Posted on Jul 13, 2018
blue-state-blues-smug-peter-strzok-undermined-the-fbi
1.81K
31
16
4
4
0
But his efforts rang hollow, just like Comey’s, and for the same reason: neither one could resist the urge to exploit their chance to attack the president. In their own minds, each sees himself as a hero, using his power to save America from President Trump.
Strzok’s unapologetic attitude did more to undermine the credibility of the FBI, and the Russia “collusion” investigation, than any amount of grandstanding from the Republican politicians on the panel.
He gave a face, and a smirk, to the so-called “Deep State.”
Strzok's facial gymnastics could be Hollywood worthy.
Does he need more practice?
Or
Did he nail it?
The whole thing was interesting to watch.
Strzok’s unapologetic attitude did more to undermine the credibility of the FBI, and the Russia “collusion” investigation, than any amount of grandstanding from the Republican politicians on the panel.
He gave a face, and a smirk, to the so-called “Deep State.”
Strzok's facial gymnastics could be Hollywood worthy.
Does he need more practice?
Or
Did he nail it?
The whole thing was interesting to watch.
blue-state-blues-smug-peter-strzok-undermined-the-fbi
Posted from breitbart.com
FBI
Ethics
Law
Theater
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
5
5
0
Did you know Strzok was an Army officer and veteran? Did you know he personally oversaw the prosecution of one of the largest Russian spy ring sleeper cells in Operation Ghost Stories? That farce yesterday was disgraceful. More than half of the country voted against President Trump and he lost the popular vote. I remember many conservative Republicans expressed disapproval for him including Cruz, Kasich, and many others. I don't condone Strzok's behavior and he was rightfully dismissed by Mueller, but attacking his character like Gomert did while never saying anything about Trump's character, three marriages, and affairs while married, is hypocritical at best. The level of discourse in this country has degenerated, and much of that can be attributed to the President's personal attacks and braggadocio. His campaign manager is in jail. Do you not remember Manafort had a hand in changing the Republican platform softening Ukraine's defense against Russia while acting as a paid agent of Russia, only reporting it after the fact? Russia is still an existential threat, and until we address their interference, propaganda, and assassinations of Putin's opponents, we will be at risk. Simply attacking Strzok will not make the Russian interference go away, and that concerns me as a Cold War veteran. Both Republican and Democratic decisiveness is only good for Putin's interests.
.
.
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Mark Halmrast - So I guess because someone is a public employee, they are never again allowed to exercise the expression of their political views or donate to a political entity? One can express his/her political views without it affecting one's job. My students do not know my political beliefs. How do I know? They ask me what I think or who I voted for. I tell them I don't tell anyone whom I vote for and leave it at that. What business is it of Congress what an individual's personal political beliefs are as long as he/she does the job? It muddies up the waters. It implies that only my group can "truly" judge my group. That is tribalism, not Americanism. How can a Republican judge a Democrat? How can a Democrat judge a Republican? By using facts and evidence to come to a conclusion. Personally I believe nobody knows what Mueller, a registered Republican, is looking into in his investigation. Mueller is not leaking, and Congress needs to let him complete the investigation.
(2)
(0)
SGT Mark Halmrast
SGT (Join to see) thank you for response.
Your stated standard was to avoid hint of bias.
Is it a hint of bias that people on Mueller's team practiced private law and had the Clinton's as clients?
It is a fair question.
I think Mueller needs to expand his inveatigation to inclide:
- who funded the dossier
- who were its sources
- in what way did the FBI verify it
- to what extent was it used as a pretext to a wire on Page
- tonwhat extent were confidential human sources used to probe Trump
- why wasn't the Trump campaign given a defensive briefing
- why were Trump admin officials unmasked during the transition
- where is the DNC server that was hacked, and why did the FBI forensics team not have the opportunity to examine it
If we really want to probe Russian interference, it makes sense to broaden the investigation beyond Trump.
And...with a yeam that, in your words, avoids even a hint of bias.
That just makes sense. If we want to investigate Russian interference.
Buy if the object is just to nail Trump, and only Trump, well, then stay the course and ignore the other obvious questions.
Your stated standard was to avoid hint of bias.
Is it a hint of bias that people on Mueller's team practiced private law and had the Clinton's as clients?
It is a fair question.
I think Mueller needs to expand his inveatigation to inclide:
- who funded the dossier
- who were its sources
- in what way did the FBI verify it
- to what extent was it used as a pretext to a wire on Page
- tonwhat extent were confidential human sources used to probe Trump
- why wasn't the Trump campaign given a defensive briefing
- why were Trump admin officials unmasked during the transition
- where is the DNC server that was hacked, and why did the FBI forensics team not have the opportunity to examine it
If we really want to probe Russian interference, it makes sense to broaden the investigation beyond Trump.
And...with a yeam that, in your words, avoids even a hint of bias.
That just makes sense. If we want to investigate Russian interference.
Buy if the object is just to nail Trump, and only Trump, well, then stay the course and ignore the other obvious questions.
(1)
(0)
Susan Foster
SGT Mark Halmrast - I do know the dossier has been looked at, ad nauseam. But yes, I see no problem with the scope being broadened at all, once his charter is completed, which I think it will be soon.
(0)
(0)
Susan Foster
SGT (Join to see) - I agree wholeheartedly. For the House R's who are having a fit about this, and because POTUS has failed to criticize Russia and still talks witch hunt, I have lost faith that some of them don't have something to hide. I cannot imagine any American not wanting to know just because "of course this is no surprise"--did Americans know and participate? And what do we do next?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google