The Smirk

Strzok’s claim of no bias so ridiculous that even CNN’s political director calls BS by Thomas Lifson – “Only a fool or a Democrat (the two groups considerably overlap in the United States) would believe Peter Strzok’s claim under oath that it was only the appearance of bias, not actual bias, that was the problem with his texts to his inamorata Lisa Page.”

“Yet, the Democrats in the joint committee hearing were eager to hitch their wagon to his fate. One of them, Rep Steve Cohen of Memphis, offended many people with his claim that Strzok deserved a “Purple Heart,” oblivious to the genuine grievous physical injuries that have been honored with this medal that he trivialized.

I can only assume that Democrats believe that because Strzok was out to harm Trump, they must defend him.

Strzok, who is ubiquitous in scandals of exonerating Hillary and persecuting Trump, will become radioactive before voters go to the polls. I think Chalian is offering a friendly warning to them that there is only so much BS that the public will buy.

Strzok’s Smirk by Daniel Greenfield – “There are two kinds of villains in TV mystery shows. The plausibly sympathetic type and the smirking creep.”

“Peter Strzok had rehearsed all the lines of the plausibly sympathetic type. The character that James Comey is trying to play. A man so upright that he combs his hair every hour. But Strzok couldn’t help that smirk. Every time he clashed with the impotent House Republicans barraging him with questions that he dodged or refused to answer, the smirk crept over his face and into his voice.

And what was meant to be one character became another character.

Strzok hates Republicans. He hates Trump. And while his career might be a shambles, he’s getting personal satisfaction out of sitting there and thwarting them. It’s a grave error.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, and Gohmert, a former judge, understood that weakness and played on it. Just like TV show detectives play on the poor self-control of their suspect.

Strzok, who had done this a thousand times from the other end, lacked the self-control to keep that smirk in check.

Instead of doing what he needed to do, Strzok grew overly defensive, refused to concede any point, took any opportunity to speechify, interjected, argued and smirked.

He went in thinking that he would play his interlocutors. Instead they played on his weaknesses.

More from the theater of the Strzok hearing by neo-neocon – “Gohmert only said what everyone was thinking, of course, and the visual of looking at Strzok’s smirking face while Gohmert said it was certainly instructive.” Here’s the dictionary definition of smirk.

Some Questions That I would Like To Ask Peter Strozk by jjcarlton – “Frankly if I were Director Wray at this point my orders would be to give the joint committee everything. The longer that the FBI stalls, the worse it’s going to get for the FBI.”

“I think that the actions of the FBI and other agencies goes deeper than just the activity against the Trump campaign. It has been a long time now, but the concern of the people in Congress in the mid and late 1970’s was that the intelligence and law enforcement organizations of the government would become some sort of praetorian guard. Watching Special Agent Strozk at the hearings trying to defend the indefensible leads me to believe that those very organizations have gone far along that path. Agent Strozk’s attitude was not one of contriteness or of somebody who had committed a mistake. He honestly believes that he did the right thing by initiating an investigation against the campaign of one of the candidates for president. The fact that the entire thing was handled so callously says a lot about the institution of the FBI and the other intelligence agency’s involved. There is an ancient Roman saying, “Who will guard the guardians.” The most important thing any institution in government must have is the trust of the governed. At the hearings I saw that trust being thrown away for a desire to maintain a corrupt status quo and power.

Dirty Democrats try to hijack House hearing to protect their own by Howie Carr – “So corrupt, I’m dumb-Strzok!”

“If the corrupt Democrats in the FBI and the DOJ have nothing to hide in the investigation of their attempted coup against Donald Trump, then why did their congressional enablers attempt to hijack the FBI corruption hearing yesterday?

Whenever Strzok said “ongoing investigations,” replace that phrase with “smear campaign,” “frame up” or “Democrat dirty tricks” and you’ll see what he really meant.

In other words, he was dumb-Strzok. It was embarrassing, deeply corroding to what little remains of the FBI’s shattered reputation.

The FBI, you might say, has Strzok out.

Ask yourself this: Why don’t the Democrats want to get to the bottom of this scandal that makes Watergate look like a spitball? A scandal with actual evidence and smoking guns, unlike the Russian collusion hoax.

As we consider the corruption that is now being revealed in these current hearings, do you know what the best way is to describe the old Rico-Connolly days in Boston?

The good old days.

House Dems outraged as Ryan and McCarthy call their bluff on ‘abolish ICE’ bill by Thomas Lifson – “They actually announced that they will note “no” on their own bill.”

Why do so many people hate Trump for telling truths they don’t want to hear? Isn’t that what ALL politicians are supposed to do? by Piers Morgan – “I’ve known President Trump a long time and he’s always called things exactly how he sees them in the moment, regardless of any offence they may cause.”

“spare me all the risible ‘I’ve never been so offended!’ nonsense spewing forth from the usual suspects today at Trump’s tub-thumping tirade against his host Theresa May and her Brexit policy, as he arrived in Britain.

President Trump calls a spade a spade.

We know that, and we can expect that every single day of this extraordinary presidency.

I’m glad President Trump has come to Britain and given my Prime Minister some home truths.

It’s the perfect time for him to do it.

If she has any sense, she’ll pour him a cup of tea and listen to him.

Will Time magazine put this photo of a starving Venezuelan on its cover, too? By Monica Showalter – “Sometimes, photos shock the conscience.”

“As for the press, its sin is that it refuses to say the word ‘socialism,’ blithely reporting the starvation brought on by this man-made disaster as if it were something that just blew in with the wind, never once admitting that this is the work of ‘socialism.’ Here is an example of it, a good piece from PBS, yet its minions never once bring up the ‘s’ word.

The NY Times on Trump: That Was Then by Steven Hayward – “noting how the New York Times thought of Trump in this largely positive feature about him from 1984. It’s a long read, but there are some interesting—and familiar-sounding—parts of this story”

“SPENDING A DAY WITH Donald Trump is like driving a Ferrari without the windshield. It’s exhilarating; he gets a few bugs in his teeth. . .

No smirk with Trump.

Comments are closed.