Posted on 12/14/2017 12:40:09 PM PST by mojito
The release of FBI agent Peter Strzok’s text messages has touched off a partisan debate in Washington over whether his anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton comments undermine his work on the Clinton email as well as the Russia investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Republicans argue that Strzok’s texts, which he exchanged last year with Lisa Page, his mistress who also worked on the Mueller team, mar his work on both of those investigations. Democrats are downplaying the exchanges and accusing Republicans of hyping texts in order to protect Trump from Mueller.
Strzok’s texts do show that he made politically-charged comments right in the midst of his work leading both the Clinton and Russia investigations. Here is a definitive timeline of his investigative work, the text messages, and developments in both the Clinton email and Trump collusion investigations:
July 10, 2015 — FBI opens the Clinton email investigation in response to a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
Feb. 27, 2016 — Strzok interviews Jake Sullivan, a former Clinton State Department aide and adviser to her campaign.
March 2 — Asked by Page who he planned to vote for, Strzok replied: “I suppose Hillary.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I think Strzok rhymes with Shock.
Why hasn’t he simplified the spelling? IMO, He refuses to make it easier for Americans to pronounce.
Enjoys having to ‘correct’ people.
I’ve seen people do it with unusually spelled first names.
On Rush today he mentioned that the FBI was always intended to be a non-partisan law enforcement agency.
This communication reveals a very deep politicization that violates the FBI code of conduct, or at the very least it’s core mandate to be neutral in order to enforce even handed justice.
This is very bad mojo for the FBI.
Just the fact that there is this “..... touched off a partisan debate in Washington (D.C.)......” is troubling.
There is absolutely no so-called middle ground here.
What we’ve learned (well, since GW’s 2000 election) is that Democrats and the Left will never ever cede ground. And they expect Republicans and the Right to meet them at their chosen goal post.
And Republicans and some “on the Right” are happy to oblige.
Oct. 11 — Nunes asks Rosenstein about the committee’s request to interview Strzok.
Oct. 31 — FBI officials refuse the committee’s request to interview Strzok.
Nov. 29 — According to The Washington Examiner, Nunes again asks Rosenstein to make Strzok available for an interview. All of the requests appear to have been denied.
He should have found him in Contempt and Demanded Speaker Ryan sign a Warrant for his ARREST!!!
When these Congressional Republicans start pounding the desk Demanding Speaker Ryan or Turd McConnell SIGN CONGRESSIONAL WARRANTS, then and only then will any of this be a real investigation.
Enjoy the Dog and Pony show.
The Dems have invested everything they have into this bogus Russian "collusion" story, and now its all falling apart in a spectacular way. Even so, they don't want to give it up, because so much was riding on these lies being true. Overwhelming realities will force them to give it up soon. When McCabe and Strzok take the 5th when they're forced to testify before congress in a week or two, a lot of balloons are going to pop.
During Congressional testimony, when asked how to pronounce the name, is was “STRUCK”.
Rosenstein smirked, wry and grinned when
the Congress yesterday reminded him that
he is subservient to the oversight committee.
He made clear he disagrees.
*
Then “Struck” it must be.
It would not have killed him to remove that ‘Z’ in the middle. He could still be proud and Polish.
What concerns me is that an FBI member would be indiscreet enough to post all of his private chatter as though presuming no one could ever find or publicly post it. You’d think he would know better.
So did Wray. Goodlatte had to get aggressive with him to underscore the ‘oversight’ part.
“I’m Peter Stroke and I’m with the FBI.”
ICWUDT!
The thought exercise (when talking to the Left) has always been to substitute Trump with Obama.
Let’s see, ‘what if’.
What if some government officials disliked Obama so much, they texted each other, talked about meetings amongst them, trying to prevent Obama becoming a major party presidential nominee.
Failing that, they tried to tar anything they could (with their government power) during the general election campaign period, and talked about some vague ‘insurance policy’.
Failing that, they tried even harder to prevent Obama being inaugurated. And did everything to hide their trails, and obfuscated with all they’ve got.
What do you think would have happened? Both sides will be screaming for bloody heads. Heads, not just those directly involved, will roll by now.......
Thanks mojito.
The ‘definitive’ timeline doesn’t address the Hillary emails found on Weiner’s laptop.
These were found by NYPD in the investigation into Weiner’s child sexting activities in early October.
The FBI NY field office took custody of them and were told by someone at FBI HQ to just “keep studying the metadata” and not to look at the emails themselves, apparently hoping to run out the clock until after Hillary was elected. This was probably Strzok who tried to run out the clock on behalf of Hillary.
Then, when the story was leaked to the NY papers presumably by NYPD sources, FBI HQ couldn’t keep a lid on it. So Strzok did the herculean task of reading all of these tens of thousands of emails in about three days and then declared “there was no problem, no crime, nothing to see here, move along folks.”
The corruption of the Hillary investigation needs to be investigated by an independent prosecutor outside of the Justice Department and it may be that people like Strzok need to go to prison for official corruption.
Also, all of the communications among Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein in the time period leading up to the appointment of Mueller and investigated for a conspiracy to use their official positions to achieve a personal and partisan agenda.
bttt
To put Mr. Strzok’s texts in proper perspective one must consider what happens during a jury selection.
If a potential juror has a record of public and or private comments that are hostile to the defendant he will be struck from the jury pool as that potential juror can not be unbiased in his analysis and decisions in relationship to the defendant.
Strzok is totally biased. He should not have been within a thousand miles of this investigation of Hillary, Flynn and Trump. He is part of the prosecution and not part of an unbiased investigative body of the FBI, that sadly no longer exists.
“Why hasn’t he simplified the spelling?”
Someone ask the same of Brett Favre ‘Farve’ please. That one always bugged me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.