I watched and listened to part of today's Congressional hearing with Peter Strzok on the veritable hot seat. I don't know that I can ever get that wasted hour or two back. Primed for political combat, members of the committee spent considerable time trashing each other in this installment of political theater.
Listen to the Republicans on the committee and you would think Mr. Strzok was a one-man coup band, or maybe a twosome with his FBI girlfriend. After all, he did say a lot of nasty things about Mr. Trump and assorted other political figures. Although the questioning focused on Trump, a perusal of his texts also find criticism of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Congress as an institution, and others. Strzok comes across in text as all purpose cynic who especially didn't like Trump.
Democrats spent much of their question time trying to pin a medal on the man. Republicans spent most of theirs trying to characterize him as Satan incarnate. This all comes down to a question of bias, as the I.G. Report and two congressional committees cannot point to a specific action Mr. Strzok took in the investigation that is out of line with traditional practices in the FBI. The texts however really look bad in the sense that he had antipathy toward Trump and did not wish to see him elected.
Neither did 60+ million other Americans, but none of us happened to find ourselves Forrest Gump-like at the center of the two most sensational investigation of political figures since Watergate. I half expected someone to pull out a picture of Strzok on the grassy knoll, or with a flashlight in his teeth breaking into the Watergate building. He was there and decisions were made. Shit happened!
Is it possible to hold a negative opinion about someone and investigate them fairly? For that matter, is it possible to hold a positive opinion about someone and do the same? I am sure there are some political agnostics running around the Hoover Building, but I doubt there are enough of them to run investigations like this. Can you turn the personal feelings off while in your official capacity? This is the heart of the matter.
The answer? Absent specific acts prejudicial to the person being investigated, it comes down to credibility and your own beliefs. If you asked most of us if we could do this we would say that of course we could. After all, that is what juries are asked to do in courtrooms every day. Set aside those prejudices and biases and focus on the evidence and the task at hand. It doesn't matter if you liked O.J. because you liked the way he ran through those airports or thought he was an overpaid has-been. Did the glove fit? How about those Bruno Magli shoes?
The truth is that only Mr. Strzok really knows. The guy rose to a high level in the FBI doing investigations that most agents could only dream of. This is the stuff they write books about, lecture at universities about, and add to the resume to support the next act. Did the man really leave the thoughts about Trump at the door?
The most convincing argument to the negative would be that the guy was having an affair at the height of being in the midst of two huge investigations, and seemed to be sowing the oats of someone who had "made it", reaching about as high as any agent could ever hope to reach. Could he really just "turn it off" when he opened the case file, interviewed a witness, or briefed the director of the F.B.I. on his progress. Did he possibly put a little finger on the scale in a way that is not readily apparent? Its possible and I'm sure that has happened before. Do you think every cop or every prosecutor sits Christ-like in the hallowed judicial chambers dispassionately making decisions that could ruin someone's life or save it? Decisions are made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges every day that could help someone's case or harm it. All of these people are human, and even if they make a good faith effort, that little subconscious we all have can be a tricky thing.
The biggest argument to the negative is what Strzok did not do. He didn't send an email to Rachel Maddow in October letting her know that the campaign of the Republican candidate for president was under an open counterintelligence investigation regarding possible collusion with Russia. He didn't meet a Washington Post reporter in a darkened garage to whisper about Mike Flynn or Paul Manafort. He didn't meet Maxine Waters at the French Hen to let her know about this threat to the election. He didn't and neither did anyone else at the FBI or DOJ.
Dozens of people had to know that this investigation was going on and none of them leaked it, in spite of the obvious conclusion that such an action would hurt Mr. Trump's candidacy. If this was a witch hunt then it was a damned quiet one. While Hillary's email investigation was reopened days before the election, the Russia investigation hummed along quietly beneath the surface. Mr. Trump got to talk about servers and lead his crowds in chants of "lock her up". A revelation that he had his own investigation going might have hampered that a bit. At least she could've said, "NYET!" to the chants or put out photo shopped pictures of Trump and Putin bare chested together while fishing.
So can you put it aside at the door? We may never know with certainty the answer to the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment