Strzoking Russia
Strzoking Russia
One man, FBI agent Peter Strozk, was apparently at the center of every phase of the initial investigation into the Trump/Russia collusion story. Including, the Russian produced, Clinton paid-for, fake Trump dossier, which was supposed to incriminate Trump with tales of hookers and Golden showers, plus shadowy Russian spies. Eventually, Mueller demoted Strozk, but only after this prosecutorial house of cards was put in place.
Increasingly, it appears that the Obama administration used the fake dossier as justification for a FISA court warrant that had previously been denied. With this spiffy new document, however, Obama and crew were given the go-ahead to legally spy on Trump and his people. None of this is even remotely legal, if they knowingly used fake Intel as a pretext for the warrant. Of course, none of them expected Trump to win, either. With an assured Hillary victory, she’d cover their tracks and no one would be wiser.
All of this came out over the past week as Peter Strozk became the latest member of Mueller’s team to be exposed with a deep-rooted anti-Trump, pro-Hillary bias, revealed in emails between Strozk and his mistress. What was even more troubling was the fact that Strozk was a lead investigator at every step of the unveiling of new evidence in the FBI’s “Russian Collusion Investigation,” including the call for a special prosecutor. The fact that Mueller’s core group of super-sleuths was comprised solely of Democrats, who’d donated to Democrat candidates, including Hillary, was okay with everybody. But only as long as they were Democrats.
On it’s face, donating to one’s preferred candidate isn’t illegal. But neither was having a jury of Klan members sit in judgment on a Black defendant, accused of raping a White woman in 1950’s Mississippi. This re-awakening of old animosities, thought long dead, is what happens when identity politics “Trump” the law and constitution. It’s also why idiotic, unconstitutional ideas like “Hate speech laws,” are exclusively the province of liberals. Who cares about the 1st amendment when it comes to politics and power? Very few, it seems.
Anyway. The bulk of the press will offer their usual, “Huh?” while focusing on any miscue, any misstatement by president Trump, whether real or imagined. Meanwhile, Americans will break down into their tribal affiliations thanks to the constant hammering of even the slightest economic, racial, sexual, or ethnic differences. But only as long as they can be used for political purposes. Which, I believe, was the real intent, all along.
Mark Magula
One man, FBI agent Peter Strozk, was apparently at the center of every phase of the initial investigation into the Trump/Russia collusion story. Including, the Russian produced, Clinton paid-for, fake Trump dossier, which was supposed to incriminate Trump with tales of hookers and Golden showers, plus shadowy Russian spies. Eventually, Mueller demoted Strozk, but only after this prosecutorial house of cards was put in place.
Increasingly, it appears that the Obama administration used the fake dossier as justification for a FISA court warrant that had previously been denied. With this spiffy new document, however, Obama and crew were given the go-ahead to legally spy on Trump and his people. None of this is even remotely legal, if they knowingly used fake Intel as a pretext for the warrant. Of course, none of them expected Trump to win, either. With an assured Hillary victory, she’d cover their tracks and no one would be wiser.
All of this came out over the past week as Peter Strozk became the latest member of Mueller’s team to be exposed with a deep-rooted anti-Trump, pro-Hillary bias, revealed in emails between Strozk and his mistress. What was even more troubling was the fact that Strozk was a lead investigator at every step of the unveiling of new evidence in the FBI’s “Russian Collusion Investigation,” including the call for a special prosecutor. The fact that Mueller’s core group of super-sleuths was comprised solely of Democrats, who’d donated to Democrat candidates, including Hillary, was okay with everybody. But only as long as they were Democrats.
On it’s face, donating to one’s preferred candidate isn’t illegal. But neither was having a jury of Klan members sit in judgment on a Black defendant, accused of raping a White woman in 1950’s Mississippi. This re-awakening of old animosities, thought long dead, is what happens when identity politics “Trump” the law and constitution. It’s also why idiotic, unconstitutional ideas like “Hate speech laws,” are exclusively the province of liberals. Who cares about the 1st amendment when it comes to politics and power? Very few, it seems.
Anyway. The bulk of the press will offer their usual, “Huh?” while focusing on any miscue, any misstatement by president Trump, whether real or imagined. Meanwhile, Americans will break down into their tribal affiliations thanks to the constant hammering of even the slightest economic, racial, sexual, or ethnic differences. But only as long as they can be used for political purposes. Which, I believe, was the real intent, all along.
Mark Magula