Ob-strzok-tion of justice

| July 13, 2018 | 37 Comments

For eighteen months, Democrats and the liberal media have been hoping beyond hope that the Mueller investigation will result in Donald Trump being found guilty of colluding with Russia or obstruction of justice. They would prefer the latter, for while collusion could be conjured into grounds for impeachment by an increasingly unlikely Democrat-controlled Congress, it is no crime. So obstruction of justice, an actual prosecutable crime, is what they have really been salivating for. In Thursday’s congressional hearings featuring the FBI figure central to all of these hopes, Peter Strzok, the Dems showed the world just how willing they are to engage in some major obstruction of their own to prevent House Republicans from investigating the investigator. While their behavior may not rise to criminality, it certainly robbed the American people of a full opportunity to hear Strzok’s responses to penetrating and pointed Republican questioning.

Time after time, when Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee tried to pin down the unctuous, slippery Strzok, some Democrat member or other would break into the questioning to raise a superfluous objection that broke the line of questioning and refocused attention away from the legitimate target – a corrupt FBI investigation, or rather multiple corrupt FBI investigations – relieving the frequently beleaguered subject of the committee’s immediate focus. Or, when it came their turn to speak, the Dems would dredge up unrelated criticisms of the Trump administration, such as poor little immigrant babies being abused by evil ICE. One of the most despicable things they did was to rope in all the other members of the FBI by painting Strzok as just one of the regular guys, thus tainting the whole force. I’ve lost count of how many former FBI agents, even executives, who have come forward to deny this, pointing out that Strzok’s and his cronies’ behaviors were clearly atypical of the service.

The most heated outbreak of such Democrat witness protection came when Texas Republican Louis Gohmert raised the issue of how Strzok could expect the committee to believe his, Strzok’s, every pious assertion of virtue when the guy had been cheating on his wife with another member of the FBI investigatory team throughout the time he was investigating Trump and Hillary. I thought it was a legitimate question, although I might have asked it even more pointedly – such as, “Mr. Strzok, you ask this committee to accept your virtue without demurral, so I’m wondering: are you still cheating on your wife?”

The Democrats couldn’t have stunk things up more if they’d wheeled in a cart of week-old red herring and dumped it in the open area between the committee members and the witness. What made this obfuscating all the more infuriating was the fact that Strzok’s culpability is so well and thoroughly documented, much of it in the public domain, yet in spite of that, he and the Democrats could so blithely, even haughtily, ignore that 900-pound gorilla while mouthing continuous denials of known facts and wrapping this smarmy, smirking swamp creature in pious protestations of public service and patriotism.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Politics

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dave Hardin says:

    You sir are Bigly Genius.

  2. In complete agreement with you, Poe.

  3. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    Everything goes with the dems from BJ’S under the white house desk to a lady drowning inside a Kennedy’s car.

  4. ChipNASA says:

    I hope this is the Democraps in a few months and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMMING

  5. OWB says:

    Absotively spot on, Poe. Denial of the obvious is something these loony lefties are so accustomed to doing that they have no concept just how ridiculous they are. Sure, denial of wrong doing is often a natural initial response from normal, sane people, but continuing that tact when the evidence is clearly otherwise makes no sense at all.

    When all this began, some of us laughed at the irony of lefties demanding investigation of “Russia, Russia, Russia.” Really? THAT is where lefties wanted to go? After their decades of close association with and cooperation with lefties world wide? Hilarious.

  6. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    9 August 2016 email exchange between FBI Employee Lisa Page and Strzok:

    Slut Page: “He’s not ever going to become president, right?”

    Cad Strzok answered: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

    When queried about this, Strzok explained that the We referred to the American People. Really? Funny, but I never heard anyone refer to a hoped-for defeat of a presidential candidate quite that way. I heard all sorts of things over the years but “We’ll stop him” is a new one on me, in this context. Sirhan Sirhan did stop Bobby Kennedy. Oswald did stop JFK. Do I think that Strzok meant that he and others would assassinate Trump? No, I don’t. What I do think is that the 2016 plan was to blow up the Trump campaign with rumor, innuendo, and outright lies. It didn’t work, but they are still trying. The only conspiracy I detect thus far is the one among former FBI officials. Are there others who did their bosses’ bidding to curry favor with them? You bet there are. Who are they? I don’t know, but until they are rooted out, I will not talk about a few bad apples but, instead, indict the whole stinking agency. And that’s the only place we part company on this disgraceful fiasco, PT

    • rgr769 says:

      If you read Sundance’s timeline and expositions at ConservativeTreehouse.com on how this criminal conspiracy was hatched and carried out, you will see that this Strozk was at the center of it all. He was even liaising directly with Brennan at the CIA. This conspiracy makes Watergate look like a Sunday school get-together. The people involved in Watergate were a bunch of amateurs, including the burglars themselves. The overarching conspiracy and most of the crimes all involved their amateurish cover-up.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        I’ll take a look at that. Thanks.

        • rgr769 says:

          The correct site address is “theconservativetreehouse.com.” Have fun; there is a great deal of material there. I believe this treasonous cabal started about the time it looked like Trump was going to get the party’s nomination. Too bad we can’t waterboard them to bring out the truth; although, they are such a bunch of pussies that wouldn’t be necessary. The little Pilipino MI warrant officer who interrogated two officers captured from my A-team at SF School’s UW field exercise would make them sing like canaries.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    They keep hoping for another Watergate, and ain’t no such animal around any more.

    is there any way at all to trip them up, or is it best to let them trip themselves? They aren’t going to give up until dTrump is dead and buried, and that ain’t gonna happen this lifetime.

  8. SFC D says:

    I was really hoping Gowdy would jump the desk and throat-punch that arrogant little cocksucker.

  9. Fjardeson says:

    GREAT POST! Loved the herring thing… your writing made my morning, Poe.

  10. Frankie Cee says:

    Yes Democrats; you smell. Actually, you reek to the high heaven. So wrapped up in your effort to get rid of the President, you disallow actual investigation by your republican counterparts. You smell, and it is not a good smell.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Rosenstein just announced more indicrtments of Russian hackers. All who give a shit, raise your Left hand. So, here’s the narrative. There were hackers who targeted only Wide Load’s campaign for the purpose of using acquired information to defeat her. And it must have worked because she lost! See, Benghazi, private email servers in her home through which she communicated with the then-president and shared confidential information, lied through her teeth, and had a hard time staying upright had nothing whatsoever to do with her loss.

    • ChipNASA says:

      I wonder what they’ll do when the Russians show up and say, “OK Bitches, let’s do discovery.” (like the example below)

      I believe, FOOKED, they’ll be.

      http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/10/robert-mueller-court-russian-company-trump-probe-joe-digenova-says

    • Poetrooper says:

      These indictments against Russia’s GRU are just as hypocritical as anything the Dems could come up with and they are the masters of that sorry trait. The USA/CIA has been screwing around with elections in other countries for decades and most likely were the first to do so using cyber methods.

      One of my best friends in college back in 1971-72 was a Persian grad student whose major complaint against this country was our constant subversive meddling in his nation’s (Iran) politics and elections. Similarly, there was hardly an election in Central and South America for decades where the CIA did not have its finger on the scale.

      The Democrat party has taken illegal foreign campaign contributions going back through Clinton, at least. They’ve not only taken them, they’ve solicited them in return for favorable treatment when in power, most egregiously, Bill Clinton and the Chicoms and Indonesians.

      The only value these new indictments may have is hopefully to fade some heat from Trump.

  12. Ex-PH2 says:

    Remember, some of the recounts demanded were called off when the discovery of more votes for Trump than for his opponent came to the surface. 🙂

    Obviously, Trump could not possibly have won unless he was cheating, but instead, the cheaters were caught cheating and it wasn’t on the Trump side of the fence.

    The irony of it all was not lost on me.

    They’ll carry this nonsense to their graves with them. The only collusion that could possibly have existed was hiding votes for Trump from the final count.

    It’s like watching little kids who don’t understand why someone else won the prize in the 2nd grade spelling bee in school, and they didn’t because they weren’t paying attention. And now, they still can’t spell anything correctly.

    Sore losers never cease to amaze me. It HAS TO BE TRUMP’S FAULT THAT HE WON AND THE WARTHOG FROM HELL LOST. HAS TO BE!!!

    • rgr769 says:

      It was Trump’s “fault” he won; he was the better, more appealing candidate. His message resounded with more voters in the critical states to get him to the 306 electoral votes. I truly believe Wideload received so many more votes in New Yawk and Mexifornia because there was substantial vote fraud, i.e., non-citizens and others not eligible to vote, multiple votes, the dead voting, and fraudulent vote counting. The Demoncats just failed to commit enough vote fraud in the right places.

    • Mason says:

      Yup, that’s why they’re so pissed. Not that they ran a worse campaign that didn’t resonate with middle America. It’s that they’re mad they spent so much money and time rigging it for Hillary and it didn’t work!

  13. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I was wrong to call Lisa Page a slut. She’s a wife and the mother of two children. That makes her…okay, I wasn’t wrong.

  14. 26Limabeans says:

    “It’s like watching little kids who don’t understand why someone else won the prize in the 2nd grade spelling bee in school”

    There was an ad on the radio yesterday for a kids recreational affair in Portland Maine.
    Stated that all participants would recieve a decal, t-shirt and trophy.

  15. Mason says:

    Agree Poe. I just put this in the other thread we’re exploring today, but the FBI looked bad when this started. Two plus years of looking bad now, since the Clinton e-mail c̶o̶v̶e̶r̶u̶p̶ “investigation”, the FBI have looked like a bunch of far-left partisan buffoons.

    At the beginning they looked bad, but could have easily been redeemed. Now that the IG has absolved them and Strzok still has a well paying job, they look like an organization that not just tolerates but encourages political corruption.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      “For all the drama, fire and fury, the House hearing shed no new light on Strzok’s conduct at the FBI. It did, however, demonstrate the general uselessness of Congressional hearings.” Fox News

      The second sentence stopped me cold. The general uselessness of congressional hearings? I wonder does the writer, a 24-year employee of the FBI, now retired, who was an assistant director overseeing all criminal investigation, recognize that the useless exercises are held pursuant to the oversight power of Congress, implicit in the Constitution? I thought I was going to read something worthwhile from one of the ‘good apples.’ Instead, I see oversight authority called into question. BTW, he served under Mueller. His name is Swecker. Chris Swecker. He’s a lawyer nowadays.

      • rgr769 says:

        To make a statement like that I think he qualifies under TAH rules as a “lawer.” He likely never performed any real lawyering.

      • Mason says:

        Well when the person at the center of the crosshairs sitting there smirking the whole time, people blatantly outright ignore congressional subpoenas, and being held in contempt of congress really means nothing, the kid might have a point.

        Our AG (Holder) was held in contempt of congress in 2012 and held the job for three more years. Hell to a certain segment (the Democrats and the media), being held in contempt by a majority Republican congress is a badge of honor and celebrated.

        Not how it should be. Co-equal branches was the original design.

        • MSG Eric says:

          Yep, how often have people been called before Congress to testify and even if they are caught doing bad shit, have anything further happen to them?

          Clinton sat there for 11 hours telling lie after lie, which Comey even admitted were LIES when he was called to testify AFTER absolving her of all the bad shit she did. What happened to either? Nothing.

          How many witnesses were called that said, “I plead the 5th” 100 times and nothing happened to them?

          The left jumps up and down about Trump’s low approval rating with the American people, when was the last time Congress’ approval rating was above 11%?

          The other problem is that Congress has the power of the purse strings, paying or not paying for stuff, but how often do they actually use it? If they don’t pay for particular line items in the budget, their lobbyists and contributors might not like that and they’ll lose campaign funds, or worse, one of their family members who works as a lobbyist or for campaign contributor might lost their job!

  16. Yef says:

    I wish I could write like Poetrooper.

  17. Thunderstixx says:

    It’s a complete replay of the Scott Walker recall only on a national scale with even more fireworks and, honest to Pete, stupider people…
    These clowns honestly believe that Americans will stand for this.
    There will be no blue wave in this election and we can expect to have Trump in again for a total replay of the same game, only worse !!!
    I’m sitting here watching 13 Hours again.
    The Benghazi mess is exactly why Trump was elected.
    Wisconsin was lost for them after the state finally got voter ID passed and upheld in the State and federal Supreme Courts.
    2012 was a thrown election in Wisconsin, no doubt in my mind.
    I think all we can hope for is a special place in hell for these evil asswipes.

  18. Skippy says:

    Great read as alway

Leave a Reply

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