Now, he
has all too predictably come out against the Durham report. That report
reveals just how deep the corruption was in the FBI while Strzok and
others worked to frame a president of the United States for a crime he
didn’t commit (and it has only gotten worse since then). So it is no
surprise that a longtime corruptocrat such as Strzok would be working
now to sabotage the report as energetically as he ever worked to
sabotage Trump.
Strzok, however, was defiant even in the teeth of the evidence,
insisting that “this is a predictable sad ending to an investigation
that never should have taken place.” Demonstrating admirable skills in
projection and accusing one’s enemy of what one is actually guilty of
doing, Strzok continued: “Shortly after [Durham] was announced in 2019,
he went on the record as a prosecutor making a rare public statement
that he disagreed with IG Horowitz’s conclusion that the investigation
was appropriately launched and then he spent the next three to four
years with a cognitive bias trying to build a case that somehow it was.
We saw the results today, and the results are clearly that he didn’t
come up with anything.”
In reality, Durham found that the Justice Department “and the FBI
failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in
connection with certain events and activities described in this report.”
And one of the chief offenders who was making a mockery of the FBI’s
mission was none other than Peter Strzok himself.
Fox notes that Strzok was “previously fired from the FBI after
perceived bias against Trump during the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’
investigation. In 2018, multiple anti-Trump texts from Strzok were
discovered from 2016. One of the texts showed Strzok asserting to former
FBI lawyer Lisa Page that ‘we won’t allow’ Trump to become president.”
And he did his best, even while acknowledging privately that the whole
Russian Collusion case against Trump was weak at best. The Durham report
states: “Our investigation gathered evidence that showed a number of
those closest to the investigation believed that the standard arguably
had not been met, even Strzok, who drafted and approved the opening EC
[electronic communication], said there’s nothing to this but we have to
run it to ground. His view would seem to dictate the opening of the
matter or at the most a preliminary investigation.”
Nevertheless, now that the Durham report has exposed his cynicism and
dishonesty, Strzok is sticking to his original story with all the
tenacity of the 1950s Leftists who insisted that Communist spy Alger
Hiss was innocent even after overwhelming evidence had been marshaled
against him and he had been duly convicted." PJMedia
No comments:
Post a Comment