18

Contempt

I have spent a good part of the last 35 years asking questions of witnesses and listening to their answers.  Many of these witnesses have been hostile to the side I was representing in civil or criminal cases, and occasionally the process of asking and answering has been contentious, and sometimes acrimonious.  However, in all those years I have never encountered a witness as arrogant, and mendacious, as FBI agent Peter Strzok.  He is a perfect representative of the Deep State, with nothing but contempt for the Congress and for Americans who have different political opinions than he embraces.  That he is a high ranking member of a Federal agency with the powers of the FBI should frighten every American with the slightest concern for civil liberties, especially our greatest civil liberty, the right to rule ourselves.

 

 

Share With Friends
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    4
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

18 Comments

  1. What a performance!

    The elites don’t care a hang about the unwashed.

    T. E. Lawrence early in his “Seven Pillars” wrote, “When men are denied access to constitutional recourses, they find others.” And, “Opinions are subject to debate. Convictions can only be resolved by shooting.”

    The Framers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution specifically for this.

    Americans, mostly the unwashed, have 400 million guns and eight trillion bullets. That’s the truth behind the elites’ gun confiscation putsch.

  2. Nailed it Don. The same “newly enlightened”, “pompous prick”, condescending smugness I run into all day everyday. It is as though, for example in my case, these “progressive” minded people, we are not even talking about college campussies, literally believe anyone outside a 10 mile radius of this city have no right to even live, what alone think differently than the newly enlightened. This is the SAME identical progressive disease one finds in this (mine) and many other Archdiocese offices. No laws, no morale’s – and proud of it.

  3. Hosea 10:13

    Arastis impietatem,
    iniquitatem messuistis,
    comedistis frugem mendacii,
    quia confisus es in curribus tuis,
    in multitudine fortium tuorum.

    You have plowed impiety.
    You have sown iniquity.
    You have devoured the produce of lies.
    For you are confident in your triumphs,
    in the multitude of your fortunes.

    Peter Strzok had better however forget the last part of verse 15 – God Almighty is the final Judge:

    Mane interibit rex Israel.

    In the morning the king of Israel will perish.

  4. “Opinions are subject to debate. Convictions can only be resolved by shooting.”- Similar to one of my relatives when asked about a fistfight, “We had a disagreement and ran out of words.”

  5. Peter Sztrok is confident that the Department of Justice has his back.

    Abusive officials we can survive. What’s really troubling is the conduct of the various aspects of the Democratic Party. That includes the politicians, the media, and the civil service (as manifest in the political donation patterns at the Department of Justice). They ought to be perturbed by what Page and Sztrok define as professional conduct. Instead they’re enraged when Mr. Gohmert sticks a stiletto into this manure-sack. What do you do when one of your major political parties is a collecting pool of sociopaths?

  6. I see a resemblance of Hillary Rodham Clinton in that countenance.

    What difference does it make?

  7. My experience in the judicial processes of the US comes from 4 decades in the tax and accounting world, a plenty litigious sector of the business world. My main experience is that one should never, never, never appear arrogant or superior to the court or its personnel. A jury will roll you up in a New York minute, and that is a very, very short minute.

    It is a shame that Strzok will likely walk and never be called before a jury of his Walmart-funky-smelling peers. They can smell a rat like Strzok a mile off and they would quickly destroy his arrogant sophistication with their rustic scalpels.

  8. Mr Gowdy was great. To place an investigation of this magnitude into the hands of a person, such as Strzok who does not act within the realms of his job description is very troubling. Strzok is clearly not a professional and should be sacked. Who knows what he has done off the record.

    I love observing human behaviour and body language. The changes in his body language says it all- he starts off with an inflated chest and nostrils in the air, with the arrogance of the cat who got the cream, thinking his buddies have his back. But after Mr Gowdy’s simple questions, those shoulders are lower, that head tilts south and his skin turns an obvious red. And he starts bringing in the emotional statements regarding defending the families of soldiers and not to read into tired, late-night texts. And “who am I to alter anything in government, I’m just a lowly paper pusher”. Rubbish. All because he clearly has “bias” written all over him.

    If he doesn’t know that his position entails him to have a professional and unbiased view, that he is an employee of US tax-paying citizens, that he can’t use government emails and phones to spread his personal politics, that he should be open, honest and transparent in a US government hearing- then he really is not fit to occupy any role which puts him in a government department which is in charge of US national security. I wouldn’t trust him ordering the FBI office toilet paper. What a weezel.

  9. Someone should ask Mr.Strzok about spending some of his formative time growing up in Iran, and if that has colored his perception and desire to “stop Trump”; especially in light of President Obama’s deal with Iran and then candidate Trump’s harsh criticism of that deal and publicized intentions to dismantle it as soon as he got the chance.

    They also should ask him if he shares a positive view of the current Iranian regime in the same vein as his father.

    Here is an interview with Mr.Strzok’s father from the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, published Feburary 21st, 1979 (page 7) [broken up into 4 images]. In it, he speaks of enjoying his time in Iran and his support (apology) for Khomeini and the Iranian revolution.

    img 1
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiC7R11XkAAADpd.jpg
    img2
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiC7T0KWsAARoEe.jpg
    img3
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiC7VVNW4AAMdzQ.jpg
    img4
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiC7W4ZX4AA_F-E.jpg

  10. That interview was given in 1979, before American personnel were kidnapped by the regime and before the regime had entered its lunatic phase. Sztrok, Sr was a military engineer, not some political pilgrim. What’s interesting about Sztrok, Jr. is that he has a portfolio of Pajama Boy attitudes, but the only element in his background which might be expected to have nurtured such attitudes would be Georgetown University. He went from college to the military to federal law enforcement. By contrast, Andrew McCabe’s background is (by all appearances) blueblood and included stops in prep school, two private research universities, and law practice.

  11. Dont overlook that Andrew McCabe was a highly trained member of the FBI SWAT team during his time at the NY FBI Field Office, approx 1996-2002. Unlike Comey who is a lace-underwear type, he is highly trained in arms and police special weapons procedures, and I was always concerned that Trump might attempt to meet with him alone. I wouldnt put anything past McCabe—nor Strzok, for that matter. Two sociopathic peas in a pod.

Comments are closed.