The Incredible Tale of a Reckless, Partisan FBI Agent and Our Partisan Bureaucracy

[EasyAce]

Peter Strzok’s story will hurt public trust in the federal government at the worst possible time.

By David French
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454361/peter-strzok-fbi-scandal-partisan-american-bureaucracy

If the story hadn’t been verified by virtually every mainstream-media outlet in the country,
you’d think it came straight from conspiratorial fever dreams of the alt-right. Yesterday, news broke
that Robert Mueller had months ago asked a senior FBI agent to step down from his role investigating
the Trump administration. This prince of a man was caught in an extramarital affair with an FBI lawyer.
The affair itself was problematic, but so was the fact that the two were found to have exchanged anti-
Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton text messages.

Here’s where the story gets downright bizarre. This agent, Peter Strzok, also worked with FBI director
James Comey on the Clinton email investigation. In fact, he was so deeply involved in the Clinton
investigation that he is said to have interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, and to have been
present when the FBI interviewed Clinton. According to CNN, he was part of the team responsible
for altering the FBI’s conclusion that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in handling classified emails
(a finding that could have triggered criminal liability) to “extremely careless” — a determination that
allowed her to escape prosecution entirely.

After the Clinton investigation concluded, Strzok signed the documents opening the investigation
into Russian election interference and actually helped interview former national-security adviser
Michael Flynn.

In other words, it looks like a low-integrity, reckless, biased bureaucrat has played an important
role in two of the most important and politically charged criminal investigations of the new century.
Yes, it’s good that Mueller removed Strzok when he discovered the text messages. No, Strzok is
not solely responsible for the conclusions reached in either investigation. But his mere presence
hurts public confidence in the FBI, and it does so in a way that further illustrates a persistent and
enduring national problem: America’s permanent bureaucracy is unacceptably partisan . . .

[RetBobbyMI]

Knowing that, can anything Mueller does be trusted now?

[jpsb]

Knowing that, can anything Mueller does be trusted now?

No

[Bigun]

Knowing that, can anything Mueller does be trusted now?

Other than trusting him to continue to waste large quantities of taxpayer $$$, nope!

[EasyAce]

Other than trusting him to continue to waste large quantities of taxpayer $$$, nope!

Thank you Captain Obvious. ;)

[RetBobbyMI]

If this guy did every5hing he is reported to have done in a political manner, why wouldn’t he be prosecuted under the Hatch Act as a federal employee conducting political activities on the job?

[EasyAce]

If this guy did every5hing he is reported to have done in a political manner, why wouldn’t he be prosecuted under the Hatch Act as a federal employee conducting political activities on the job?

@RetBobbyMI
Technically, Strzok isn't liable under the Hatch Act---the Hatch Act doesn't bar FBI employees from
expressing political opinions (the e-mail swaps between himself and his apparent paramour would
fall under that heading), but if Strzok had gone from merely swapping anti-Donaldus Minimus
e-mails to, say, taking part in organising for or registering voters for or wearing campaign buttons
for Hilarious Rodent Clinton, then he would be prosecutable under the Hatch Act. The most
that could be done to him for just expressing anti-Donaldus Minumus sentiments to his paramour
while on an investigating team probing the Trump Administration is exactly what Mueller did, remove
Strzok when Mueller became aware of the texts.

[RetBobbyMI]

@RetBobbyMI
Technically, Strzok isn't liable under the Hatch Act---the Hatch Act doesn't bar FBI employees from
expressing political opinions (the e-mail swaps between himself and his apparent paramour would
fall under that heading), but if Strzok had gone from merely swapping anti-Donaldus Minimus
e-mails to, say, taking part in organising for or registering voters for or wearing campaign buttons
for Hilarious Rodent Clinton, then he would be prosecutable under the Hatch Act. The most
that could be done to him for just expressing anti-Donaldus Minumus sentiments to his paramour
while on an investigating team probing the Trump Administration is exactly what Mueller did, remove
Strzok when Mueller became aware of the texts.

who said he didn’t do those things you espoused. Given his blatant actions in support of Hillary, I would venture a guess that he may have done more. In either case, his FBI agent status should be terminated since he is no longer trustworthy.

[EasyAce]

who said he didn’t do those things you espoused. Given his blatant actions in support of Hillary, I would venture a guess that he may have done more. In either case, his FBI agent status should be terminated since he is no longer trustworthy.

So far all we know for certain is that he swapped e-mails supporting her. If it does come forth
that he did do more than just that, then yes.

[RetBobbyMI]

So far all we know for certain is that he swapped e-mails supporting her. If it does come forth
that he did do more than just that, then yes.

Flynn should, if he had the funds, revoke his guilty plea, and put the FBI on trial.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is inconceivable!  It would be like somebody just decided to make ridiculous accusations against somebody running for Senator somewhere, with no evidence, just to get people gossiping.

Unheard of.  Could never happen, conservatives are wayyy too smart to fall for such tricks, right?

[EasyAce]

Flynn should, if he had the funds, revoke his guilty plea, and put the FBI on trial.

Good luck with that even if Flynn did have the funds. Unless I'm very wrong, he'd have to ask
the Attorney General for such a prosecution, and I think Mr. Sessions has his own issues with
the Russian business . . .

[RetBobbyMI]

Good luck with that even if Flynn did have the funds. Unless I'm very wrong, he'd have to ask
the Attorney General for such a prosecution, and I think Mr. Sessions has his own issues with
the Russian business . . .

The FBI nut would be on the defensive to prove the allegations against Flynn. He would have to show he didn’t have any bias.