“Peter Strzok Reveals FBI Debated Russia Collusion Probe Based on Trump’s Poll Numbers”. [headline and story here]
The headlines are shocking. But I guess you can’t fully feel the shock UNLESS you imagine Peter Strzok as an FBI agent operating on behalf of the Trump campaign, or any Republican campaign, back in 2016.
If that were the case, all hell would have broken loose way beyond anything we’re seeing now.
Regardless of party bias — and it always seems to be Democratic Party bias, doesn’t it? — the lesson is the same: Peter Strzok is the whole reason we have a Constitution in the first place.
The premise of the original American Constitution is a nation of laws — not of men. Peter Strzok is what happens when men (or women) replace the rule of law. Or: When power overcomes justice.
Psychologically, it’s hard to fathom which is worse: The state of our federal government, including the FBI, at the time Peter Strzok rose to power in his position? Or the fact that he appears to have no problem with what he’s saying?
Consider the following:
Strzok went on to claim that Trump’s poll numbers played a role in internal FBI conversations about the speed of the investigation, with he himself arguing for an aggressive investigation when others were advocating for less aggressive tactics.
Some people said, hey, look. Every poll is saying candidate Trump is likely not to win. Every Republican was saying that. Some people said as a result of that let’s not risk the source. Let’s go slow. But I indicated for them. What I am saying is. Look, we are the FBI. We need to do our job. We need to investigate.
It appears that Peter Strzok is happy — even proud — to acknowledge that he used his power and authority within the FBI to keep Donald Trump from being elected President.
Excuse me: Does the Constitution authorize an FBI agent to determine who will be President of the United States? Or is it the vote of the people?
If it’s acceptable for the Obama administration to use Peter Strzok’s FBI to keep Donald Trump from being elected President, then isn’t it likewise acceptable for Republicans to do the same when in power?
The more we learn about what actually went on in the months leading up to the 2016 election, the more we learn the only collusion exists on the Democratic side. It makes sense, because the Democratic side is all about power for power’s sake. And it’s typical of Democrats/leftists to rationalize anything and everything in the name of “saving the country”.
The Democratic premise was and is that Donald Trump is a threat to the republic. Based on what? Based on dislike of his personality and policies. What’s the proof of his being a threat, rather than being someone with whom they disagree on border patrol, taxes, regulations and military spending? None offered; none seen as necessary. It’s the same old story. It was the same with Bush, and any other Republican. Only now Trump’s brash personality gives them the excuse to release their inner totalitarians. Peter Strzok, along with his brazen, anti-Constitutional, sneering revelations, represents that totalitarianism quite well.
A reader of mine summed it up eloquently:
The only collusion going on was between deep state scumbags trying to swing the election. But collusion’s only wrong if Mueller can make it look like Trump did it. What a scheme.
Exactly.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, and see “Michael Hurd” on MeWe.