And the narrative on Hannity, Breitbart, Fox et al will be that the brave champion Gohmert just destroyed this rogue FBI agent’s credibility in an open hearing and proved once and for all that this is all a witch hunt. Facts matter not at all, and there is no such thing as an objective, shared reality when it comes to this.
Which is why I am legit terrified of what happens if/when Mueller returns a report that justify indictments and/or impeachment, and the GOP’s response as the party in control of Congress is a collective shrug and jerk-off motion.
I hear tonight is going to be wonderful for a bit of stargazing, might even catch a glimpse of Saturn.
Agreed.
I have to admit here I only listened to a few hours of the live stream, so I don’t know every detail. Very entertaining with all the pompous posturing and old-timey “the gentleman from Arkansaw” type stuff.
I think there is no debate that Strzok had very strong political opinions against Trump and for Clinton. He said that it was fair that he didn’t like Trump and before anything had happened with the investigations he was saying stuff like “impeach Trump” an “We’ll stop him”. Is that bias?
I would agree with Strzok that everyone has political opinions and the difference is if you act on them when you should be impartial. That is why this whole hearing was so inane, because the ongoing investigation couldn’t even be discussed at that level to find proof of biased decision making. So the result was of course just posturing.
The whole question is sort of interesting: in what circumstances can just opinions be evidence of bias enough that you should be barred from participating before any evidence of wrongdoing? I would think that would be true in cases where a “look and see” approach is too dangerous, the consequences too heavy. Like a case of a president with sympathies for the state’s strongest enemy? To Strzok’s employer just a look of bias because of the text messages was enough.
My point about the fair was that Strzok’s defense through the hearing was that even though he has political opinions he wouldn’t act on them because of his good judgement. He posited that he couldn’t have bias because he would not act in a way that would be counter to the FBI’s or the people’s interest. Yet, while working in counter intelligence, he had an affair which is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. To me this undermines is defense.
As I read the stats, TX district 1 has a CPVI of “R+25”, a Cook Partisan Voting Index that is 25 points above national average. It doesn’t merely lean right, it faceplants.
He made a very valid point which, perhaps indicates something that people who are used to functional bureaucracy would find unsurprising - but that people who … routinely bully people, or work in toxic environments may not understand.
To wit; he existed in a robust chain of responsibilities, reporting, and command with people above him, and people below him. The system, as it operates, is designed to prevent individual decisions from cascading out and away. In that sense, he need not have presented his own character as unimpeachable (which it wasn’t) because in a system such as the FBI, in order to pervert the operation of an investigation you’d have to suborn not only those below you (section chiefs, field agents) but also those above you (assistant-directors, directors etc) …
His good judgement shouldn’t matter; he could have exhibited terrible judgement and the people below him would baulk at acting, and the people beside him would be hauled over coals, and the people above him would cop the fallout. The check here is not in his head, or his heart, but in the structural systems inherent in this shambolic, crafted super-organism of the FBI. More broadly public institutions are not held together by the individual decisions of public figures to be good.
…
Well, most institutions. The presidency turns out to be a series of informal agreements and hastily sketched notes on the back of napkins.
In many ways, the checks upon the highest office have kept the damage down. A lot of the bureaucracy has been ignoring the daily outrages uttered by the current holder of that position. However, the biggest check called Congress has been delinquent in its duties, as the members of the majority choose personal profit over responsibility.
I thought what Gohmert was saying was a bit more interesting that the characterization here. Doesnt mean its right but he appears to have an internal source. Gohmert alleges that an ICIG investigation concluded that HRCs emails were being copied to a third party state that was not Russia.
Strzok attended the meeting with the IGIC but says he has no recollection of the meeting or its contents.
I got the impression that this why he called Strzok a liar. Apparently he thinks Strzok does remember.
