This is what happens when being “under oath” has no meaning. When we live in a judgeless, valueless society where nobody is supposed to use values as a hammer against others, you get a lying, deceitful, arrogant FBI agents like Peter Strzok. His testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee was extraordinary, the disgraced FBI agent who had run the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation and started the whole debacle against Donald Trump and the phony Russian conspiracy showed the nation what the true face of evil looked like. Many in the aftermath of the hearing were critical of people like Louie Gohmert from Texas who lost it a bit during his portion of the interview, but I thought his quest for sincerity and honesty were at the core of the entire endeavor. Not that I have any love for Peter Strzok, but if I had been his attorney I would have had him take the fifth, because the disgraced FBI agent said too much in what he figured would be a Beltway endorsement of his bad behavior.
The miscalculation that he and many of the Democrats made approaching the hearing was that the value of institutionalism would triumph over the bad deeds of Peter Strzok who was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page and was sharing copious amounts of information while on the job and using FBI communication devices to essentially start the ending of the Donald Trump presidency before the election even took place. It’s no conspiracy theory to conclude that the FBI using Peter Strzok sought to tamper with the election of 2016 in many ways, first in meddling with the Hilary Clinton campaign, allowing her to be a candidate when she technically should have been facing the same type of prosecution that was targeted at former celebrities like Martha Stewart. But when Donald Trump emerged that summer to head the Republican ticket, Peter Strzok along with several other agents purposely sought to destroy his candidacy and they hid their efforts behind a completely made up Russian story to give them cover from public judgment. And the whole thing had blown up in their face leaving the arrogant Peter Strzok to appear before the committee to attempt to talk his way out of the mess and restore faith in the FBI. Things did get heated, as they damn well should have.
Louie Gomert wasn’t just interviewing a witness in what appears to be one of the biggest scandals in American history, he was literally sitting in front of a devil, a representation of evil that overwhelmed him with emotion to confront such a beast. I can’t blame him one bit. Peter Strzok wasn’t testifying to get to the truth, he was there to take one for the team at the FBI who desperately needed him to show up and earn back the respect of the American people. Instead of pleading the fifth, Strzok offered a defense in public that was supposed to satisfy people and to take Republicans off the conspiracy case and turn America’s judgement back to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian tampering of the Trump campaign, as if such a thing would explain to the institutionalists why Trump was in the White House and not one of their own kind. It used to be that no matter how villainous a person was, there was at least some agreed upon civility that we could all find in each other under a respect for a God and an oath taken with a hand on the Bible to him. But we aren’t living in those times. Few people believe in anything anymore, especially whether or not their eternal souls will burn in the damnation of Hell for lying. People like Peter Strzok these days pledge their oaths to the institutional values of their respective group associations instead and that makes them very dangerous when they attempt to play on the traditions of American civil conduct.
The Democrats were just as bad as Strzok, they were using the same deflective tactics to explain away Peter Strzok’s very dangerous conspiracies as they did to explain the law breaking of Hillary Clinton in both her email scandal and the debacle in Benghazi where in both cases at a minimum she showed terrible judgment. If her behavior wasn’t grossly illegal, which I think it was in both situations they certainly showed that she was an incompetent leader, which was a clear indicator that the Democrats should have been looking for someone else to run for president. Instead of judging Hillary Clinton on the content of her character they were supporting her for president just because she was a liberal woman—and nothing more. It was up to the FBI to fix up her mistakes from the vantage point of the intelligence community and put a stick up her back to keep her standing so she could be elected president. What nobody counted on was that those smelly people who live between the big cities and shopped at Wal-Mart were so mad at the system that had evolved out of the Beltway that they were poised to vote for Donald Trump, which is precisely what they did. To support their own illusions of how things were supposed to work, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House created the fake Russian story, which had new revelations that came out of this hearing which came from Jim Jordan’s line of questioning. The point of the Russian story was to divert attention away from the reality that American’s were rejecting liberalism as it had evolved in Washington D.C. People didn’t want a House of Cards type of representative republic, they wanted Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
To sell his position, Peter Strzok and the rest of the FBI behind him miscalculated what was really happening behind the Donald Trump presidency, even up to the House Oversight Committee testimony. For them the entire testimony was about selling whether or not Peter Strzok’s bias toward Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump played a part in his investigations into two presidential candidates to help shape the nature of the election. He needed to establish in is testimony that even though the text messages he exchanged with his lover Lisa Page showed bias that he professionally was above and beyond that kind of behavior and that the investigations he worked on were not corrupt with his influence. That is why he didn’t take the fifth, because he needed to offer an explanation that the Democrats could then sell as a way to still believe in the integrity of the FBI. But what they don’t know—actually they probably do because they spy on us extensively—is that people like me were planning to turn toward the Second Amendment if Donald Trump wasn’t elected, because if a guy like Peter Strzok ever came to my home to obtain records or make an arrest, he and his associates would be in big trouble. The people doing the arresting needed to be turned around. I voted for Trump to turn things back toward justice, back to an America where a hand on the Bible still meant something. Not an FBI agency that was trying to give the White House to Hillary Clinton by not only tampering with the election process, but in destroying the people who would run against her.
It might not have been civil, but Louie Gohmert represented my thoughts on the matter, he asked the questions I wanted him to ask, he represented me in that hearing. If a man like Strzok will lie to his own wife and use such bad judgment in sending 600 text messages a week while he’s supposed to be doing the work of an FBI agent to a lover of his, then how can we believe anything he has said ever—especially on the matter that he didn’t have any personal bias against Donald Trump and favored the election of Hillary Clinton and intended to use the tools and power of the FBI to steer the election in that direction. That is very serious stuff and if not for Gohmert’s line of questions what other option do we have to remove such people from the FBI or reform it back to something that it should be—at least an organization that can take an oath of office and mean it. If a man won’t keep an oath to his wife, how in the hell can he keep one to a company he works for? It really does come down to that. Such thoughts are not popular these days in a world that isn’t supposed to judge anything, but in essence, that is the central argument in this case. We are supposed to believe that Peter Strzok can lie about this or that, but not about that or this and everyone is supposed to live happily ever after. Well, no, that’s not how things work. And if not for these hearings, things would be much worse. What happened this week at the House Oversight Committee hearings was civil discourse. It’s a whole lot less violent than armed insurrection to take back our country. Democrats should be grateful that such mechanisms are still options in the pursuit of civil discourse. Louie Gohmert’s comments to Strzok are a whole lot more peaceful than what I had in mind and for that, they should consider themselves very lucky.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.