with its blatant anti-Trump special pleading? The statement sounded like it had been written by Rachel Maddow, resting on the lamest and hackiest of MSNBC-style talking points, that “today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.”

Whatever credibility Strzok as an FBI agent still possessed vanished with that partisan cant, and he spent much of the hearing tossing out similarly hackish anti-Trump gibes designed to win the applause of the ruling class. He couldn’t remember his “we-will-stop”-Trump-from-winning text, though he could remember its noble meaning — that righteous Americans would stop a candidate like Trump who evinced “disgusting behavior.”

His testimony was full of such anti-Trump pandering and constituted one big non-apology apology, based on liberalism’s conceit that its opinions never count as “bias” and could never result in on-the-job misconduct at odds with “public service.”

Like John Brennan, who calls himself “non-partisan” while making the most insanely partisan points, Strzok asserted that his “political opinions” didn’t count as bias and certainly didn’t explain or affect his official conduct. That is, if you don’t count his expressing them on an FBI device during FBI time while trashing the subject of an FBI investigation to another FBI member working on the same FBI case with whom he was breaking FBI rules. Trust me, Strzok said to the committee, he has kept his “oath.” Maybe the committee should check with his wife about his oath-keeping record.

He launched a baseless investigation into a political rival, yet claimed that he couldn’t understand the committee’s concerns. He is right that his anti-Trump animus didn’t affect “one” decision; it affected all of them. How else to explain something as outré as the investigation of a rival presidential campaign without a shred of credible evidence of collusion, an investigation that largely revolved around the opposition research of that campaign’s opponent? After hiding behind FBI lawyers for much of the hearing, Strzok late in it admitted that he could answer the GOP’s question about whether Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who through his wife was connected to Hillary’s opposition research team, gave the FBI its work. The answer, of course, was yes.

But Strzok insulted everyone’s intelligence by insinuating that something other than Hillary’s opposition research had spurred the FBI to investigate her opponent. He couldn’t tell the committee what that was, of course, lest that threaten an “ongoing investigation.” But, trust him, that something was really, really “significant.”

The lying bluff here is sickening. The FBI knows damn well that Hillary’s opposition research drove the bogus investigation. The FBI only invented the sham George Papadopoulos story — which is pitiful, non-conclusive hearsay that doesn’t come anywhere close to Strzok’s description of “intelligence” justifying a counterintelligence probe — because it doesn’t want to admit that it was spying on a Republican campaign based on smears from the Democratic campaign. There is no other reason than that for its stonewalling.

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.”

So Strzok was talking to reporters, but he didn’t have anything damning to give them, owing to the baselessness and fruitlessness of his investigation. He is now trying to turn that into a virtue. But it wasn’t. He had started an improper investigation and was desperately trying to entrap Trump campaign members in an attempt to justify it. Had he found something, Strzok would have surely leaked it to the press before election day.
https://spectator.org/peter-strzok-a...ar-to-the-end/

[dukkha]

How do think the conversation will go with Putin when Trump brings up the Russian Generals charges?

russian generals? what is that?

[Frank Apisa]

somebody ought to smack that smrik off his face. Then fire him.

Why don't YOU try, Noise.

MY GUESS: He would kick your ass into the day after tomorrow.

[Stretch]

russian generals? what is that?

The Rosenweasel thing today...he briefed Trump about it prior to leaving the country. Trump said he's going to approach Putin about it, but wasn't exactly expecting "a Perry Mason moment." LOL

[dukkha]

It is too bad the Republicans didn’t ask Strzok about his relationship with John Brennan, to whom Strzok served as FBI liaison. Did Strzok encourage Brennan to leak information about the investigation to Harry Reid before election day? The question wasn’t asked, but it should have been. The Brennan-Strzok relationship, which was nourished by an intense hatred of Trump, lies at the root of this scandal.

Who are they kidding? They did want to hurt candidate Trump. The problem was that they didn’t have any evidence of collusion to leak, a problem they tried to remedy by running a spy into the campaign’s ranks. They needed a late-campaign surprise, but their “confidential informant” Stefan Halper, for all of his oafish entrapment attempts, couldn’t produce one. Yet that still didn’t stop Brennan from getting Reid to push anti-Trump smears out to his friends in the press.

Strzok, upon seeing Brennan’s handiwork, excitedly texted his mistress, “Here we go,” and sent her a link to an article about Reid’s leak.

[dukkha]

The Rosenweasel thing today...he briefed Trump about it prior to leaving the country. Trump said he's going to approach Putin about it, but wasn't exactly expecting "a Perry Mason moment." LOL

it's old news. They have a lot of things to go over.

If I were Putin the very first thing i'd tell Trump is the "Xi is not your friend" -as Trump often says
and then explain triangulation like Nixon did with China against Russia..

But there are all kinds of things they need to catch up on

[tinfoil]

Liberals are not trustworthy

[Phantasmal]

Liberals are not trustworthy

None of them? That’s sad you have none as friends.

[Darth Omar]

FBI agent Peter Strzok was full of indignant outrage Thursday as he testified before Congress, and all sides reacted accordingly.

Heck, The New York Times didn’t even wait for him to say Word One before posting a story headlined, “FBI Agent at Center of Russia Probe Turns Tables on GOP.”

But then, the Times knew Strzok planned to say that the mere fact of his being questioned is a “victory notch in Putin’s belt.”

This, from a guy who’s been slammed by the Justice Department inspector general for his highly unprofessional conduct while serving on the investigations of Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign.

His worst breach of ethics was to conduct an affair with another member of the team. That relationship couldn’t help but compromise his judgment, and hers.

Add to that the bias evidenced by all the lovers’ Trump-bashing text messages — and by the fact that they couldn’t even resist sending them on a system that they had to know their superiors could access.

Strzok and his inamorata, Lisa Page, can insist forever that their bias didn’t impact either probe, but their lack of restraint is proof that they’d lost all objectivity.

And the fact that their colleagues either saw no sign of the romance, or didn’t care, speaks poorly of their professionalism, too.

Democrats took Strzok’s claims at face value, literally applauding him at one point. Republicans stuck to their partisan points, too.

But the basic facts speak for themselves: With his flagrant misconduct, Peter Strzok brought shame to the FBI and the entire Justice Department. He should be ashamed of himself, rather than playing the victim.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/peter-...ely-shameless/

The Steele Dossier was the most cost effective Russian instrument.

By a mile.

[Darth Omar]

The Rosenweasel thing today...he briefed Trump about it prior to leaving the country. Trump said he's going to approach Putin about it, but wasn't exactly expecting "a Perry Mason moment." LOL

What exactly, does anyone think Putin is going to say lol?

‘Ya know Donald, we feel really bad about the troll farms’. Gimme a break.

[Stretch]

What exactly, does anyone think Putin is going to say lol?

‘Ya know Donald, we feel really bad about the troll farms’. Gimme a break.

Exactly, no Perry Mason moment.

[christiefan915]

Louie Gohmert embarrassed every repub with his mean-spirited comments. I guess he doesn't realize they could also be applied to trump.

“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 Stormy Daniels, Jill Harth, Natasha Stoynoff et al. ?”