Poor, Poor Pierre. Peter Strzok, that is.
A horse long out of the barn who now wants to clear his name--and get a few things off his chest.
How about climbing off the chest of the citizenry at large?"Goelman said Strzok "wants the chance to clear his name and tell his story." "He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that," the lawyer said. "For one thing, Goelman says Strzok wants to express his regret for his internal communications. Strzok also wants to insist publicly that it had nothing to do with his decisions on the investigation: "He said there was "no question" that Strzok regrets sending anti-Trump messages, but added: "I think what he was doing is expressing his political opinions in what he thought was a private text conversation, and he regrets that this has been weaponized by people with political motivations to try to discredit the Mueller investigation."OMG! Strzok's dalliance in an extra marital affair with another FBI employee; his overheated efforts to "stop" Donald Trump from making it to the presidency; the evidence of his texts in hand were "WEAPONIZED" by people with political motivations to try to discredit the Mueller investigation! Congress, if you don't want to look as shady as the FBI, stop the Strzok Show forthwith. In other words: WHEN are you going to knock this weasel off the publicity teat?! Back to HotAir:
"But Strzok essentially wants to make the case that Michael Horowitz's report suggested that he wanted to make through the investigation: "Goelman said that Strzok was not willing to use his official position to affect Trump's chances of being elected and that "his political conviction that a Trump presidency would be disastrous for American national security is not based on his bias, it was based on information that was available to him, and his perspective on American national security. "Er ... isn't that going to be an admission of bias? And doesn't that play directly into the idea that the now-infamous Strzok "we'll stop it" text was meant literally? Allahpundit posed the question after the release of the report that clearly concerned Horowitz as well. If an FBI agent saw a political candidate as "disastrous for national security" and had an opportunity to damage him through an FBI investigation he was leading, how could such an investigation possibly not involve bias? How does "we'll stop it" become a benign expression of political frustration in that circumstance? "It's true that FBI agents are entitled to their opinions, political and otherwise. What they can't do is express them in terms of action within investigations. The "we'll stop it" wasn't a one-off release of anger; the text messages between Strzok, Lisa Page, and three other agents show a lengthy series of political observations mixed in with discussions of ongoing investigations. "Horowitz wasn't a political actor looking to "weaponize" anything; his report clearly shows that Horowitz has no confidence that Strzok and others were able to separate their politics from their work, and that is a very reasonable conclusion, especially with the curiously delayed release of the "we'll stop it" text. "Strzok really wants a second bite of that apple, at least according to his attorney.
"Having failed to stop Trump through his investigations, he now wants to use the House Judiciary Committee as a political springboard to raise accusations that his own investigation apparently couldn't prove or substantiate. Robert Mueller might want to step in at some point to prevent that from happening, as it may well drive a stake through the heart of his own probe by having Strzok demonstrate precisely what Trump has been saying all along--that the basis of the Russia-collusion theory was little more than political animus against him personally, and that anything collected by Strzok has been permanently poisoned by that animus."Someone should be asking when was Strzok's FBI job not "official"? Someone should point out that his "promises" are not worth the breath they'e uttered on. A second bite at the apple? The American masses are still gagging on the first one. Why is it that everyone but Congress can clearly see that It's not Donald Trump that big-talking Strzok took down, but the cherished image of America's once iconic intelligence agency, which these days could easily compete with any of the entertainment segments once seen on the Jerry Springer Show? Unplug Peter Strzok NOW!
Copyright © Canada Free Press
RSS Feed for Judi McLeod
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.
