Strzok’s Smirk

Yes, he’s lying, and yes, he’s filth. And so are the people not just defending him, but praising him.

[Update a few minutes later]

Liz Sheld has more.

[Saturday noon update]

Denying the obvious doesn’t make it go away. What was breathtaking about his performance was not that he claimed that the bias didn’t affect his behavior; it was his insane claim that the bias didn’t even exist.

[Sunday-morning update]

More from Melissa Mackenzie:

The creepiest witness to ever grace a Congressional hearing, minced in his seat and evaded questions for hours on end Thursday. His name? Peter Strzok (pronounced “Struck” for the Democrats on the committee who kept mispronouncing it). The general impression from his testimony? What a complete weirdo. It is astonishing that someone so strange, supercilious and seemingly evil reached so high a position in law enforcement.

As I tweeted a few weeks ago, I’d have a lot more confidence in Mueller if the people telling me about his probity and character weren’t the same people who told me that about Comey. I have to wonder how many other Strzoks, Pages, Ohrs, McCabes et al are at the agency. I think it needs a thorough housecleaning.

[Bumped]

34 thoughts on “Strzok’s Smirk”

  1. If I’m called to serve on a jury for a federal case, and I’m asked to take the word of an FBI agent; that won’t be happening. That would include properly handling of the chain of evidence. And Rosenstein’s announcement today isn’t making matters better for the FBI, which failed to investigate the hardware, thus gather evidence, which would support Rosenstein’s claims about Russian hacking.

  2. How does a man who exhibits that kind of behavior in front of a congressional committee and TV cameras get to any kind of responsible position in a republic?

    1. Regardless of the man’s actions or merits as an agent, just consider his behavior in front of the committee: Rand and most commenters here show a large heaping helping of contempt for all things Washington and particularly Congress. If one of you were asked to testify and you had such a lack of hypocrisy that you would continue to show your contempt while testifying, the crowd here would cheer!

      1. Not if they’d been conspiring to overthrow the elected President of the United States.

        There used to be a word for people like that.

        And, you know, in the real world, showing contempt for your bosses tends not to go down too well.

      2. Regardless of the man’s actions or merits as an agent

        He was an agent, and his actions as an agent are what the entire issue is about. So disregarding that would be like disregarding an individuals Alzheimer diagnosis when asking them about their whereabouts last Wednesday.

      3. just consider his behavior in front of the committee

        It was like a serial killer bragging about the cops not knowing where all the bodies are. It was a horrific display and it is amazing that it was facilitated by the Democrats. This shows that it wasn’t just some random agent but a larger conspiracy conducted by the Obama administration and the Democrat party at large.

        We have never seen corruption like this in our country’s history. An effort to rig an election followed by an effort to oust the President in a soft coup? And you guys wonder why we always go on and on about constitutional protections, limited government, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

        1. It would be one thing if Strzok just laughed in front of Congress like a normal person. Instead, he acted like a total psycho! And he was at the top ranks of the FBI. This suggests that the FBI is run by psychotic people.

      4. Bob-1:

        Can you share with us your insights into LAPD Detective Mark Furman denying under oath that he used a slur word against black people and then someone turning up a tape from where he used that word to express contempt for criminal suspects?

        His use of that slur in a conversation with a journalist tainted his credibility in testifying regarding his investigation of a black celebrity later charged with murder. This resulted in that man’s acquittal in the criminal case for a killing that a later civil trial judged him responsible.

      5. @Bob-1

        You do realize the FBI is in a middle of a legitimacy crisis? And that the ~13,000 armed FBI agents are outnumbered and outgunned by the military, the Fraternal Order of Police, and tens of millions of armed Trump supporters. What do you think the Generals think of Strzok’s testimony? Have you ever seen a single General behave that way in front of Congress, even in front of idiot Congressman Lewis?

      6. Bob, you really have no clue about people who don’t think like you, do you?

        I can only think of three possible reasons why Peter Strzok was behaving that way in front of a congressional committee — and TV cameras.

        1. He had taken something he shouldn’t have.
        2. He had not taken something he should have.
        3. He was having a strzok.

        1. The take on the Right Wing blogs right now is that Mr. Strzok offered the have-you-no-decency Otter Defense of the Delta Fraternity in the film Animal House.

  3. Considering the collusion between the Democrats and the media and the DOG/FBI/CIA/State, should we look at this as a planted question in the debate? Obama and Hillary subverted the the most powerful federal agencies to rig the election against Trump, whitewash Hillary, and set the stage for a coup as an insurance policy in the unlikely event Hillary lost.

    Even though Hillary answered the question, it was a question just for Trump. They wanted him on record saying he would respect the outcome because something was bound to come out about the criminal abuse of power at the highest levels of government to influence an American election.

    Now of course, we know Democrats don’t respect the peaceful transition of power or the electoral system, from the people on the street to the most powerful people in our society.

    1. It was planted many times, starting with the GOP demanding Trump sign an agreement to support whoever won the Primary. He won, and they balked at the agreement.

      I see you link is to PBS, but when Chris Wallace asked the question, and then rebutted Trump’s response; I lost all respect for Wallace. Some of us remember the 2000 election. The Democrats didn’t accept it until 9 11 happened.

  4. Considering the collusion between the Democrats and the media and the DOG/FBI/CIA/State

    Let me get this straight. The Deep State engineered your plot to get Donald Trump to say something potentially incriminating, and then A) Decided to stay silent on all of the apparent suspect connections between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, GRU entities, and players, and B) Decided to issue several statements about investigations of Clinton’s email server that were ultimately damaging to her campaign.

    Thank god you’re not a Hollywood scriptwriter.

    1. “Let me get this straight. The Deep State engineered your plot to get Donald Trump to say something potentially incriminating, ..”

      Dave,

      I don’t think you understand his point. It wasn’t that they were trying to get Trump to say something incriminating. They were trying to get Trump on Record as saying he WOULD respect the outcome of the election (no matter what is implied).

      Then if Trump lost he would look bad if he then challenged the election. And also to try and stave off any investigation of the several unlawful/questionable things they did.

      They miscalculated in two ways:

      1) Trump isn’t a sucker and didn’t fall for that

      2) Even if he said he’s respect the outcome of the election, Trump would never feel bound by that statement.

      1. You missed the third way; they put themselves on record. Except, it doesn’t matter, because they believe they control the record and by not bringing it up on Sunday talk shows; no one will find the video clips on the Internet.

      2. Yes, it was an effort to delegitimize him complaining about the abuses of the Obama administration, Hillary campaign, the DNC, and our corrupt media.

        Winning wasn’t enough, it was about using the power of the government to prevent Republicans from ever electing a President and then they would move onto preventing Republicans from ever electing any politicians.

      3. I seriously doubt if Trump would have contested the outcome of the election had he lost, especially if he had lost by a lot.

    2. Trump didn’t say anything incriminating and the spying on his campaign was not started based on anything Trump did. The Obama administration started spying on the Trump campaign when he announces he was running.

      What we have witnessed is the abuse of the intelligence agencies at the hands of Democrat political operatives who used a willing media to further their plot and even cited their own stories planted in the media as justification for spying on a Presidential campaign. The Hillary campaign and DNC also played a role as they were the ones funding Fusion GPS.

      Don’t forget the closest there is to evidence of collusion was Trump Jr and Kushner meeting with a Russian lawyer but that Russian lawyer was working for Hillary and the DNC at the time.

      B) Decided to issue several statements about investigations of Clinton’s email server that were ultimately damaging to her campaign.

      Damaged? They helped her campaign.

      The FBI ran a rigged investigation where the outcome was predetermined and everyone investigated got immunity despite providing no testimony and after wide scale destruction of evidence. Comey was forced to say the FBI was looking into the emails again only because a separate investigation into Huma’s pedophile husband showed that everything Huma ever sent via text and email was on his laptop. This forced the FBI to come out and lie to the public again about no laws being broken.

      These actions helped Hillary.

      Thank god you’re not a Hollywood scriptwriter.

      Truth is stranger than fiction. No scriptwriter would concoct such a nefarious twisted plot to rig an election and overthrow a government because no audience would believe that people are that conniving and underhanded. Homeland and House of Cards have nothing on real life Democrats.

    3. @Dave

      Crooked Cankles lost because she ran a shitty campaign and is now blaming that eeevil White Christian Male, Putin, for losing.

      As for the Deep State’s attempt at a coup against the President… it’ll be the FBI arresting President Trump or President Trump arresting the FBI.

      Either way, the results will be interesting…

  5. Can you imagine the reaction in the press if this language and body language was exhibited by an FBI agent towards a criminal subject based on their race/ethnicity/gender?

    1. Would it be like the reaction of the press to similar language and body language exhibited by an LAPD detective towards a criminal defendant based on race? I think we know the answer to that one — see above.

  6. “What a complete weirdo. It is astonishing that someone so strange, supercilious and seemingly evil reached so high a position in law enforcement.”

    Is it not accepted that bureaucracies, push their weirdos to the top [to get rid of them]?

    1. The biggest problem with these psychotic weirdos running the US Deep State, is that these nutcases really, really, really want a war with nuclear armed Russia. Their bizarre hatred of White Christian males – and you can’t get more White, more Christian, and more Masculine than Russia – is really turning their screws loose!

      1. Well, remember that under the unbelievably corrupt Yeltsin regime, Russia and her surrounding territories were raped by the globalists. Putin kicked them out, Made Russia Great Again, and they’ve never forgiven him for that.

      2. s that these nutcases really, really, really want a war with nuclear armed Russia.

        Well, after Putin embarrassed Obama in Syria they did but don’t worry, the second Trump starts a serious conflict with Russia they will be right back cheering Putin on.

  7. As I tweeted a few weeks ago, I’d have a lot more confidence in Mueller if the people telling me about his probity and character weren’t the same people who told me that about Comey.

    I’d have confidence if Mueller didn’t participate in covering up Obama’s corruption, if the same small group that rigged Hillary’s investigation weren’t the same people investigating Trump with much harsher tactics, and the rest of his team wasn’t comprised of people with deep conflicts of interest by their past work for Democrat organizations.

    The FBI might be ok but the leadership is rotten to the core. I’d fire everyone at the top.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *