Saturday, December 16

When text messages show top FBI investigator and top DOJ atty saying "F Trump," Lying Media jumps to defend

How do the media handle major, breaking news that destroys their narrative?

FBI and other government investigations are supposed to be unbiased, fair.  So you'd think that if the lead FBI investigator of Hilliary Clinton's private email server--the one on which she did all government business but refused to copy the government on--and on the Russia collusion probes was exchanging 375 texts with a high-ranking attorney for Obama's amusingly mis-named "justice department," that showed both hated Trump and were determined to prevent him from winning the presidency, no matter how slim the chances, it would utterly destroy the idea that either investigation was remotely fair and unbiased.

The FBI's lead investigator into Hilliary's emails was Peter Strzok.  Last week congress released 375 text messages Strzok exchanged with Lisa Page, a high-ranking attorney in the Justice Department (the FBI supposedly works under the DOJ).  Many of the texts were shocking in their display of hate, contempt and bias against Trump and for Hilliary.  Samples:

4 March 2016:
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page – I know.

16 March 2016
Page – I can not believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president.

6 August 2016
Page – Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself.  [link to story]
Strzok – God that’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.

9 August 2016
Page – He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!

15 August 2016 
Strzok-- I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.  It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

["Andy" likely refers to the deputy director of the entire FBI, Andrew McCabe.  This is the most damning text because it's hard to find an innocuous explanation for Strzok's use of the phrase "It's like an "insurance policy."  A reasonable person would guess that he had a backup plan to prevent Trump from winning.  It's not unreasonable to surmise that Strzok knew about the fabricated "dossier" being shopped to reporters.]

[It's also hard to imagine an innocuous explanation for the FBI's chief investigator and a top DOJ attorney having a serious conversation about how to prevent one party from winning the presidency.]

20 October 2016 (less than 2 weeks before the election)
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot.
Strzok - I can't pull away.  WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY ??!?!
 
Now for my liberal friends:  If a group of Republican holdovers running an investigation was discovered to be this biased against a Democrat target of an investigation, would you be fine with it?


But instead of reporting this straight up, the Lying Media is already minimizing these smoking guns, offering a number of absurd defenses.  Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution and a supporter of former FBI Director James Comey who has helped him leak information to the press before, claims
The release of private correspondence between two Justice Department employees whose correspondence is the subject of an active inspector general investigation is not just wrong. It is cruel.
Jerrold Nadler, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sought to defend by writing “Peter Strzok wasn’t saying anything about Donald Trump that the majority of Americans weren’t thinking.”

Many in the media ran with that.  And obviously FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. But this ignores the fact that investigators aren't ordinary citizens, and are expected to be unbiased.

And if there wasn't a problem with these totally normal political opinions, why did special counsel Mueller remove Strzok from the probe when he discovered the texts?

Max Boot agreed:  Nothing wrong with the chief investigator hating trump; instead he claims that the only bad thing is the "invasion of privacy" in releasing the texts.

But the most deft counter to the texts came from the NY Times and CNN, which simply haven't bothered to publish the most damning ones.  Instead the Times ran a story titled "Text messages in hand, Republicans plan to accuse Justice Department of bias."  Yes, the problem isn't the lead investigator about Hilliary sending beyond-top-secret information to her unsecured, private server in her mansion, but that the Repubs are about to accuse the DOJ of bias.  Wow, that's beyond parody.

Like the Times, the lying Trump-haters at Washington Post have carefully avoided quoting the most damning text--the one about the meeting in McCabe’s office where Strzok mentioned his goal of having an "insurance policy" against the long-shot of a Trump win.  Instead the Post has focused on the "invasion of privacy" angle, and the fact that Page and Strzok were having an extramarital affair.  This allowed the Post reporter to claim that any...um...incriminating phrases in the texts were really simply code to cover for their affair.  This allows the Post to pretend they’re covering the story.

We've known for over a year that the people involved in the Hillary “investigation” weren't actually investigating--at least not in the normal meaning of the word.  That was obvious to anyone with an IQ over double-digits, since the FBI's alleged "investigators"--with Strzok as the chief--
   *didn't issue a single subpoena;
   *didn't seek a single search warrant;
   *never even asked to convene a grand jury; 
   *got the equally corrupt DOJ to grant immunity to every Hilliary aide, including top aides Huma and Cheryl Mills;
   *destroyed government-issued laptops, cell phones and iPads;
   *refused to seize Hilliary's private email server--the repository of all the alleged beyond-Top-Secret emails--for six months after the so-called investigation began, thus giving Hilliary more than enough time to "wipe" the server with a program that would make the data impossible to recover;
   *didn't charge her even after she had her attorneys delete 33,000 emails, despite the fact that those emails had been subpoenaed by Congress;
   *failed to seize computers from the State Department that presumably would have shown emails from Hilliary to subordinates asking them to send her classified information;   
   *made a huge effort to cover-up the meeting between Bill Clinton and Obama's Attorney-General, Loretta Lynch, which supposedly happened totally by accident in Lynch's parked government plane in Phoenix, just before Comey announced Hilliary wouldn't be charged with ANY crime.
And of course the media was only too willing to help with the coverup, as revealed the Post's response to emails the FBI was forced to release in response to a *lawsuit* filed by Judicial Watch against the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act.  The Post's own Matt Zapotosky was shown to have emailed DOJ officials asking for political talking points about Lynch/Clinton meeting, saying he wanted to “put the story to rest.”


The clear evidence of conspiracy by government officials to block the election of a candidate they hated is the Lois Lerner/IRS conspiracy gone nuclear.  Strzok, Page, McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Comey, and Mueller--among many others--believed their powerful positions made their political views more important than yours.

This should not go unpunished.  But it will--because the members of the Deep State will protect their loyal co-conspirators.

H/T Mollie Hemmingway at The Federalist.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home