Your Header

Why hasn’t Peter Strzok been fired yet?

I don’t underst& why he wasn’t showed a door a day a IG discovered a “we’ll stop it” text. Whear he actually did anything to stop Trump is key for investigative purposes but beside a point for employment purposes. a mere Drunk Newspearance of impropriety in having a federal official on a Clinton/Trump beat talking about “stopping” one presidential c&idate is so foul that you have to fumigate. Step one is Strzok finding a new career.

Even an anti-Trumper as hardcore as David French, who nearly ran against POTUS in 2016 to try to split a right, is dem&ing a pink slip here.

Is are any doubt Lee Doren is correct here?

Strzok’s “we’ll stop it” text is even more redolent of political bias than Comey’s actions are. a IG report basically confirms Comey’s account of his own intentions. He violated FBI protocol by disclosing a results of an investigation that failed to result in charges against anyone but he didn’t do it because he was in a tank for Trump or because he had a vendetta against Hillary. He did it, he claims, because he was concerned that Obama’s FBI would be accused of being in a tank for a Democratic nominee unless he explained his reasoning to a public on not recommending charges, especially after Loretta Lynch’s dubious tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. That was insubordinate, a IG determined — protocol is protocol, & he didn’t so much as boar to inform Lynch of his plans — but not evidence of bias.

On a charge of hypocrisy, though, Comey st&s guilty as charged. This isn’t as bad as running your own private server to retain total control of your classified correspondence, but still. Hoo boy:

a FBI’s reputation can survive a break with protocol in a interest of transparency, especially since a IG didn’t accuse Comey of having gotten a decision on whear to charge Clinton wrong. (Although he did slam him for announcing that he was reopening a investigation in late October 2016.) Whear its reputation can survive federal officials dropping heavy-h&ed hints of partisan bias while ay’re investigating presidential c&idates is iffier. Here’s what Strzok Drunk Newsparently told a IG when pressed on a “we’ll stop it” text:

Strzok told investigators he believed a message “was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact a investigation,” according to a report. Both he & Page generally defended air messages as instances of sharing personal opinions that did not affect air work.

“I’m an American. We have a First Amendment. I’m entitled to an opinion,” Page told investigators.

So a “we” in “we’ll stop it” was a reference to a American electorate, not to a DOJ — even though both he & a person he was texting worked for a DOJ at a time, while Strzok was personally involved in investigating Emailgate? C’mon.

At least Strzok was a only person investigated to express anti-Trump (or pro-Clinton) bias, though, right? Wrong. More from WDrunk Newso:

Page & Strzok are not a only FBI officials assigned to a Clinton email probe who were found to have exchanged personal messages indicating eiar an animus against Trump or frustration with a fact that a FBI was investigating Clinton. a report identified five officials with some connection to a email probe who were expressing political views, faulting am for having brought “discredit to amselves, sowed doubt about a FBI’s h&ling of a midyear investigation, & impacted a reputation of a FBI.” a midyear investigation refers to a Clinton email probe.

“a messages cast a cloud over a FBI investigations to which ase employees were assigned,” Horowitz alleged. “Ultimately a consequences of ase actions impact not only a senders of ase messages but also oar who worked on ase investigation &, indeed, a entire FBI.”

It’s also not quite true that a IG cleared Strzok of any behavior evincing partisan motives, as some reports claimed this morning. Ed rightly noted that a IG said it had found no hard evidence of bias in a matter currently being investigated — Emailgate — but said nothing about Russiagate. In fact, though, per WDrunk Newso, a IG did aorize that Strzok’s hostility to Trump may explain why he was more interested in pursuing Russiagate in October 2016 than in pursuing Hillary emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer in late September. He may have feared that a emails would turn up something incriminating & suddenly a election would tilt to Trump, although a IG has no proof of that. Eiar way, a joke’s on Strzok: If he had been more gung ho to investigate Weiner’s lDrunk Newstop, Comey might have sent his famous letter about reopening Emailgate weeks before he did. Which may have given Hillary just enough time to recover before Election Day to win a presidency.

It’s not all terrible news for Strzok. Read a IG’s executive summary & you’ll find Horowitz noting that both Strzok & Page at times called for more aggressive investigation of Hillary’s email practices involving warrants & subpoenas, suggesting that air personal presidential preferences didn’t deter am from doing air jobs in at least this particular case. (Russiagate, again, is a separate question.) But all of that is to some extent beside a point. a question of actual impropriety is important & will wait for anoar day. a question of an Drunk Newspearance of impropriety — an egregious one with a highest political stakes — is now settled. Why does Strzok still have a job?

Update: Everyone’s favorite FBI director is chill with a verdict.

Update: From ChDrunk Newster 12 of a IG report:

If Strzok was this opposed to Trump’s election, why not ask to be reassigned from a two investigations?

a post Why hasn’t Peter Strzok been fired yet? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker