Rod Rosenstein shall testify before the House Judiciary Committee this coming Tuesday, Dec. 13th. He’s being called in to talk, to the extent that he can, about the ongoing Russian interference investigation and presumable to shed light on any anti-Trump bias in the FBI. This is kinda important to at least dampening the justification for the feigned hysteria with some members of Congress.
some of the key points for the hysteria, are:
Peter Strzok, sent a couple tweets out about his disdain for Trump, CLEARLY showing an inability to do his job in investigating Russian interference. Strozk was fired from the investigation as soon as Mueller found out last summer. It wasn’t like he was writing editorials about how awful Trump was, it was a goddamn text message to a private person. Nevertheless, because it could be perceived as bias, he was fired. Story over…but no it isn’t, is it.
Because the same Peter Strzok, edited James Comey’s statement about the FBI’s conclusion of the investigation into Hillary Clinton. A statement that never should have been made in the first place. He edited the phrase “grossly negligent,” to instead say, “extremely careless.” OBVIOUSLY someone looking out for Clinton’s interests!
Let’s put on our thinking caps here and parse this out.
- James Comey wanted to relay the message that even though Hillary Clinton acted like a total idiot, she did not act illegally.
- “Gross Negligence” is a term of illegality.
- “Grossly Negligent” can be bent to infer the legal term “Gross negligence.”
- Peter Strzok saw the phrase and edited it to not imply illegality because that was the whole fucking point of the Comey statement.
Is that really so hard to logically work through? Is the presumption that Comey intended to state that Clinton had acted illegally despite the fact that the whole point was to say she had not? ????
Strzok wasn’t looking out for Clinton’s interests, he was looking out for Comey’s stated intention. FFS.
Rosenstein can do our Democracy a world of good by being forceful and strong with protecting the integrity of the FBI and Mueller’s investigation. He would do well to quell this bubbling insanity. His own place in history will largely be due to how he conducts himself. Although it shall only be a footnote if he does the right thing. If he acts otherwise, it shall be much more than a footnote.
The other boiling points are the whole Fox news narrative, which honestly is an utter mess. Uranium One (again,) Clinton (again), this whole deranged connect-the-dot conspiracy theory that certainly points to the fact that the entire investigation should be shut down because the FBI is biased towards Hillary Clinton and firmly against Donald Trump.
Are our Congresspeople so daft as to buy this, or so convinced the public is daft enough to believe it when they regurgitate the propaganda? If the FBI had it out for Trump and wanted to see Clinton President, they would have leaked all of the leads they were following against multiple people in Trumps campaign during and when they were active. But they didn’t.
They would have been more forceful in relaying the obvious Russian attempts at interference on behalf of Donald Trump during the election, but they didn’t. Obama would have openly stated it, but he didn’t for fear of it’s effects.
What the FBI did do, was shorty before the election make a public statement (yet again, not necessary) about the discovery of more hidden Clinton emails on a Huma Abedin computer, which certainly did have an effect on the election. One against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump.
Does anyone use common sense any longer? Or is the only thing that matters ideology? Facts are fairly easy to come by and largely ignored. Common sense is apparently an even more elusive commodity. Not to mention the fact that both Mueller and Comey are life long Republicans. Why look at all of the obvious when examining a far-fetched conspiracy is much more entertaining and aligns with one’s political desires?
Now, I’ve been looking into FEC regulations to see if there is any clear wrong-doing so far as Fox News and the Trump-centric propaganda they are creating is concerned. I gots bad news for you. All the First Amendment stuff aside, not only is what they are doing legit, it’s practically endorsed by campaign finance laws, which my presumption is, extends to sitting officials.
It is totally okay for say, the owners of a large media company to not only state their political bias, but it’s also completely legal to coordinate messaging with those campaigning. They can coordinate content, delivery, timing…everything. Which makes that whole Donna Brazille leaking a question to Hillary Clinton small potatoes by comparison to what can be done and is being done by the current Administration and Fox.
Media companies have extremely broad and liberal protections. No matter which avenue you travel down to attempt to hold them responsible for their content, they are pretty much self governing. Here is a really good explanation of how it is impossible to hold them accountable so far as political agendas are concerned.
That in mind, this is the exact reason why we have come to this: