?

Are You Kidding Me: Peter Strzok, Act 1


To Believe or Not to Believe

There are so many contradictions to be found in Peter Strzok’s testimony; it cannot be contained in just one article. Many erroneous examples can be found throughout. This article will examine and try to make sense of Peter Strzok’s testimony regarding just one of his many texts:
“I cannot remember even sending the ‘stop Trump’ text. It was late at night and written in shorthand.”

Neither the First nor the Last

The above example text is not the first time Strzok contradicted himself. When asked about its meaning, he claimed it did not mean that he or the FBI would play any part in dismantling the Trump campaign.


Dissecting his statement gives these takeaways:
  • Strzok remembers the text was written in shorthand.
  • Strzok remembers it was written late at night.
  • Strzok remembers it was sent late at night.
  • Strzok remembers it was sent in response to a perceived insult.
  • Strzok does not recall sending it.
  • Strzok remembers it does not mean what it is saying.


It makes one wonder if Agent Strzok is a victim of MK-Ultra, or some similar mind control program. There are times when people remember some or most of a given event while those with hyperthymesia remember all of a given event. Instances occur where someone only partially remembers what happened because of an extenuating circumstance. Perhaps they were inebriated, injured with a physical or mental disability precluding a normal memory process. Strzok does not claim to have had any of these ailments; therefore, he should have been able to perform his duties as a highly-trained special agent unimpeded with memory lapses.

In Strzok’s testimony, he claims to remember all details surrounding the text while excluding his own action of sending it. In other words, the principle player in a given event does not remember his actions of writing and sending a text, but does recall the part of the day it was written, what style it was written in, and his motivation to write it. There is a term for people with selective memories.

Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

In any law enforcement case, the best and fairest way to proceed with an investigation is to do so with impartially. The honorable thing to do when one finds they can not do so is to recuse oneself from the investigation. When asked if he had thought of doing so, Peter Strzok said he had not. He further reasoned that the texts he sent to his lover did not constitute political bias.

Strzok wants the public to believe that his texts of “F*ck Trump,” “Trump is an idiot,” and “I could smell the Trump support in that West Virginia Walmart” were not instances of political bias. These were sent along with texts gushing praise for Clinton, whom many in his sphere referred to as the president, expressing hankerings to see her win.

Apparently, his own words are not evidence of political bias to Strzok. People might disagree with his analysis after reviewing Webster’s definition of bias. It would be remiss to not mention the Inspector General’s report findings regarding Strzok’s political bias. It concluded that they could not find any proof that bias had tainted the agent’s actions. IG Michael Horowitz clarified that the statement does not mean there was not any bias. It meant they did not find a direct connection that it affected their work.

Why Argue Bias, Anyway?

It is imperative that bias be thoroughly investigated when law enforcement officials allegedly express it. Impartiality when investigating anyone is paramount to a fair outcome. If one sets out to prove someone guilty of a crime and then hunts for a crime to charge them with, it undermines the expression the blindfolded Lady Justice is trying to convey.

Our justice system was built on “Innocent until proven guilty.” As such, it should never approach a case already judging the guilt of persons involved. Conversely, as in the Clinton email server case, our system should never declare anyone innocent before an investigation starts. It is the duty of those in the justice system and law enforcement to investigate with impartiality and to allow those two outcomes to be what they are- outcomes; anything less than that is biased. Because it happened with two presidential candidates, it is indicative of systemic political bias.

The Impact of Political Bias in the Justice System

When political bias is employed by those in public service, the impact is much greater than if occurring in a private sector setting. What Strzok and his cohorts were attempting to do is called treason. Not treason against a ruler. Not treason against the government. It is treason against We, the People.

Simply put, the objective of the entire Russia Collusion witch hunt is this: To deliberately, willfully, and knowingly undermine the authority of We, the People, in order to overthrow our choice of a duly elected American President. Strzok’s incendiary text, in which he reassures his lover that they would stop Trump from becoming President, expressed that objective perfectly.

Mary Magaline / Copy Editor

I thrive on political dialogue. Communicating truth has a way of cutting through the noise in this world. When there is chaos all around, you will find me grounded in my Christian faith and networking with like-minded friends online. I love President Trump and I want my country back!
previous article
Newer Post
next article
Older Post



  1. I am amazed at how Peter gets away with lying and nobody really calls him out for it. Those interviewing him act like it's nothing! Yes, they try and appear like they are calling him out (Jordon and one other senator are the only ones who do so) - but it's all "bark" and no "bite".

    ReplyDelete

no

Name

Email *

Message *