Peter Strzok is a sociopath

Loading


 
The Strzok hearings were a circus yesterday. They were a circus because democrats made them into a circus. Any and every time a question zeroed in on the target they interrupted with spurious and specious comments. Despite that, much was learned. The most important thing to come out?

Peter Strzok is a sociopath.



Here are some of the exchanges that just blew me away. Strzok opened the investigation on July 31 , 2016. Before he had interviewed  single witness, he was saying “F Trump” and calling Trump a “menace.”

He said he didn’t really mean it and we had to understand him in context

Then Strzok went on, first not remembering writing the the text message saying “We will stop (Trump)” and then pulling this one out:

Then he added that he really didn’t mean that and we had to understand him in context. He referred to Trump voters as “ignorant hillbillies” and he could “smell” them.

Then he asserted that he didn’t mean that either and we had to understand him in context.

Strzok was asked about another text he sent:

And now he doesn’t remember who he was talking about. Then John Radcliffe absolutely blasted Strzok

When asked when the FBI learned that the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC:

 

Trey Gowdy noted that Strzok began talking impeachment one day after Mueller was appointed SC (at 9:35 in)

The last piece of that- that Mueller kicked Strzok off his team for “appearance” and not “bias” is something Mueller needs to address. Also remember that following his removal from Mueller’s team, Strzok was banished to HR. Was that for “appearance” also?

The exchange was a thing of beauty. What you really have to do is watch Strzok through all of this. He shows no sense of remorse, no shame, no regret. He maintains that maniacal face throughout.

After all the hate spewed at Trump, Strzok is offended that someone might think he is biased:

Strzok frequently repeated that IG Horowitz had found no bias in him. Unfortunately for Strzok, this is patently false

We can safely call that perjury. Questioning by Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) made clear that Strzok violated the FBI Code of Conduct.

Superiors may never send to subordinate employees an email directed at the success or failure of a political party, a partisan political group, or partisan candidate.”

“Express opinions about the candidates and issues, if the expression is political activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate, partisan political office or partisan political group, the expression is not permitted while the employee is on-duty.”

“We who enforce the law must not merely obey it (‘This is the FBI guideline’), we have an obligation to set a moral example that those who we protect can follow. Because the FBI’s success in accomplishing its mission is directly related to the support and cooperation of those we protect, these core values are the fiber of that holds together the vitality of our institution.”

Kim Strassel asked a very, very good question:

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Strzok without any doubt mean every word that he wrote: “F Trump”, Trump is a “douche” and a “f**king idiot”, his supporters smell and they are ignorant hillbillies. He sees himself as the king of the world, the same kind of Savior Comey saw himself as. Strzok bristled at every personal criticism, letting Congress know that he was merely tolerating them. He sees Americans as his servants, incapable and unworthy of judging him.

He is freaking scary.

Were Strzok a prosecutor or a judge on any other case and this bias and animus was discovered, he’d be removed immediately. Strzok showed himself to be hostile, callous, deceitful, lacking in empathy, and unwilling to accept responsibility. Those are some of the characteristics of a sociopath. If you watch the maniacal faces he made, it will remove all doubt. This will creep you out that guy was near the top of the FBI. If this isn’t bias, there is no such thing as bias.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

J. Edgar must be spinning in his grave. This new FBI gives me chills.

So no divorce filings for him wonder if she is too terrified of this guy.
His wife is no stranger to government abuses she is a lawyer working for SEC one of her cases :The criminal case against Wey collapsed in June, when U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan ruled that a huge cache of materials seized from Wey’s home and offices could not be used because they were obtained with overly broad search warrants that violated Wey’s constitutional rights.”

The article continued, “Nathan said the seizure of items such as children’s school records, family photos and X-rays at minimum reflected ‘grossly negligent or reckless disregard’ of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.”
Perhaps they are soulmates.

If this isn’t bias, there is no such thing as bias.

Well, among liberals there IS no such thing as bias because bias is favoring one viewpoint over another. To a liberal, there is only ONE viewpoint… THEIRS.

Offering to commit a seditious act to alter the outcome of an election must be how Strzok got Lisa all squishy. Big man. Yeah, I can stop Trump. Gimme some.

I guess the liberals must have seen this coming because they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the proceedings to stall, delay or postpone them.

According to Cohen, a liberal getting caught lying is the same as a war wound and deserves a medal. No doubt, being raked over the coals for lying in the name of liberalism is a badge of honor. He doesn’t deserve a medal; he deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life.

To show what a true boy scout this guy is an old home movie was released

@kitt: Another liberal icon for you. I can see him being a front runner for the Democrat nomination in 2020.

@Deplorable Me: I can see him in Levenworth for sedition. Jordons question is key listen to Dan Bonginos podcast today, the question that made Strozk bob and weave.

Dr. John, believe it or not, a professional can separate their political viewpoints from the task at hand. Professionals do it every day.

@Gary Miller:

Gary Miller
Dr. John, believe it or not, a professional can separate their political viewpoints from the task at hand. Professionals do it every day.

Sure they can. Sure they do. But, what about when a “professional” expresses virulent prejudice and bias, expresses a willingness to act on that bias and prejudice, then actually ACTS on those biases and prejudices? Is that what “professionals” do?

Professional what?

It isn’t as if Strzok’s personal views concerning Donald Trump were in any way incorrect. He knows a threat to his country when he sees one.

@Greg:

It isn’t as if Strzok’s personal views concerning Donald Trump were in any way incorrect. He knows a threat to his country when he sees one.

So, you think Strzok’s “views” indicate some sort of insight? Well, he viewed a person he knew to have been grossly negligent in handling national security, that she sent, received and stored highly classified State Department information on her secret, private, unsecured server, that some of those email had been secured by other foreign actors, that Hillary had destroyed evidence, that Hillary lied to him and committed perjury under oath, on video before the entire nation in testimony before Congress to be HIS choice for the next President of the United States.

Then, he endeavored to make sure Hillary was not prosecuted, or even questioned further, on any of those above facts and redirected his investigatory powers upon Trump, trying to demolish his candidacy and Presidency.

Yeah, let’s consider Strzok’s “views”. He apparently has some that are very curious.

@Deplorable Me: Yeah, let’s consider Strzok’s “views”. He apparently has some that are very curious.

The entire history of our nation had been famous for its peaceful transition from one administration to the next.
I guess Strzok doesn’t share that view.
Up until now, however, those who didn’t were either completely on the outs or were impish in their little shows of displeasure, like those Clinton White House staffers who stole all the “B’s” off all the keyboards in the WH.
What Strzok did was seditious and treasonish.
Only his protectors in Deep State keep him in his job.
Yes, he was biased, and yes, it showed in all his actions.
Proof by an IG who never even cross examined anyone was never going to be produced.

@Deplorable Me:

If a professional acts on those biases, then you’ve got a problem. But that’s not what happened here with Strzok, as the IG report clearly states. If you have any evidence that Strzok’s personal beliefs actually did have any real effect on the findings of the Mueller probe, kindly share it. But knowing you …

@Gary Miller: Strzok might just be a fallguy, find out who compiled and submitted unverified evidence for the FISA court warrants, we know Rosenstein signed off on an extension. IMO there are other perhaps bigger fish to fry.

@Gary Miller:

If a professional acts on those biases, then you’ve got a problem. But that’s not what happened here with Strzok, as the IG report clearly states.

The IG report states that Strzok CLEARLY acted on bias.

The Justice Department IG report heavily criticized Strzok and Page, who were having an extramarital affair, for the sentiments they expressed to one another in text messages, and said the texts revealed potential bias and a “biased state of mind.”

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the IG said.

(my emphasis)

And so, though he KNEW Hillary (whom his texts showed he supported) lied to him, he KNEW Hillary had been grossly negligent in her handling of classified information by illegal sending, receiving and storing them on her secret, private, unsecured server (which the FBI says was hacked numerous time by numerous foreign actors), KNEW she destroyed evidence, KNEW she obstructed justice, KNEW she committed perjury before Congress, he reworded the statement showing she violated the Espionage Act to make it appear she was innocent and dropped that investigation. THEN, without any evidence other than his bias, prejudice and hatred, he opened an investigation on Trump (whom his texts showed he hated) which relied on information Hillary bought and provided to the FBI and media and illegal surveillance. And investigation which, to this date, has turned up not one single shred of evidence to even support the suspicions of collusion.

Yeah, Strzok and others in the FBI not only had biases but they violated FBI rules and procedures to act on those biases.

@DrJohn: You have to understand that if the bias goes leftward, the left doesn’t see it. The further left it goes, the more invisible it becomes.

Because Strzok expressed a bias to prevent Trump from becoming President and cover up Hillary’s crimes, then failing that, to get him impeached, which all other liberals also share, whey view it through their distorted lenses, there simply WAS no bias.

Not only no bias but the guy deserves the same medal as US military men who come home without legs or arms in service of their country. Those who did not watch the uninterrupted CSPAN version only repeat leftist opines. They were not exposed to Strrzoks squirming in the chair a signal for democrats to interrupt the questioning.
Peter Strzok admitted under questioning from Rep. Jim Jordan that Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS operative Nellie Ohr, funneled documents to the FBI related to the Russia case. Strzok refused to say what those documents were.
Will all this political pig wrestling weed out those that hold high positions and openly on Tax payers time express extreme political bias left or right, positive or negative bias? Not until the very top appointees hold everyone in the agencies to the code of conduct. Lose every benefit tax payers bear if they purger themselves, along with fines and jail time.

Keep in mind, these are the people who believe THEY and THEY ALONE have the right to choose Supreme Court Justices. They are not only extremely biased, wanting to throw medals at those who lie for their beloved leftism, but celebrate bias and lying. Again, though flawed in many ways, Trump IS the savior of the Constitution and the government of the United States of America. Hillary would have been poisonous; as poisonous or more than Obama and his regime.

@Deplorable Me, #10:

So, you think Strzok’s “views” indicate some sort of insight?

Yes, and a very common one. Strzok accurately sized Trump up, as did over one-half of all Americans who voted. Trump is a dangerous, unprincipled, self-serving con artist who is totally unfit for the office he now holds. That’s not a bias, it’s an observation. The more one knows about Donald Trump, the more obvious it becomes.

@Greg: Like the worm Strzok, you have no basis to make any of those assessments other than he is not the corrupt liar Hillary. Not only is it bias, it is prejudice and demonstrably stupid.

@Greg:

He knows a threat to his country when he sees one.

Might I remind you which Presidential candidate kicked off their campaign in the home of a domestic terrorist? Which Presidential candidate got his “religion” in a social justice church from a racist, American hating pastor? Many identified THIS as a threat, but were shouted down as racists, yet THIS candidate went on to divide America racially and promote and support domestic terrorism in support of his agenda and ideology.

Aside from threatening the extinction of liberalism and the campaign to turn the US socialist, what “threat” does Trump pose?

@DrJohn:

No, Greg, that’s your opinion.

Manafort is in jail and Mueller is harassing innocent people based on the same thing.

@Kitt: Well, that’s the left’s latest hero, which ought to tell you how absolutely desperate for a hero they are.

@DrJohn:
It certainly does not clearly say that. A potential indication or an appearance thereof is not proof of bias.

@Deplorable Me:

An appearance of bias is not proof of bias, and you should be smart enough to figure that out.

@Gary Miller:

An appearance of bias is not proof of bias, and you should be smart enough to figure that out.

When it is the ACTIONS that give that appearance, then it most definitely IS bias. Lisa Page has confirmed what they wrote is what they believed and what they were doing. You are going to need a new last hope to cling to. This one is gone.

Can I respectfully ask for a link with a Lisa Page quote that says that Strzok ACTED on his biases? Please, no dopey blogs.

@old guy:

J. Edgar wasn’t exactly a prize, himself.