By Dan Calabrese
This sort of harkens back to the post-9/11 days, doesn’t it?
“If we submit ourselves to additional security restrictions, the terrorists win!”
That’s right, every time you have to put your hands over your head in a TSA scanner, Bin Laden raises a glass of bubbly. Or he did until he got blown away by the Navy SEALs.
Same basic idea, really. It doesn’t matter that Strzok was obviously using his position in federal law enforcement to try to manipulate the results of an election by pursuing a bogus line of inquiry against Donald Trump. What really matters is that, by holding him accountable for it, you’re rewarding Vladimir Putin’s effort to do . . . exactly what Peter Strzok was trying to do.
So stop asking him! You’re only making things worse:
“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,” Strzok wrote in the statement, adding that Russian election interference has been successfully “sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions.”
“I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok wrote. “As someone who loves this country and cherishes its ideals, it is profoundly painful to watch and even worse to play a part in.”
Strzok also is expected to reject President Trump’s characterization of the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt.”
“This investigation is not politically motivated, it is not a witch hunt, it is not a hoax,” Strzok wrote.
A skillful line of questioning from members of the committee will clearly show otherwise. If I were them, I would focus mainly on the following:
- What exactly did Strzok mean when he said they needed an “insurance policy”? Against what? The context clearly indicates he’s talking about an insurance policy against Trump being elected. If that’s not what he meant, then what did he mean, and why should anyone think the meaning was not what the context suggested?
- Why did he describe the Hillary investigation as being about nothing more than “not f***ing up,” but the Trump investigation as “the one that really matters”? Why should that not be understood to mean that the FBI was only going through the motions on Hillary but was out to get Trump?
- Why did he, Strzok, personally edit James Comey’s exoneration statement of Hillary so as to change “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”? What does he consider the difference between the two? (By the way, the difference is clearly that the statute identifies gross negligence as a felony, so there was no way they could use that language while attempting to exonerate her.)
- When he said, “We’ll stop it,” with the context clearly suggesting he meant stopping Trump from becoming president, is that what he really meant, who is “we” and how were “we” going to “stop it”?
- What did he, Page and Andrew McCabe discuss “in Andy’s office” pertaining to the execution of the insurance policy?
The committee needs to drill down hard on these questions. If all they do is berate him for his bias, they’re going to let him skate. Strzok is an experienced interrogator and he knows how to play the game. They need to ask questions in very skillful ways so he can’t dodge the obligation to answer. Some of the committee members just want to preen for the cameras and star in viral videos of them letting Strzok have it. That accomplishes nothing. They need to make him show, by his inability to explain way his actions, that what happened was rotten.
Don’t miss your chance, congressmen. Because if you fumble this, you’re not going to get another one.
Dan writes Christian spiritual warfare novels and does all kinds of other weird things too. Follow all his activity by liking him on Facebook!