Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 13, 2018

Those who forget the lessons of televised congressional hearings are doomed to repeat them, which is why the morning segment of the Capitol Hill show trial of veteran FBI agent and former head of the Bureau's Counterespionage division Peter Strzok turned into a disaster for Republicans.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, at no time, in any of these texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took. Furthermore, this isn't just me sitting here telling you you don't have to take my word for it. At every step, at every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people above me, the assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director, and director of the FBI, and multiple layers of people below me, section chiefs, supervisors, unit chiefs, case agents and analysts, all of whom were involved in all of these decisions. They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

Because Trump supporters live in a hermetic media echo chamber, these hearings are part of a predictable, hokey Kabuki dance. They're a device for generating a new round of hyperbolic base-only stories that will follow the same dumb arc as all the rest. In the coming days, you'll see Sean Hannity flirt with apoplexy, coating the camera lens with flecks of spittle as he rants over Strzok's perfidy. You'll see pro-Trump columnists herniate themselves stretching to turn flippant text messages into a vast conspiracy. Twitter will be a flood of moronic memes, white-hot takes, and promises that Strzok will soon be in Gitmo alongside Hillary, Obama, Podesta, and Soros.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-12 11:36 PM | Reply

David Cicilline ‏@davidcicilline

Republican hypocrisy is ridiculous today. GOP has until 5pm to tell me why I can't release Peter Strzok's closed-door transcript. If they don't, @RepRaskin and I are going to send to DOJ to scrub for sensitive info and then release it when it's ready.

UPDATE: Republicans couldn't find an excuse to stop us from releasing the Strzok transcript. Sending to DOJ for redactions and will release as soon as it's available.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-12 11:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Of course the Daily Beast thought that Stzrok did well. Nice opinion piece Gal, usually you don't stoop to Dorky-esq threads.

The whole thing was a sheetshow, from both sides, and no one came out looking good.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-13 12:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Biggest missed troll opportunity for Strzok:
When Gomet said Strzok's cheating on his wife destroyed his credibility, Strzok should have said "You support a POTUS that cheated on all three of his wives, how much credibility does he have?"

#4 | Posted by bored at 2018-07-13 12:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"from both sides" bs. Gtfoh.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-13 01:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

The whole thing was a sheetshow, from both sides, and no one came out looking good.

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Wrong. Peter Strzok was grilled and insulted for 10 hours.

Strzok didn't even break a sweat.

I'd say he did great and made Congress look like a bunch of shrieking baboons.

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-13 01:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

This is just a smear job looking for the slightest break to use to justify the innuendo and conspiracy theory nonsense the GOP is pushing to defend Trump.

The GOP really has sunk looooooooww.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 02:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

The whole thing was a sheetshow, from both sides, and no one came out looking good.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-13 12:17 AM

You are really, really, really a fan of Donald Trump.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-13 07:18 AM | Reply

The whole thing was a sheetshow, from both sides, and no one came out looking good.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-13 12:17 AM

I thought it was classic. It's what I always hope to see when GOP mendacity comes up against an intelligent and patriotic man.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-13 07:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

When Gomet said Strzok's cheating on his wife destroyed his credibility

#4 | Posted by bored at 2018

That was really amazing, wasn't it? Gohmert seemed actually spitting foam. Someone needs to follow the man around for three days to locate his mistress.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-13 07:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"This is just a smear job looking for the slightest break to use to justify the innuendo and conspiracy theory nonsense"

And boiled down, the essential defense has become you had no right to discover my wrongs. Not that no crime was committed, or everything done was legal, but How dare you investigate my crimes!

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-13 09:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"from both sides" bs. Gtfoh.

#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Yeah RoC seems to be right on the verge of dropping the pretense of being a moderate.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 09:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


I haven't had a chance to sit through the entire hearing just yet, but what I have seen so far showed that mr Strzok did honor for himself and the FBI, and the Republicans on the committee showed themselves to be inept partisans. For some reason, it reminded me of the Benghazi hearings, lots of foaming at the mouth with little results.

One part I did think was particularly interesting to me was Mr Strzok's explanation of the timeline around those texts controversial messages. They were sent shortly after candidate Trump insulted the Muslim parents of a slain US soldier.

I, also, was quite angry at candidate Trump for doing that to the parents of a fallen US soldier.

Additionally, I wonder how many of the Republicans on that committee criticized candidate Trump for insulting the parents of a fallen US soldier?

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-07-13 09:27 AM | Reply

And boiled down, the essential defense has become you had no right to discover my wrongs. Not that no crime was committed, or everything done was legal, but How dare you investigate my crimes!

I usually listen to right wing talk radio on my way to work in the morning to get a sense of how they're spinning the previous day's Trump administration s--- show.

Yesterday, Brian Kilmead was talking so furiously out of both sides of his mouth I think he may actually be Valdemort from the first Harry Potter movie.

They can't gush enough about how amazing the anonymous, undefined FBI rank and file is but in the next sentence they can't broad brush the FBI enough with their spin and lies about Strzok.

It's getting disgusting enough that I hope when saner times return (fingers crossed) some sort of law gets passed that doesn't allow outlets like Fox to call themselves news. (and yes, whatabouter friends, I mean that for outfits on the left as well)

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 09:28 AM | Reply

For some reason, it reminded me of the Benghazi hearings, lots of foaming at the mouth with little results.

Most of the clips I heard were of Repubs bemoaning how somebody with anti-Trump views couldn't possibly investigate Trump in an unbiased or impartial manner.

So what does that say about all those GOP Congressmen who sat on committee after committee during Hillary investigations? Trey, would you care to field that one, please?

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Yeah RoC seems to be right on the verge of dropping the pretense of being a moderate.

That's rich coming from a DNC waterboy.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-13 09:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

JPW's a water boy for the DNC?

You're really gone.

And stupid.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 09:46 AM | Reply

#13 - I watched the entire thing yesterday, with a few breaks in and out to take care of my regular life. It was stunning. Gohmert, Gowdy, Goodlatte, were total ------.
Gohmert is just plain wretched as well as not too bright.
Goetz from FL was wandering around unaware what to do next.
That Dentist guy was stupendously stupid.

No reason for yesterday to have happened. They interviewed him already, 11 hours. This was a GOP show trial of Strzok, and boy was it a PR disaster for the GOP. Self-inflicted stabbing - but the base will say it all went great.

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That's rich coming from a DNC waterboy.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-13 09:43 AM | Reply

You used to be cool
Now you just drool
So sit on the stool
Since you look like a fool.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-13 09:58 AM | Reply

what the hell is going on with Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy head?

hatchet head

#20 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-13 10:06 AM | Reply

what the hell is going on with Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy head?
hatchet head

POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES AT 2018-07-13 10:06 AM | REPLY

Trying o be the big shot but turned into a big snot.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-13 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The whole point of the sheetshow yesterday was this:

Giuliani says Mueller probe results should be dismissed after Strzok testimony

www.msn.com

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 10:22 AM | Reply

#22 - Giuliani had that all ready, no matter the outcome. Strzok's been OFF the investigation for a year, and the investigation hasn't been going on for much longer than that.

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 10:27 AM | Reply

#22 - Giuliani had that all ready, no matter the outcome. Strzok's been OFF the investigation for a year, and the investigation hasn't been going on for much longer than that.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 10:27 AM | Reply

You're really gone.

And stupid.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2018

Stupid usually precedes gone.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-13 10:28 AM | Reply

The whole point of the sheetshow yesterday was this:
Giuliani says Mueller probe results should be dismissed after Strzok testimony

The only thing surprising to me is how long it took them to release this statement.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


The only thing surprising to me is how long it took them to release this statement

#26 | Posted by jpw

Had there been an inflatable Strzok in that witness chair they still would have released that statement.

Issa cutting Strzok off because he was doing too well was priceless.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-13 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of course, the GOP had to try to take out Strzok, a decorated spy hunter. Too bad he couldn't have testified openly (because the investigation is ongoing) about what he knew when. I bet it would have been very interesting.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

At the Peter Strzok testimony before Congress today, Republican politicians exposed themselves as a party without moral compass and without control. Any politician who hereafter self identifies as a Republican is committing political suicide. For, after today, Republican politicians can be assured that many of us who have voted for Republican candidates in the past will never, under any circumstances, do so again. So help me God.

#29 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-07-13 10:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That Dentist guy was stupendously stupid."

Who knew that Dentists were trained experts in reading body language?

I noticed that Peter was the only one who got applauded. It was an excellent speech.

Did anyone ever find Gomer's meds? Poor man was almost frothing at the mouth.

Republicans have got to be so proud of themselves for doing Pooty Poot's work and neutralizing one of the best spy hunters in the world.

Good job -----.

The best spy hunter in the world now works for Human Resources.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-13 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The best spy hunter in the world now works for Human Resources."

And that makes Putin very happy. I'm sure he will reward Donnie for that shortly.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#27 ... Issa cutting Strzok off because he was doing too well was priceless. ...

If Mr Mueller had been using the same level of evidence vetting as the Republicans on this hearing's committee (i.e., almost none), nearly all of the Trump administration (and a good part of his campaign staff) would be in jail by now.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-07-13 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31 LOL:

DW @dark_wisdom_

Trump's hoping Putin will remember to bring a Forbes magazine
8:50 PM - 12 Jul 2018

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 11:56 AM | Reply

Mueller just indicted 12 more Russians for the DNC hack. Just in time for tea with the Queen, and before Trump meets Putin.

#34 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#14 | POSTED BY JPW

funny you should mention Harry Potter...i've heard it's the 'Harry Potter' defense strategy that giuliani is working on for trump

#35 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-07-13 01:08 PM | Reply

"The whole thing was a sheetshow, from both sides, and no one came out looking good."

Both sides, lol.

It was the entire GOP trying to run a train on one dude and they couldn't even get out of the station.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-13 01:13 PM | Reply

i've heard it's the 'Harry Potter' defense strategy that giuliani is working on for trump

#35 | Posted by ABlock

I heard it was the Chewbaca Defense.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-13 01:20 PM | Reply

The Chewbacca Defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally flimsy, right? Right?

In war, if the opposing side pulls back and raises the white flag, you've won. Some people like to think that this strategy also works in the art of debate. If you can get the opposing side to shut up, then you're right by default.

The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are based on doing this. It is most commonly found in democratic debates, as a dictatorship would only bother if it were too weak to silence the opposition directly.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-13 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You know GOP congress did extra ------ when the partisan hack that is RoC thinks both sides looked bad.

#39 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-07-13 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#39

From what I've read all parties looked bad. Strzok came off terribly - smug, condescending and jaw-droopingly stupid - dropping anti-Trump talking points left and right and then hilariously calming he wasn't biased.

The Republicans who went into full attack-dog mode.

Democrats trying to bog down the entire thing with procedural tricks and even applauding Strzok, at one point.

Strzok came off by far the worst.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-13 06:03 PM | Reply

From what I've read all parties looked bad. Strzok came off terribly - smug, condescending and jaw-droopingly stupid - dropping anti-Trump talking points left and right and then hilariously calming he wasn't biased.
The Republicans who went into full attack-dog mode.
Democrats trying to bog down the entire thing with procedural tricks and even applauding Strzok, at one point.
Strzok came off by far the worst.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-13 06:03 PM | REPL

Of course he did in your pathetically partisan hackneyed eyes.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-13 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Strzok came across as brilliant, as he should, because he is.
He was in command of the facts and the law.
He ran circles around the GOP.
They were seriously outclassed and outmatched.
How you could even think he came across as jaw-droopingly stupid is beyond me. Seriously.
You must not have watched the actual hearing.
I did - almost all of it - taking breaks from time to time to eat and do quick chores.'
The GOP came across as scared to death to let him answer. They cut him off whenever he started to say something factual that refuted their narrative.

Seriously, if you believe what you wrote, Jeff, there is something very peculiar with you, or with where you're getting your "news" is absolute propaganda.

I didn't watch anyone commenting on what I was watching. I just watched it unfold.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"Seriously, if you believe what you wrote, Jeff, there is something very peculiar with you"

If you press him hard enough, he will decide he was "just joking."

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-13 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We never thought he'd be straight out of "The Exorcist!"

#44 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-13 10:24 PM | Reply

nealrodrigues.com

#45 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-13 10:25 PM | Reply

Strzok came off by far the worst.

#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You seriously have a disturbingly poor grasp of reality.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-13 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can ANYONE say he didn't show obvious bias?
Especially with his Putin comment?

I fear for our country for one reason re: this:
Wait til a Trump appointee shows this level of bias against a political appointment! You'll HATE it! As you should...

Did NONE OF YOU learn from the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision?!

#47 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-13 10:30 PM | Reply

"Strzok came off by far the worst."

Nonsense. His central tenets remained completely unscathed.
1. He couldn't have done anything without folks above him and below him knowing.
2. Had he truly wanted to assist HRC, he could've leaked Trump's investigation.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-13 10:38 PM | Reply

"Can ANYONE say he didn't show obvious bias?"

The IG, for one.

Also...if bias against the subject excludes investigation, no Republican should've been on the Benghazi! committee.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-13 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is there a highlight reel of Republicans just going full regard with their questions? That might be funny.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-13 10:45 PM | Reply

"Also...if bias against the subject excludes investigation, no Republican should've been on the Benghazi! committee."

It actually excludes them from the Trump-Russia investigation as well. You can have a bias for something as well as against it:

bi·as
NOUN
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants" ·
synonyms: prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 10:59 PM | Reply

And as the IG Report said, bias didn't play a role in the results.

The concept of putting your emotions and bias to the side and doing your job is foreign to, and anathema to, a big amygdala Republican.

#52 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-13 11:24 PM | Reply

#52 LOL I didn't think of that. GOP house members were amygdala-triggered by Strzok!

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-13 11:34 PM | Reply

You seriously have a disturbingly poor grasp of reality.

#46 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-07-13 10:26 PM | FLAG:

He's a Trey Gowdy groupie that's why.

#54 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-13 11:47 PM | Reply

twitter.com

#55 | Posted by drpierce at 2018-07-14 12:38 AM | Reply

Also...if bias against the subject excludes investigation, no Republican should've been on the Benghazi! committee.

#49 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-07-13 10:42 PM | FLAG:

Now BE HONEST, wouldn't the Benghazi hearing have been better if it were done with professionalism, unclouded by bias?

#56 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-14 12:45 AM | Reply

Primal Fear 2 is being recast.

Ed Norton will be replaced by Peter Strzok.

#57 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-14 12:47 AM | Reply

"wouldn't the Benghazi hearing have been better if it were done with professionalism, unclouded by bias?"

Had it been done professionally, unclouded by bias, it wouldn't have occurred.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-14 12:49 AM | Reply

Such a contrarian.

It's like you're not even TRYING.

#59 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-14 01:00 AM | Reply

Pretty sure when diplomats and the like die, theres a hearing

#60 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-14 01:01 AM | Reply

Pretty sure when diplomats and the like die, theres a hearing

#60 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU AT 2018-07-14 01:01 AM | FLAG:

2 and a half years of insulting and harassment of a Presidential candidate that ended with no indictments or guilty pleas was not a "hearing". It was a kangaroo court and kabuki theater all done for the admitted purpose of negatively affecting Hillary's poll numbers.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-14 01:19 AM | Reply

Now BE HONEST, wouldn't the Benghazi hearing have been better if it were done with professionalism, unclouded by bias?

#56 | Posted by drivelikejehu

It probably wouldn't have happened if the GOP had a modicum of professionalism or objectivity.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-14 01:54 AM | Reply

About the only thing in the "lessons learned" from Benghazi is Republicans hated Hillary Clinton so much they wouldn't even fully fund her requested State Department security budget.

The time for professionalism, unclouded by bias was in the previous budget cycle.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-14 02:03 AM | Reply

#39
From what I've read all parties looked bad. Strzok came off terribly - smug, condescending and jaw-droopingly stupid - dropping anti-Trump talking points left and right and then hilariously calming he wasn't biased.
The Republicans who went into full attack-dog mode.
Democrats trying to bog down the entire thing with procedural tricks and even applauding Strzok, at one point.
Strzok came off by far the worst.
#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-13 06:03 PM

Then you didn't watch it? Not even the highlights? What about Gomert equivocating that Strzoks' affair reflects bias by allegedly lying to his wife? The --------- was amazing! I can't recall this level of decorum fail in forever.

That moment of applause is well-deserved. Your boys look and act like amateurs.

#64 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-07-14 05:01 AM | Reply

Stephen Colbert is waiting for Mueller to tell us what happened to America at 4:22 Strzok makes his applause-worthy remark.

#65 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-07-14 05:08 AM | Reply

The "tell" that a Congress-critter is in cahoots with Russia is when they quote scripture on the Floor while attacking our rule of law with Speaker permission.

#66 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-07-14 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Ex-GOP lawmaker: Strzok hearing 'was a humiliating day' for Republicans

www.msn.com

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-14 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#47 - "Did NONE OF YOU learn from the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision?!"

Good point. Repression based on theocratic beliefs is indeed frightening.

MAGA

#68 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-07-14 11:52 AM | Reply

#38 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

the Chewbacca Defense is brilliant..all I know about the Harry Potter Defense is that they keep calling
Michael Cohen, ' The Golden Snitch '.

#69 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-07-14 12:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You have to consider the bias of the source of these statements. I find it amazing how often Republicans take the "both sides look bad / are bad / etc" tack when talking about their politicians. You are biased. You are always going to think that Democrats look worse than they are and Republicans look better than they are. You are NEVER going to think that a Democrat looks good. So the fact that you say they "both look bad" means that, taking into account your bias, the Democrats did mediocre to good, while the Republicans look absolutely TERRIBLE. Think about what that says about your party.

Just sayin.

#70 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-07-14 01:49 PM | Reply

#70 | Posted by gtbritishskull, Strzok's paramour spoke in closed session yesterday. She seemed to have flipped. Note the Dems on the committee had nothing to say today.

#71 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-14 02:41 PM | Reply

Note the Dems on the committee had nothing to say today.

#71 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Dream on.

I also noticed the ----- don't have much to say about it or the Russian indictments right now either.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-15 02:05 AM | Reply

Is the 'T' silent in Gohmert?

Asking for a friend.

#73 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2018-07-15 08:50 AM | Reply

Is the 'T' silent in Gohmert?
Asking for a friend.

POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2018-07-15 08:50 AM | REPLY

No

#74 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-15 08:54 AM | Reply

#74

Really? I thought it was French.

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-15 09:11 AM | Reply

You DR lefties should be pissed at Strzok. His intense bias will taint any evidence that points to collusion. It's the same thing that got OJ off.

#76 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-07-15 10:22 AM | Reply

James.
Strzok worked for 2 months on issues the Mueller probe was investigating.
Mueller removed him.
No bias, as documented and specifically stated in the IG report, was found or indicated.
You can say what you want and those on the right will believe you (hell, they'll believe anything) but that doesn't make it true.

#77 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-15 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You DR lefties should be pissed at Strzok. His intense bias will taint any evidence that points to collusion. It's the same thing that got OJ off.

Pretty sure OJ owned a bidet...so his taint'd be clean as a whistle.

#78 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-07-15 11:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You DR lefties should be pissed at Strzok. His intense bias will taint any evidence that points to collusion. It's the same thing that got OJ off."

Maybe not. Take a look at this possibility regarding Trump's "Russia, if you are listening" comment:

twitter.com

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-15 11:25 AM | Reply

Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

FOLKS: In legal effect, Trump's "Russia, if you're listening" invite was no different than saying,"El Chapo, if you're listening, please deliver 8 tons of cocaine to Mar A Lago." 1/

As Mueller's RU GRU indictment demonstrates - to any clueless person who did not already know - computer hacking and stealing of info is a federal crime. Therefore, under both aiding & abetting and agency theories, Trump's urging another to do these acts may also be a crime. 2/

Under 18 USC 2(b),"Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the U.S., is punishable as a principal." Here's the Special Counsel's proposed instruction on this principle for the upcoming Manafort trial: 3/

The legal principle of agency, may also apply to Trump's July 27 statement & other conduct. (Note that two or more people may be agents of each other. Doesn't just go one way.). Here's the Special Counsel's proposed instruction on agency for the Manafort case:

twitter.com

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-15 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, journalist Marcy Wheeler claims she provided evidence to the FBI about the Russian election interference that did not go through Strzok:

Peter Strzok Is a Sideshow to Information that Directly Implicates the President

Peter Strzok had no connection to my interview

This point has gotten muddled, though I have tried to be very meticulous about it. As far as I understand things, I was not interviewed by Mueller's team. Rather, I provided information to the FBI about a subject matter that was not part of the Mueller investigation at the time. One of the prosecutors who was in the loop on, but did not participate in, my interview was later incorporated into the Mueller team, and public reports say that one of the subject matters was as well.

Thus, whether my interview happened before or after Strzok was removed from Mueller's team (remember I'm deliberately not sharing what date it happened), it doesn't seem possible that he had any upstream or downstream involvement in it. So even if you believe Strzok tainted everything downstream of him, my information was neither up- nor downstream of him. It came into Mueller's possession via a parallel stream.

www.emptywheel.net

I can't vouche for Wheeler's account. I post it only as a caution that we, the public, don't know everything about the what the SC may or may not have. It may be very possible that Mueller has evidence that the GOP can't claim was tainted by Strzok, try as they might. I actually suspect that is true (whether or not Wheeler's specific claim is valid), because the GOP is trying so hard to shut the investigation down ASAP. Why? What are they so afraid of?

#81 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-15 12:11 PM | Reply

Pretty sure OJ owned a bidet...so his taint'd be clean as a whistle.

#78 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST AT 2018-07-15 11:14 AM | FLAG:

I thought that was what Kato Kaelin was for.

#82 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-15 02:52 PM | Reply

FYI: I saw Marcy Wheeler on All in with Chris Hayes on Friday night:

Scariest part of indictment is what we don't know
www.msnbc.com

#83 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-15 03:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort