[American Thinker] Infamous FBI agent Peter Strzok testified before Congress on Thursday, July 12. Many questions put to him concerned his text messages and focused on the bias displayed.
But the text messages may be a side story. Yah, I'm going with "he's nuts", and evil to boot.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike
Taking a look at Strzok's testimony other than that regarding his messages, two moments are particularly striking. It seems either he is lying or, if not, that he may be incompetent in a way that is hard to believe.
In his testimony, Strzok described how he changed the wording of then-director James Comey's description of Hillary Clinton from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." At the time the change was made on his computer, there were, he said, many people gathered in his office "because it was the biggest." An unnamed FBI lawyer from the legal counsel division supposedly offered the change to bring it into line with what the director wanted to communicate.
Specifically, Strzok related, "My recollection is ‐ and I’m not an attorney ‐ that attorneys within the F.B.I. raised concern that the use of ’gross negligence’ triggered a very specific legal meaning."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner then stated the obvious, which was that this handed Mrs. Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card. Strzok in turn denied it.
Rep. Sensenbrenner is of course correct, as many have pointed out. The mental state required by the statute in question requires (only) gross negligence. Everything turns on this.
Strzok's failure to realize the significance of the change, if fail he did in reality, would fit the definition of incompetence, since it is hardly credible that a high-ranking FBI agent such as Strzok would be unaware of the significance of the removal of the term "gross negligence" in this context.
That seems hard to believe. But in Strzok's telling, he was little more than a secretary, merely making the change based on the consensus of the unidentified group upon the suggestion of a nameless FBI counsel. Well, perhaps; but, you know, that doesn't sound so good, either.
The other striking thing was that Strzok repeatedly claimed that the DOJ's Inspector General report found no bias. But this is disingenuous or, again, evidence of a lack of legal knowledge that is hard to credit in a senior FBI agent, attorney or not.
The IG report very carefully pointed out that the IG was not reviewing whether the Clinton espionage investigation could have been handled differently. It further and more importantly stated that if any rational investigative purpose was served by any investigative decision that this then would not be considered a biased ethical violation. That is because the IG report looked for ethical and legal violations: it was not a review of the quality of the investigation or even of its fairness.
#4
Everyone bureaucrat I ever met tries to minimise accountability.
We wrote a system that recorded bureaucrats rating of suppliers but it was never used as it had their names on it.
The people in the wealth creating part of the economy were just stunned at this attitude. It does make sense as for bureaucrats the reward for more work is zero, and with more decisions comes more career risk.
#9
The man is a full on freaking sociopath. Gohmert nailed it when he asserted that Strzok could pass a polygraph test. I can see how a man with his qualifications would be in great demand in the Swamp.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/13/2018 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
IMO, he'll make a wonderful girlfriend for somebody in jail.
#15
The most astonishing thing to me is that this clown was the Grand Poobah of the FBI's counterintelligence division. I wonder how many foreign spies he's caught. My guess would be: zero. Say what you will about J. Edgar Hoover, but I doubt he would have suffered this idiot as a plebe agent, much less where he ended up.
#16
Everyone bureaucrat I ever met tries to minimise accountability.
I had an encounter with an IRS revenue agent about ten years ago. I had a problem with 1099-MISC reporting and it was the first time I was in a situation where it needed to be corrected, so I asked him what I should do. He basically refused to tell me what to do. I responded - 'You're a nineteen year veteran of the IRS, and you can't tell me, or won't tell me, how to resolve this problem? That is simply incredible, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself, tax professional to tax professional.' He then told me how to resolve matters, but the fact I had to pull his pants down to do it spoke volumes.
#17
Raj, you're lucky the agent didn't have you audited out of business. I heard of one case where a business owner told the IRS agent that she was lucky she wasn't slinging hash in an East Texas restaurant. The IRS agent made sure that the business owner was audited, fined, and IIRC, basically put out of business. The owner fought back and finally won in court, but it took a long time.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/13/2018 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The most astonishing thing to me is that this clown was the Grand Poobah of the FBI's counterintelligence division.
Not so 'astonishing' when you consider what they missed on 9/11.
#21
Raj, you're lucky the agent didn't have you audited out of business.
It doesn't work like that when you're representing a client before the IRS. I've seen a lot of these nitwits bully individual taxpayers and they try the same shit with me, because most of them are bullies throwing their weight around. I will not have it, and I not so gently remind them of their professional responsibilities,. Nearly every time, when they get called on it, they snap back in place. I often do this (the field visits to the JFK Building in Boston) for free because I love fighting these assholes so much.
Jim Jordan: Did you get documents from Bruce Ohr?
Peter Strzok: Yes. At some point we received material from Mr. Ohr...The FBI received documents and material from Mr. Ohr.
Remember, Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS. Did the FBI get the dossier from Bruce?
#1
This bit of information was significant from yesterday's testimony. I doubt Strzok's legal team were pleased that this was released or acknowledged.
#4
Strzok is arrogant. His testimony under oath is offensive. He has tried to turn these hearings into a some kind of joke. Maybe a contempt charge will jar him out of this behavior and wipe the smirk off his face. The FBI leadership of the FBI has been tarnished.
[Daily Caller] A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
"It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia," he added.
Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information.
Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the "specific content."
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
He also said that someone alerted the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to the issue.
[PJ] A lot of people seem to confuse being an alpha male with being an @sshole. There are alpha males who are @ssholes (Steve Jobs fit that description), but that’s certainly not necessary.
Let me also note that if you have to tell people that you’re an alpha because they won’t just figure it out on their own, then you’re not an alpha. When people are around you for a while, if you’re really an alpha male, it will shine through.
Furthermore, when people try to define what an alpha is, they often tack on all sorts of extraneous qualities that may be good to have, but that aren’t necessarily alpha. Is it good to be funny? Sure. Is Chuck Norris funny? I don’t know, but I do know he’s an alpha male. So, is being funny one of the keys to being an alpha male? No. Is it good to be organized? Yes. Is Conor McGregor organized? Who knows? But, he’s definitely alpha. So, let’s get down to brass tacks: what are the essential traits of alpha males?
[atimes]It is refreshing to hear an American president call the Europeans out for the sybarites and deadbeats they are.
President Trump outraged European opinion by denouncing his allies on the far side of the Atlantic for their failure to meet NATO’s spending target of 2% of GDP.
Other alliance members, he added, should spend 4% of their output on defense, just like America does. His dudgeon at the Europeans was more than justified: the Europeans really are deadbeats who don’t pay their fair share of the cost of defending their own countries and leave the burden in the hands of American soldiers and taxpayers.
Trump’s remonstrations will fall on deaf ears. Why should Europeans spend money on arms, when they have no intention of using them?
A recent opinion poll found that small minorities in the core European members of NATO were willing to fight for their country under any circumstances.
If you don’t plan to fight, you don’t need weapons, and it is no surprise that Germany, with its budget surplus, can’t bring itself to vote for urgently-need funds for its military. Germany’s armed forces are in disrepair; a German brigade designated to lead a NATO rapid response force has only nine of the 44 tanks it requires and only four of the country’s military aircraft are combat ready.
If there’s nothing you’re willing to die for, there’s probably nothing you’re willing to live for, either, I argued in a 2014 essay on the hundredth anniversary of the First World War (see “Musil and Meta-Musil”). It should be no surprise that there is a reasonably close correspondence between the willingness of the Europeans to fight for their nations and their willingness to have children. If you care so little for your country that you will not defend it, you are likely to be too absorbed in hedonistic distraction to bother with children. Conversely, if there are to be no future generations, who will lay down his life to fight for them?
#1
Before WW-2 what country had the greatest success with breaking the Enigma machine? Poland. Why? One Good reason was that they were wedged between a hostile Germany and a hostile Soviet Union. Their 'best and brightest' had ample reason to step up and defend their country -- they were motivated.
Look at the new Land of the Lotus Eaters, Europe. They don't see any threats on the horizon and sadly they are trying so very, very hard not to see any. They, like a self-proclaimed Socialist ex-friend, are so blinded by oikophobia that they are too busy to look over the wall and check for barbarians... This will not end well.
#2
The basic problem is that they grew up in the sheltering arms of Uncle Sam. Thus instead of viewing it as a magnificent gift, they see it as the normal baseline.
Why should they fight? Peace is because of the EU, not the odious Americans. Spend on a military? Like the baby-killing Americans? Never!
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
07/13/2018 2:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Welfare is bad on personal and national levels and should always include strings to motivate the recipient to care for themselves as quick as possible.
Opens to FOX video
[FOX] Republicans have the chance to secure a major victory and expand their 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate in the November midterm elections ‐ largely because Democrats are advocating radical, impractical and unpopular immigration positions.
As more and more Democrats throw their support behind so-called sanctuary cities, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and promoting open borders, more and more Americans are expressing their vehement opposition to these positions.
Most recently, in their fervor over the child-detention issue, every Senate Democrat scrambled to co-sponsor the Keep Families Together Act, sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. They did this partly to rebuke President Trump and partly to appease the growing radical wing of the Democratic Party ‐ even though the bill proposes half-baked, open-border policies that very few Americans support.
Gabriel Malor wrote an eye-opening piece for The Federalist describing how devasting the Feinstein bill would be for our country it were passed.
[DAWN] FOR the justice system to appear credible, it must punish all those who are found guilty, including the high and mighty. Unfortunately, in Pakistain, there seems to be one law for the common man, and another for those who have the ’means’. On Tuesday, an antiterrorism court in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... granted bail to suspended police officer Rao Anwar in the murder case of Naqeebullah Mehsud. The aspiring young model ‐ along with three others, all dubbed Talibs ‐ was bumped off in a bogus encounter in the outskirts of Karachi in January, which Rao Anwar is accused of criminal masterminding. While it is true that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, it appears that the police officer, believed to be patronised by powerful quarters, is getting preferential treatment. He has been granted bail though he is accused of murder, whereas often those accused of lesser crimes, but without connections, are denied bail. The suspended SSP’s house in Malir cantonment has been declared a ’sub-jail’. Whenever appearing in court, Mr Anwar is brought without handcuffs, while all the other accused are denied this ’privilege’. All this while, both a Supreme Court-mandated joint interrogation report, as well as the former head of Sindh’s Counter-Terrorism Department have said that the encounter in which Naqeebullah and the others was killed was fake, and that Rao Anwar had a central role to play in it.
Encounters, in particular, are a matter of shame for our law-enforcement system. It is, therefore, important that those coppers involved in this heinous act be brought to justice. While Rao and others of his ilk were believed to freely play the role of judge, jury and executioner across Karachi’s vast expanse, the Naqeebullah killing brought into focus the issue of fake encounters like few cases before it had. Therefore, it is imperative that all those involved in this case are tried and brought to justice, and that no preferential treatment is given to any suspect, no matter how powerful. Those in uniform who kill with impunity must be sent a strong message.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Townhall] A man I have known since grade school changed his name, years ago, to an Arabic one. He told me he rejected Christianity as "the white man's religion that justified slavery." He argued Africans taken out of that continent were owed reparations. "From whom?" I asked.
Arab slavers took more Africans out of Africa and transported them to the Middle East and to South America than European slavers took out of Africa and brought to North America. Arab slavers began taking slaves out of Africa beginning in the ninth century -- centuries before the European slave trade -- and continued well after.
In "Prisons & Slavery," John Dewar Gleissner writes: "The Arabs' treatment of black Africans can aptly be termed an African Holocaust. Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade. Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did. Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship. Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire's Sahara salt mines."
My name-changing friend did not know that slavery occurred on every continent except Antarctica. Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Asians enslaved Asians. Africans enslaved other Africans. Arabs enslaved other Arabs. Native Americans even enslaved other Native Americans.
...The region of West Africa ... was one of the great slave-trading regions of the continent -- before, during, and after the white man arrived. It was the Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or to Arabs and keeping others for themselves. Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere.
...Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage. In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Of course, you'll never hear about it in school
#3
One big difference is that non-African slave trade is forgotten because skin colors blend in with the native population. Not so quickly with African slaves. Therefore it's easier to forget.
All this is another reason the left prefers a filtered, approved education.
1) Arab slavers began taking slaves out of Africa beginning in the ninth century - centuries before the European slave trade - and continued well after.
It is still continuing today.
2) Arab slave traders were primarily interested black women for the harems. Male slaves were a "special order item." Excess males were killed, and "special order" males were castrated and frequently died on the march north.
3)The Atlantic slave trade was a godsend for black slaves, as Western buyers mostly wanted men to work the plantations. Instead of being executed, males were sent to the West African ports to be sold.
4) The North American slave trade had 2 unusual characteristics:
4a)American slaves lived at least 4 times as long as slaves in other places.
4b)American slaves formed families. Something almost impossible in other countries.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/13/2018 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
and where did the term "Slavs" come from..... seriously
Even if it's proven to be the case, it doesn't fit the narrative of how only evil white people can be racists or enslavers; so it will be studiously ignored.
h/t Gates of Vienna
Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!
But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of "rights."
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: "Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back ‐ but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: "If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination."
If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights!
Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about "rights"? If senators can’t protect these alleged "rights," it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be "rights."
That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as "constitutional rights."
What liberals call "rights" are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes ‐ at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.
Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!
Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.
h/t Instapundit
...What none of these parents understand is that their children’s and teens’ destructive obsession with technology is the predictable consequence of a virtually unrecognized merger between the tech industry and psychology. This alliance pairs the consumer tech industry’s immense wealth with the most sophisticated psychological research, making it possible to develop social media, video games, and phones with drug-like power to seduce young users.
These parents have no idea that lurking behind their kids’ screens and phones are a multitude of psychologists, neuroscientists, and social science experts who use their knowledge of psychological vulnerabilities to devise products that capture kids’ attention for the sake of industry profit. What these parents and most of the world have yet to grasp is that psychology ‐ a discipline that we associate with healing ‐ is now being used as a weapon against children.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[American Thinker] Infamous FBI agent Peter Strzok testified before Congress on Thursday, July 12. Many questions put to him concerned his text messages and focused on the bias displayed.
Jim Jordan: Did you get documents from Bruce Ohr? 
[Daily Caller] A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding.
[DAWN] FOR the justice system to appear credible, it must punish all those who are found guilty, including the high and mighty. Unfortunately, in Pakistain, there seems to be one law for the common man, and another for those who have the ’means’. On Tuesday, an antiterrorism court in 
