Liberals are getting out their checkbooks. Even though they can’t afford to pay for their healthcare, their birth control or their own college debt, they have reached deep into their cookie jars and under their mattresses and thus far scratched together more than $440,000 to help someone in need. Who is the beneficiary of this great humanitarian sacrifice by the nation’s Left? The poor? The elderly? The sick? No. It’s Peter Strozk, the Trump-hating ex-FBI official who disgraced the organization and was fired for reasons that should be obvious to any person with an ounce of intellect. Peter Strozk, apparently, is the American liberal’s idea of a noble cause. That should put things in perspective for the rest of us.
The story that accompanied the GoFundMe page set up for Strozk amazed me for its rose-colored view of the man who is now infamous for his unprofessional conduct as an agent of the FBI. Below is the delusional appeal, with my own responses in bold:
Peter Strzok, a man who has spent his entire life working to help keep us and our nation safe, has been fired. He needs your help.
Fact: Strzok, along with James Comey, was instrumental in shielding Hillary Clinton from the legal consequences of her mishandling of classified information. Per CNN on 12/4/17:
“Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ the sources said.”
CNN goes on to explain:
“The shift from ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for ‘gross negligence.’"
Is there even one soul out there naïve enough to believe that Strzok’s own bias did not influence his surgical editing of Comey’s draft? How does getting your favorite candidate off the hook for mishandling classified information “help keep us and our nation safe?” I’d honestly like to know.
For the last year, Pete, his work, and his character have been the target of highly politicized attacks, including frequent slanderous statements from President Trump, who actively—and apparently successfully—pressured FBI officials to fire Pete.
LOL. It was the politicized nature of Peter Strzok’s own behavior in the FBI that put him in the spotlight to begin with and, as is often the case, the only reason the criticism against him appears “politicized” is because only one side cares enough about Americans getting equal treatment by the FBI to make an issue of it. Democrats not only don’t care if agents like Strzok abuse the power entrusted to them, they reward it handsomely! So which side is really politicizing this?
Peter Strzok is a proud husband and father, a veteran of the U.S. Army and counterintelligence Special Agent who spent more than two decades in a job he loved at the FBI.
Oh please spare me. I can’t even imagine how ashamed his family must be after what was revealed in his text messages.
Pete handled some of the agency’s most important cases, thwarting numerous attacks by foreign and domestic adversaries while being consistently promoted and frequently recognized for his skillful and independent work. In describing his 21 years at the FBI, The New York Times said, “He rose quickly through its ranks, earning a reputation within the bureau as one of its most savvy and reliable counterintelligence agents.zz”
I’ll see your New York Times and raise you one CNN analyst/25-year veteran of the FBI who said:
“Strzok was the epitome of a ‘blue-flamer,’ FBI parlance for a ruthless promotion-seeker.”
That description certainly seems more in keeping with the picture painted by Strzok’s own text messages, doesn’t it?
But last week, in a decision apparently driven by political pressure, a senior FBI official chose to fire Pete — overruling the agency’s normal and independent process by rejecting the decision of the career professionals in the FBI’s disciplinary division. This has left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.
Again, given Stzok’s behavior and the damage he caused to the reputation of the FBI, anyone NOT inclined to fire Strzok would have to be motivated by politics, not the other way around. It was his own bad behavior and abuse of power that “left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.”
The nation saw Pete’s true character when he voluntarily testified before Congress on July 12th, 2018. Facing an inquisition that even a Fox News anchor said “felt like a public lynching,” he expressed regret for the pain he caused his family and for the harm caused by the weaponization of his words and, as reported by The Daily Beast, “issued a ringing defense of himself and his agency.”
Strzok’s true character showed in his text messages, not in his scripted speech for congress that was probably written by his lawyers. Furthermore, expressing regret for the “weaponization of his words” is to suggest that others are responsible for what Strzok’s done and to refuse accountability.
Following his repeated Congressional testimony and a lengthy investigation, one thing is clear: Pete’s personal views never once influenced his professional actions. As The Washington Post reported, “Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate…” The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative magazine, declared that the “overwrought tale of bias” surrounding Pete is “just sound and fury.”
It is not clear to me, whatsoever, that Strzok’s personal views didn’t influence his actions at the FBI. By the FBI’s own admission Strzok’s favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information but was cleared by the FBI. Contrast this with the ongoing investigation of Strzok’s object of hate, Donald Trump, that began and persists despite the absence of evidence. How does one explain this perplexing reality if not for the influence of bias inside the FBI?
The real story behind this episode was made clear in an analysis by Slate, which said that “Peter Strzok is the hero we need.” The author wrote that Pete is an “honest law enforcement officer standing up to a corrupt president. And that’s why Trump attacked him. Trump doesn’t want Americans to...see what backbone looks like. I’ll tell you what it looks like: Republicans tried to put Strzok on trial, and Strzok put Trump on trial instead.”
How cute is it that this person refers to an opinion in Slate as “an analysis,” or that they think anyone who writes for Slate could possibly be objective when it comes to Donald Trump? To suggest that Strzok was “standing up to a corrupt president” is absurd given that (1) Trump wasn’t even president when Strzok first abused his position at the FBI to help Hillary Clinton and falsely tie Trump to Russia; and (2) no corruption has been demonstrated whatsoever, except by Strzok & Co. How are you “heroic” when you misuse the power of your position to thwart the law and the legitimate will of the people? To think this way is to subscribe to the Left’s golden rule: It’s all good unless it happens to us. Some principle to live by, eh?
Unlike those who typically become the focus of partisan investigations in Washington, Pete is not politically connected, he’s not a wealthy lobbyist and he’s not interested in using his notoriety for personal gain. Because of this, he doesn’t have deep pockets that allow him to pay for the significant legal bills he has incurred to defend himself and the FBI against these political attacks, or to easily cover the expenses incurred by his lost income.
Again I would scold the writer that good old “Pete” is only the subject of a “partisan investigation” because he acted as a partisan himself and because Democrats’ refusal to hold Strzok accountable has left the job solely to Republicans. That’s their partisan problem, not ours.
We are asking you to support a man who has dedicated his life to defending America; to stand up for the freedoms on which this country was built and a government that truly serves the people by protecting all Americans, including dedicated government employees, from constantly being subjected to the whims and influence of politicians.
Apparently it is okay if the rest of us are subjected to the “whims and influence” of unelected FBI agents like Peter Strzok.
Here’s my question for the writer of this appeal:
I am an American. How is my freedom served when someone like Strzok abuses the power entrusted in him to tilt the scales of justice for his favored candidate and to help set up road blocks against the preferred candidate of many of his fellow citizens (you know, the ones who pay his salary)? That behavior is as unAmerican as it gets, so your attempts to paint Strzok as some kind of patriotic hero are pathetic. Peter Strzok is a weak, self-centered man who put himself before his country and his family.
The liberal donors who have contributed to Peter Strzok could have put their money into food for hungry children, shelters for the homeless or college funds for children orphaned by the opioid epidemic. Instead their priority was to reward a man who cast a pall on the FBI and abused the power entrusted to him by the American People. In doing so they not only revealed to us who they really are, but they have ensured that America will continue to come under attack by the Deep State. That may feel like a victory now, but remember: It’s all good until it happens to you.
To Leave a comment on this post please follow this link to The Pesky Truth. I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.