FBI agent Peter Strzok, a leading figure in the Clinton email investigation and the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, has been fired by the Bureau, according to a statement released on Monday, August 13 by his attorney. Strzok’s termination is clearly an exercise in damage control on the part of the FBI. It is also further evidence that a cadre of senior Bureau officials engaged in a pattern of gross misconduct both during and after the presidential election. Driven by a desire to influence the vote in favor of Hillary Clinton and indignation when they failed in this endeavor, these officials sought to destabilize the Donald Trump presidency.
The statement from Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s attorney, said the decision was made Friday, August 10 by FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich. The former counter-intelligence agent had been reassigned to the FBI’s human resources department after he was removed from Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation. This followed the revelation that Strzok had exchanged politically-charged text messages with Bureau attorney Lisa Page during the 2016 election campaign season and while he himself was leading the probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.
The FBI House of Cards
Strzok had been referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) which apparently recommended he be suspended for 60 days and demoted. Goelman’s statement on the firing of his client was highly critical of the decision, saying that the Deputy Director had overruled the OPR. “This decision should be deeply troubling to all Americans,” Goelman said.
In June, Strzok had been relieved of duty and escorted out of the FBI building – so Friday’s decision merely makes his termination official. Strzok joins former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on the list of senior Bureau officials whose firings can be connected to their involvement with the Clinton investigation and/or the probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.
It is apparent that all three men considered themselves entitled, above the law, beyond oversight, and, ultimately, beyond reproach. Each reacted to their firing with indignation and each has suggested that these decisions were politically motivated. The irony of that is stunning when one considers the politically-charged conduct displayed by all three of these senior law enforcement officials.
Ironic Accusations of Political Motivation
The reactions from Strzok and his attorney were particularly ironic. Despite Strzok’s many anti-Trump text messages – more than one of which strongly suggested that he had at least considered using his official position to prevent Trump from becoming, or remaining, president – the former agent insisted that his actions had never been influenced by his obvious political bias. His attorney, however, immediately portrayed Strzok’s firing as a political decision.
Goelman has claimed that, if Strzok had intended to actively prevent Trump from winning the election, he would have leaked the existence of the FBI’s investigation into Russian collusion before Americans went to the polls. This makes little sense, however; had anyone from the FBI revealed the investigation of the Trump team at that time, Congress, the media and the American people would have demanded to know the details of why the investigation had been opened. The FBI and Department of Justice would then have been put in the excruciating position of having to refuse to release any information.
Strozk himself, in a text message to Page during that time, expressed his concern that there is no ‘there’, there, in reference to the collision investigation.
The revelation that then-President Barack Obama’s FBI had begun investigating the presidential candidate of the opposing party – followed by the Bureau’s refusal to explain why – would likely have enraged a large section of the voting public and propelled Trump to a landslide victory.
America has, almost certainly, not heard the last of Peter Strzok. The Justice Department’s Inspector General has yet to release another report into FBI misconduct and potential abuse of its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act powers. Strzok remains a central figure in that affair. His former lover, Lisa Page, may have contributed to his firing with her own closed-door testimony to Congress. She resigned from the FBI in early 2017 and may be the only member of the Bureau’s anti-Trump cabal who escapes further scrutiny and, perhaps, legal jeopardy. Like Comey and McCabe, Peter Strzok may be less fortunate.
WikiLeaks has revealed that founder Julian Assange received a letter From the Senate Select Committee on intelligence, requesting a closed interview with him as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The organization posted the letter to its Twitter account August 8, saying its legal team was considering the offer.
Assange claimed political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 and has been a virtual prisoner there since that time. WikiLeaks, which claims to campaign against government secrecy, has published many thousands of classified government documents online. American law enforcement officials have pursued Assange for years, although it is not known if U.S. authorities have officially filed any charges against him.
The Australian national has been concerned that he will be extradited to the United States. The letter from the Senate committee, signed by chairman Richard Burr and vice chairman Mark Warner, was apparently hand-delivered to the Ecuadorian embassy and offers to conduct the interview “at a mutually agreeable time and location.”
During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, WikiLeaks published emails stolen or leaked from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Though it has been widely claimed that Russian agents stole these emails by hacking into Clinton campaign staff email accounts and a DNC server, no evidence of this has ever been publicly released. The DNC refused to turn the supposedly hacked server over to the FBI for forensic examination. Assange himself has denied that Russia was his source for the emails. In a 2016 interview with the Russian RT news outlet, he described the allegations of Russian hacking as “neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything.”
Implications of Assange Testimony
Nobody connected to the Intelligence Committee has commented on the letter. It appears that the only possible way to interview Assange would be in person at the London embassy since the WikiLeaks founder has been deprived of all means of external communication and is only permitted visits from his lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, according to an ABC report.
It would seem unlikely that Assange would be willing to reveal the source of the Clinton and DNC emails published by WikiLeaks and so suspicion will remain on the Russians, who may or may not be the real culprits. Only if lawyers for WikiLeaks were able to strike an immunity deal with the U.S. government might Assange reveal the true source – assuming his denials of Russian involvement are true.
One way or the other, such an outcome seems incredibly unlikely. The implications of what Assange could reveal are enormous and, for some, highly dangerous, from a legal perspective. There are, quite simply, too many politicians and political operatives – particularly in the Democratic Party and the intelligence community – who would find themselves with a lot of explaining to do, should WikiLeaks produce verifiable evidence that they obtained the leaked emails from a source other than Russian hackers.
Entertainment industry heavyweight Rosie O’Donnell recently claimed that Russia ‘fixed’ the 2016 election for President Donald Trump. Like everyone else who believes this – or claims to believe it – she based the statement upon the idea that it was simply not possible for Trump to fairly win an election that everyone “knew for sure” he was going to lose.
O’Donnell’s thinking, for want of a better word, reflects upon the collective conviction of the left; that Trump’s victory was an affront to their hopes, their efforts, their dreams, and to their very faith in the destiny – nay, in the birthright – of their chosen champion. Therefore, it was simply not fair and they want a mulligan. In short, the defeat of Hillary Clinton was the mother of all triggerings.
It is certainly no great secret that few leftists have accepted the 2016 result. Even at this point, just three months shy of an entire two years since the votes were cast and counted, the left continues to conjure up reasons not to accept reality. They stubbornly grope around for any possible rationalization of their loss – any rationalization that doesn’t involve the American people going to the polls and choosing Trump over Clinton.
While this all seems somewhat comical, it is also a fascinating window into the very soul of progressivism. Faced with the choice between using the mechanism of democratic politics to defeat their opponent and throwing a national tantrum – rejecting the outcome of a democratic election – they choose the latter. Thus, they place a higher value on their own feelings than they do on the political process.
The Thoughts of Chairman Rosie
Ridiculous Rosie O’Donnell was never a comedian but is known to have played one on T.V. She has no discernable acting talent but has been described as an “actress.” Since Trump’s election, she has been imbued, by some, with a degree of political authority – so much so that CNN’s Chris Cuomo thought it worth his while to endure her tortured, philosophical buffoonery in a televised interview.
“We’ve got just a couple months ‘till November,” O’Donnell told her host, “and, ‘till then, we have to fight with everything we got because if, somehow, they’re able to rig the elections, again, as I believe they did in 2016, then, er, we’re gonna all be in trouble as democracy dies right here on our watch.”
Cuomo affected a stoic, thousand-yard stare throughout the interview and it seemed likely that among the thoughts going through his head were “I do believe I can actually feel the stupid washing over me,” “dear God, this woman perfectly demonstrates why we keep losing,” and “I work at the same network as Don Lemon. I’m a failure in life.”
Though she spoke of her hopes that the American voters would banish Trump in the next general election, O’Donnell all but demanded the Democrats impeach him, should they win control of Congress. She cited “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “treason” as justification but declined to describe any specific examples. Once again, then, she stayed true to the leftist world-view; that specific facts are simply not as relevant as how she feels about the president.
Her host pressed her on the subject, offering up a hypothetical scenario in which impeachment efforts serve only to hurt the nation. “So everybody calls out [for impeachment],” he suggested, “you don’t have the votes; it doesn’t happen; you galvanize support for the president and we are torn…more…apart in this country. Are you worried about that outcome?” Cudos to Cuomo for raising such a very realistic possibility. O’Donnell’s response was, yet again, typical progressive disregard for the health of the nation. “No, I am not…” she responded, before returning immediately to her hopes for a Democratic win in 2020.
“I believe that Trump is loathed in America – that people are embarrassed and ashamed of who he is and that, come election day, we’re going to stand up at the polls and let him know…and unless he goes in and has the Russians kind of fix it like he did last time, in 2016, you know, we’re gonna see him gone…”
Whether Rosie O’Donnell really believes the President cheated to win the election is another story. If she does truly believe it, however – and if others on the left believe it – could one really blame them, considering how self-absorbed and conditioned to acting upon feelings, rather than facts, they are? Consider this: Trump had almost the entire establishment media working against him; he had elements within the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation working against him; he had the not inconsiderable power of the Clinton political machine against him and he had the larger Democratic Party – and even some Republicans – working against him. And yet, still, he won.
For sure, one could counter that Trump had 63 million Americans who believed in him or, at least, who refused to accept the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton. From a leftist point of view, however, it is simply ridiculous to think that the votes of those Americans could overcome the collective will of the left.
Rosie O’Donnell and her ilk are simply unable to respect the will of voters who will not vote for their candidate. Though they constantly proclaim their respect for it, leftists consider democracy a quaint and inefficient concept; highly susceptible to human error; whether it be the voters who refuse to do their bidding or their own failure to successfully rig an election, it is human error and it is just not fair.
As far as primary election days go, Tuesday, August 7th was huge. It was a three-dimensional affair, one could say. On the one hand, Democratic primaries have become a test of how far the socialist/progressive wing of the party is tipping the scales against the more moderate establishment that, itself, is constantly moving further left in order to survive. On the other hand, the Republican primaries are about how motivated the base will be in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.
Additionally, GOP contests have become a measure of how the Trump doctrine is faring against the more traditional Republican wing. The Ohio special election added a third dimension to this latest round of voting.
The Ohio Special Election Rollercoaster
The highly-anticipated vote to fill Ohio’s 12th congressional district seat is still yet to be decided. With 100% of precincts reporting, Troy Balderson had not managed to pull off a decisive win to keep the seat for Republicans. Danny O’Connor – the beneficiary of a monumental Democratic Party effort to flip this deep red seat – came up just less than 1800 votes short, allowing the Republican to declare victory.
Provisional and absentee ballots have yet to be counted, however. Together, they represent more than 8,000 votes. In percentage terms, Balderson leads by 0.9 and the threshold for an automatic recount is 0.5%. Thus, O’Connor could still close the gap enough to force a recount. Due to Ohio’s election rules, the outstanding ballots will not be counted until August 18.
Regardless of which candidate takes the seat, the two will face off again in November but Democrats are already spinning this race as a huge blow to Republicans. By any measure, this should not have been a competitive race. From the opposite point of view, Balderson could be said to have won a comeback victory – perhaps thanks to a late rallying of the base by President Donald Trump himself. Democrats badly wanted this seat and their candidate outraised and outspent Balderson and had been polling comfortably ahead of him.
This Ohio district could well be an indicator of how things will shape up in November, as many had suggested; Democrats surging but, in the end, falling a whisker short of taking Congress.
Primary Results: Best of the Rest
Elsewhere, primaries in Missouri, Kansas, Michigan, and Washington spanned House, Senate, and gubernatorial races. In Kansas, Governor Jeff Colyer failed to see off a challenge by Trump-endorsed Kris Kobach, although that primary has yet to be called, with Kobach leading by 0.1%.
Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill cruised to victory in the Missouri primary – as expected – and will be challenged in November by the state’s current Attorney General; Republican Josh Hawley. Bill Shuette comfortably won the GOP primary for governor of Michigan and will face Democrat Gretchen Widmer in November. Widmer’s easy win over progressive Abdul El-Sayed – who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders and socialist wunderkind Alexandria Ocasio Cortez – is another indication that the extreme left of the Democratic Party does not possess the strength or momentum it pretends to command.
Political Pundits justify their existence by reading the tea leaves and drawing dramatic conclusions from political events such as primary election days. If any conclusions are to be drawn from this latest round of voting, it is that, when the dust settles after the 2018 midterms, everybody and nobody will have won. The Democrats will come close enough to victory to spin it as a victory, without actually prevailing. The Republicans may hold on but by margins so thin as to be transparent, leaving them little reason to gloat. As for the real or imagined new wave of young socialists, they may turn out to be all bark and no bite.
It would not be going too far to say that a number of Democrat politicians had probably made up their minds to demand the impeachment of President Donald Trump even before his inauguration. Less than five months into Trump’s first term, Texas Representative Al Green took to the House floor to call for the president’s impeachment. While Democratic Party leaders have largely avoided the issue, their more vocal and extreme underlings have kept up the cry, oblivious to the damage this rhetoric does to the nation as a whole and the awful consequences such a course of action would trigger.
No president has ever been removed from office, though Richard Nixon may well have been, had he not resigned first. Only two have been impeached by a vote in the House of Representatives; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted by the Senate. The standard for impeaching a president is extremely high for a reason. The framers of the Constitution realized that, sooner or later, politicians would attempt to use impeachment as a weapon.
America’s Enemies Are Applauding the Impeachment Crowd
When Russian agents meddled in the 2016 election, they were not attempting to shape the actual outcome of the vote. Had that been their plan, they would surely have invested a vastly greater amount of money, resources, and personnel in the endeavor. Their aim was to sow distrust, confusion, and division, as well as undermining the future president. Like almost everybody else, the Russians assumed that Hillary Clinton would be that future president and, so, she became their primary target.
Nothing pleases America’s foreign adversaries more than to see instability in the country’s political system. Thus, if any U.S. politicians were to be judged – by their actions – as co-conspirators of Vladimir Putin, it would surely be those who continue to call for the ousting of a sitting president over nothing more than ideological animosity.
The continued talk of impeachment damages the presidency – not just the man currently sitting in the Oval Office, but the office itself. It damages the nation; further polarizing the two sides of the political divide; it sets a terrifying precedent for decades to come, where every future chief executive may find themselves under threat of impeachment for merely pursuing an agenda that angers one political faction or the other.
A Very Steep Hill to Die On
For a president to be impeached, he must be found guilty of treason, bribery or “other high crimes or misdemeanors.” Since the day Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination, an army of the establishment media’s most tenacious journalists, researchers and investigative reporters have been frantically digging for dirt on him. They have been joined in their efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign and at least one or two ‘never-Trump’ Republicans. Now the task is spearheaded by Robert Mueller and his team of crack prosecutors.
Between them – in two years – all of these formidable institutions combined have come up with nothing more than some hush-money payments to a porn star and a couple of ‘models.’ If Maxine Waters and company want to impeach Trump, they’re going to have to do a lot better than that.
What, then, if the Democrats won a majority in the House of Representatives? What if they introduced articles of impeachment and on what would those articles be based? Would the House really vote to impeach Trump and, if it did, would the Senate convict? Unless the Democrats also win a sizable majority in the Senate – which is the least likely thing that could happen in the upcoming midterms – the answer to that last question is a resounding ‘no.’
It seems that some Democrats have chosen impeachment as the hill they are willing to die on. This is a very steep hill and it appears that they are unlikely to make it to the top.
So what has anyone to gain from calling for Trump’s impeachment? Such calls are nothing more than red meat to a base eagerly wrapping itself in shades of red; the red of communism, the red of blood and the red of rage.
The Worst Possible Consequence
All that aside, there is one final question that should be asked: If all the ‘ifs’ fell into place for the Democrats and they were able to impeach, convict and remove Trump from office without proving an impeachable crime, what would happen to the nation? How likely is it that the tens of millions who support Trump would merely shrug and go on with their lives? It is not at all likely. Rather, it is far more likely that a politically-motivated ousting of Donald Trump would bring civil war to America.
It is true that elections have consequences. Removing a duly-elected president from office without just and legal cause would have far worse consequences. Al Green, Maxine Waters, and their ilk would be well advised to ponder those consequences before they go further down this particular road.
Thomas Jefferson once remarked, “I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.” It is a statement that perfectly encapsulates the spirit of those who value personal freedom above all else. A free society cannot exist without tumult; tensions, disputes, and even violence are all part of the human condition and only by imposing the most draconian laws upon society can conflict be eradicated. In short: Liberty entails risk and potential danger, and that is a price worth paying. When Hawaii resident George K. Young, Jr. challenged the state for denying him the right to openly carry a firearm in public, he took up a fight that pivots directly upon Jefferson’s immortal words.
Young was denied a license to openly carry a firearm because his state does not allow open carry in public. Perhaps he should have opted for a license to carry a concealed weapon, one might suggest, but this Vietnam veteran would likely also have been disqualified from doing that. Young challenged the decision and a 9th Circuit Court panel ruled 2-1 in his favor. That decision may be a serious blow to those states which forbid the open carry of handguns.
The panel’s ruling is likely to be appealed, however, and the Supreme Court may once again face the possibility of having to settle a dispute over Second Amendment rights. Coming from the normally left-leaning, anti-gun 9th Circuit, the decision was something of a surprise. It was based upon the premise that “The right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public.”
In 2016, a previous ruling handed down by the full 9th Circuit Court determined that the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” applied only to weapons kept in the home. Such an opinion, however, amounts to nothing less than a deliberate misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” could not be more elementary; “keep” means own and “bear” means carry. Had the Founding Fathers wished to create a nation in which the carrying of firearms in public was forbidden, they would have protected only the right to “keep” firearms.
Right to Self-Defense v. Public Safety – A False Choice
In Hawaii, only licensed individuals – usually law enforcement or security personnel – are allowed to openly carry firearms in public. A private citizen must prove that he or she has a legitimate personal security concern in order to qualify for even a concealed carry permit and only in exceptional circumstances does a private citizen obtain an open carry license.
While about 30 states allow open carry without a permit, almost all states impose various restrictions; some allow the open carrying of handguns but not long guns or vice versa, and most states forbid open carry in certain buildings or other public areas.
As is the case in Hawaii, states with strict firearms laws contend that they are exercising the discretion allowed state governments to make decisions about public safety. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “The open presence of guns in public life can quickly escalate everyday conflicts into deadly altercations, causing tragic, irreversible damage to innocent lives.” This is a statement based upon no credible evidence. Despite a steady rise in both gun ownership and the number of concealed carry permits issued nationally, incidents in which a legal gun owner deliberately shoots someone in a public space – for reasons other than in defense or to prevent a crime – remain exceedingly rare.
It is worth noting that in recent infamous active shooter incidents, where the shooter legally owned the firearms used, numerous red flags had been missed and the shooters could have been prevented from legally possessing those guns.
It appears, then, that many state governments have difficulty comprehending the phrase “shall not be infringed.” In the absence of conclusive evidence that restricting the carrying of firearms does, indeed, enhance public safety, almost all restrictions on firearms infringe, unjustifiably, on the right to keep and bear arms. The well-known flaw in the argument for stricter gun control is that those individuals who have ill intent also have little regard for gun laws.
As Mr. Young himself put it, “The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and yet the state law intervenes.”
A Case Far Bigger Than Just Gun Rights
Assuming an appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling goes to the full Court, it will very likely be reversed and Young’s fight may find its way to the nation’s highest court. How the arguments are presented there – assuming the Supreme Court hears the case – will determine the outcome and may bring changes – or many more challenges – to gun laws in numerous states.
Allowing states to restrict constitutional rights in the supposed interests of public safety is a purely statist idea that, if left unchecked, eventually leads to authoritarianism. Jefferson and many of his peers understood this. George Young’s dispute with Hawaii may eventually strike a fatal blow either for – or against – this kind of thinking.
It took a roughly four-hour meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, to strike the U.S. media and congressional Democrats down with a severe – but likely temporary – case of amnesia. If anything was going to make them forget the illegal alien children ripped from their mothers and the impending apocalypse which Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee will bring down upon the world, it was this first one-on-one between public enemy number one and public enemy number two.
Cutting through the outrage and hysteria, though, a little perspective on what has come out of this meeting should, one would think, elicit little more than a collective shrug and, perhaps, even a sigh of relief. It is worth remembering what is at stake when dealing with Russia, on what scale the Russians really succeeded in destabilizing the American political system, and what changes the world will see as an immediate result of this so-called summit.
Missed Opportunity Or Calculated Political Risk?
No sooner had the post-meeting press conference wrapped up when President Trump was hit with a sustained barrage of criticism from the left and also from many on the right. His mistake, it seems, was failing to publicly condemn Putin for meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
To be sure, this was a mistake, of sorts. Had the American president even made a non-specific statement to the effect that foreign interference in the U.S. political system was unacceptable and would not be tolerated, he would have given his critics less ammunition. Of course, Trump would have been criticized by the left no matter what he had said or done in Helsinki. He may well have made the calculation that it was not worth bringing up in a public forum, merely to satisfy the chattering classes back home.
As unpalatable the thought is that foreign agents would attempt to influence an American presidential election, there are certain facts that ought to be remembered by the professionally outraged: 2016 was not the first time the Russians have carried out destabilizing operations in the U.S. Other foreign powers have done the same and the U.S. intelligence community has also done the very same thing in other countries. Add to that the fact that no informed observer has suggested that these Russian interlopers had any effect on the result of the election itself and it becomes clear that, while Trump should certainly have addressed the issue with Putin during their private meeting, it was not something that should have been used to turn their joint press conference into a duel.
Trump put it best himself, in a line that will surely go down in history alongside the greatest presidential quotes of all time:
“I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.”
A Little Perspective Goes A Long Way
For those Democrats, progressives, and neocons who seem to be virtually calling for war with Russia, now would be an excellent time to remember that they are attempting to whip Americans into a frenzy of hate against the one nation on earth that is capable of inflicting total nuclear annihilation upon the U.S., regardless of the fact that they, the Russians, would surely meet that same fate. Any meeting between the leaders of these two countries that ends with an exchange of soccer balls rather than ballistic missiles is probably a good meeting.
Although billed as the Trump-Putin summit, this talk was clearly nothing more than that; a talk. It was a prelude, perhaps, to a better understanding between the world’s two military superpowers. It laid the foundation, one would hope, for a resolution of the crisis in Syria, a strategy for dealing with Iran and maybe an untangling of the multi-layered geopolitical puzzle concerning the very future of Europe – a powder-keg that, remarkably, is going unnoticed by even many European nations.
It really is all about perspective. As much as the American left tries to perpetuate the myth that Trump is president only by virtue of a sinister Russian conspiracy, that is simply not the case. The wailing and gnashing of teeth will subside somewhat because there are still illegal alien children to think about and their fate is more valuable to Democrats running for office in November than the Russian boogeyman of who most Americans are already tired.
As for Trump; he will need to do a little damage control, but he has now met with three of the four most dangerous foreign leaders on the planet and not a single city has been vaporized.
Of course, there is always Iran.
The dust had barely settled from FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s showdown with House Republicans by the time one of his possible fellow conspirators finally made her own appearance before a congressional panel. Lisa Page, the FBI attorney who exchanged politically-charged text messages with Strzok during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, appeared at a closed-door hearing Friday, July 13. While no details of what was said in the hearing have yet been made public, it appears that Page was less belligerent than her former lover and colleague and provided lawmakers with some new information.
Page, who left the FBI in May of 2018, had worked as counsel to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Throughout the presidential primary season, the presidential campaign itself, and up until a short time after President Donald Trump took office, Page exchanged many hundreds of messages with Strzok via several channels of communication, including email, messaging services, and text messages from the couple’s personal and FBI-issue cellphones.
Do the Strzok-Page Text Messages Reveal a Conspiracy?
Text messages recovered from the FBI phones have since been made public. Page and Strzok both harbored very strong political opinions and, while Trump was not the sole target of their invective, it was clear from many of the texts that both Strzok and Page utterly loathed Trump and his supporters. Indeed, they were both initially sure that Trump would not win the election. As Hillary Clinton’s victory became less inevitable, the two became more alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency. This exchange of political opinions was conducted against a backdrop of the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Strzok was the lead agent on that investigation.
The two FBI officials continued their communications as the Clinton investigation was concluded and then reopened and the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the election campaign began. The extreme animus these two individuals showed toward Trump is concerning enough, given the pair’s senior positions and involvement in the Clinton and Russia investigations. Of far more concern, however, were certain messages the two exchanged that indicated the willingness and, indeed, the intent to prevent Trump from becoming president and, if he were to win, the formulation of a plan to bring him down.
Of the several highly-incriminating messages exchanged between Page and Strzok, there are two that stand out as particularly alarming. One evening in August 2016, Pages texted Strzok: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Interestingly, this message was not released along with the bulk of the messages initially made public. It came to light only in June 2018.
At his own public hearing, Strzok claimed no recollection of having sent the message while, at the same time, insisting that it was a visceral reaction to then-candidate Trump’s “disgusting behavior” and that, by “we’ll stop it,” he had meant that the American people would not elect Trump.
Also, in August of 2016, Strzok texted Page about a meeting the two had attended in Andrew McCabe’s office: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he 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…”
Strzok explained to lawmakers that he had been referring to the need to thoroughly investigate potential connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. Other FBI officials, apparently including Page, had argued – according to Strzok – that the Bureau should tread carefully and that, in any event, it was unlikely that Trump would win the election.
FBI Still Playing Defense
Even assuming the former counterintelligence agent is truthfully explaining his reference to an “insurance policy” here, one cannot help considering the implications: This senior Special Agent appears to be urging his colleagues and superiors to investigate potential future members of a Trump cabinet in case they have compromising connections to a foreign adversary. This is a clear presumption of guilt – something Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has described as “textbook bias.”
For her part, Page was described by Republican lawmakers as “cooperative and credible,” according to a report in The Hill. She is due to answer further questions on Monday, July 16. Despite no longer being employed by the FBI, Page was accompanied, at the hearing, by an FBI counsel. The Bureau is, apparently, still very concerned about what she might be able to reveal to lawmakers as they compare her version of events to what Strzok has told them.
Ultimately, it is politically-motivated abuse of power that lies, potentially, at the bottom of the hole dug by Strzok, Page, McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, and others. Much to the dismay of the FBI, the Department of Justice and congressional Democrats, Republicans continue to dig.
While Fake News is rampant all across America, here at LibertyNation.com we like to deal in facts. Thus we offer up this inaugural edition of Five Facts. In just a few minutes Graham J. Noble debunks the left’s hysterical fear that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. So now you finally have something to forward to your leftist friends.