Strzok

It occurs to me that the texts/emails likely reveal something much more serious than a simple love of Clinton or hatred of Trump. Perhaps they actually provide evidence of a conspiracy to help the former and hurt the latter. e.g., “Yeah, they fu**ed up, but I’ll make sure that none of Clinton’s people have any problems with this email thing.” Or “Don’t worry, we’ll come up with something impeachable on Trump.”

Either or both of these would both destroy the prevailing media narratives. The former would require the investigation into her server be reopened, and the latter would so taint the investigation that it would not be possible for it to be used against Trump. In fact, it would help him, bolstering his own claims of bias and double standards.

[Update early afternoon]

Kim Strassell writes that Mueller and the FBI are obstructing justice. And more from Byron York on the dossier.

And Kurt Schlichter writes that “liberals” (and by “liberals,” he means leftists) have turned the FBI into a disgrace.

9 thoughts on “Strzok”

  1. The fun thing about Comey’s statement on Hillary’s email scandal is that it was just Prosecutorial discretion, although not from the Prosecutor. It didn’t permanently close the case, and there is no “double jeopardy” though it might be claimed. She can still be tried for the crime by a Prosecutor that thinks there is enough to show “Gross Negligence”, which as the real world knows does not require intent.

    Her best argument will be the one Comey made; which is such a crime isn’t tried that often, and therefore defunct (e.g. The Logan Act). Except as many of us noted at the time, there was a guy in the Navy being prosecuted while Comey spoke.

    It would be nice to see Comey go to jail for his various lies to the American people and Congress, plus a few more years tacked on for obstruction of justice.

    Most of the above is dreaming, because of the politics involved, but it could happen. More realistic is that Flynn’s guilty plea agreement gets thrown out since Mueller didn’t share the exculpatory evidence
    of Stzork’s corruption. That act will cause enough lefties brains to explode, and hopefully end this charade of an investigation that is wasting tax dollars.

    1. How many people didn’t get prosecuted by Obama’s DOJ because of prosecutorial discretion? Prosecutorial discretion is the executive branch deciding who to charge and who not to charge. When Obama was telling the DOJ not to charge people like Hillary and Lerner, no one said the DOJ was independent. No one said Obama was obstructing justice.

      What happened was that Obama, the Democrats, and the media colluded in carefully crafting deceit. People were not charged with crimes because Obama didn’t want them charged with crimes. In order to facilitate this, they went through great lengths to hide the decision making process behind how these things were handled, despite everyone knowing that all decisions came from the micromanaging Obama.

      And Democrats fall for it because while they know their party is corrupt, especially Obama and Hillary, they expect a carefully crafted deceits to try and hide what is going on. As long as enough tradecraft is used, they don’t actually care about what is going on. On the contrary, they expect it and they expect the party not to be sloppy about it.

  2. They’ve already reported on other agents in the investigation having the same bias in writing. I’m just hoping the rumors are true that a big series of indictments are about to come to fruition.

    1. How did they think they were going to hide that so many on Mueller’s team worked on the Hillary/Obama defense squad? Sure, when Obama was President, they could get away with being blatantly corrupt. The stakes are much higher now.

      Democrats abusing the justice system to get Trump removed from office will be considered a coup, and rightly so. Also, even if it fails, a dangerous precedent has been set. Just like Obama set many precedents without thinking about future Presidents acting like him, the Democrats and their DOJ minions are doing the same thing.

      It isn’t just with the Mueller thing either. Obama is setting the precedent of running around the world running down the sitting President and Democrat government workers have set the precedent of sabotage.

      I see some Democrat from time to time talk up the virtues of our constitution, capitalism, and country in general. When are they going to meet the revolutionaries that make up 80% of their party?

      1. For me, I just so unimpressed by the lame arguments for the supposed crimes Trump committed. From the beginning, the Russia collusion with Trump argument lacked any motive for Russia. I knew what Russia would get out of Hillary, but I saw nothing that Trump wanted to do with Russia.

        I read yesterday someone suggesting Trump would help Exxon deal with Rosneft, but such a deal occurred in 2011 when Obama was President and Hillary his Secretary of State. After Hillary left State, BP purchased 18.5% stake in Rosneft and attempts at Arctic drilling were pretty much abandoned as the price of oil fell, thus negating the previous Exxon/Rosneft deal which was a joint venture to drill in the Russian arctic. Note, Trump and the GOP just opened up ANWR, so that further negates arctic drilling.

        Then there is Trump or his family simply meeting with foreigners, “LOGAN ACT VIOLATION!”. Seriously, this is just dumb. Especially considering the light that Hillary paid for the Steele dossier developed by a British spy. Since when has it been illegal for any country to interfere in an election, and if you can provide me such a law, does that law discriminate against Russia but not the UK? If so, why is that law not being scrutinized by the 9th Circuit for apparent racism, while Trump’s enforcement of the Obama enacted travel ban getting such scrutiny. Isn’t the 9th Circuit really saying we can’t discriminate against nations, since something like 80% of Muslims are not affected by the travel ban? Why do we have a law the countries can’t interfere with our election, while our previous President felt free to openly interfere in elections in Israel, Egypt, Venezuela, and France (and then there’s that Hillary thing in Libya)?

        I can go on and on with these; including the complaints about Trump’s tweets; while people completely ignore the number of times Obama openly “joked” (like Franken “joked” about groping) about using the IRS against his enemies. Maybe there is some reality behind the words, but none of Trump’s tweets come close to the criminal use of the IRS as a political machine, which seems quite apparent did happen.

  3. CNN with another “Smoking Gun” news release which is “DJT Jr got an email to look at DNC Hacked emails” UPDATED hours later: “Opps, we meant after WikiLeaks already published the emails the day previously”

    I wonder what drove this non-story?

    Also in the news today, 2.2 million new job in the US since the election! NYT’s Nobel Prize Something, not quite a winner, Economist says “If the question is when markets will recover [to Obama levels of mediocrity], a first-pass answer is never”.

    Tomorrow’s news today: “DJT Jr got an email from a Nigerian Prince on September 14, 2017 didn’t forward it to the FBI immediately!”

    1. Sounds like a really slow news day. When is Trump going to think of the starving journalists and tweet something?

  4. Just think as early as 20 years ago we would not be getting information on the corruption in the DOJ. We wouldn’t be getting corrections on CNN’s fake news. The internet is a powerful destabilizing force and that is why Democrats keep trying to regulate it and Democrat companies keep trying to censor it.

    It isn’t even that hard to see Twitter banning people who point out when CNN is wrong or the corrupt links between the DOJ and Hillary/Obama like Twitter would in the UK, Saudi Arabia, or China.

    1. The day may come when they figure out how to control the undesirable deplorables on the internet.

      Don’t trust and still verify has to be the rule.

Comments are closed.