Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. That’s one key to learning.
So here’s another approach to the question of whether Strozk’s personal political bias affected his investigative decisions. As the head of counter-intelligence investigations, he was responsible for applying the FBI’s (apparent) rule that if a Presidential campaign had an advisor who had previously been paid by the Russians for a speech, then FBI needed to launch a counter-intelligence investigation of that campaign to evaluate the risk that a Presidential candidate might fall under the influence of a foreign power.
Caveat: I’m relying on a New York Times report that this was one of the risk indicators justifying the investigation; that the Trump campaign had an advisor who had previously been paid by the Russians. If the NYT is in error about this, then my argument might suffer.
Well, if that’s the FBI rule … then Strozk had to evaluate TWO campaigns who had advisors who had previously been paid by the Russians, right? Bill Clinton had previously been paid $500,000 by the Russians for a speech, plus over $100 million placed at his disposal through the Clinton Foundation.
And what decisions did our noble, valiant, impartial Peter make as he performed with “unbending devotion to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution”? Well, gee, he decided NOT to investigate the campaign he liked (Clinton) … and he decided he WOULD investigate the campaign he didn’t like.
Both campaigns exhibited the same exact risk indicator (an advisor who had previously been paid by the Russians). Yet instead of applying the rule evenhandedly and investigating both campaigns which exhibited the risk indicator, Strozk investigated the campaign he didn’t like while giving a free pass to the campaign he liked.
Now how in the hell can anyone fail to see that his personal political bias drove his investigative decisions? All you Democrats and Progressives who mock us by saying that we’re entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts … how about you start with the FACT that both campaigns exhibited the risk indicator of an advisor who had previously been paid by the Russians. Then reason your way from that FACT to the conclusion of no personal bias. And show us your work, show us how you got there.
ERpundit – 08/18/18