After FBI agent Peter Strzok obliterated haircut fanatic and Benghazi witch hunter, Rep. Trey Gowdy he moved on to the Republican chairman of this farce of a House Judiciary hearing Bob Goodlatte. Rep. Goodlatte has announced his retirement and continues to desecrate the legislative branch on his way out. The Republican Party has tried to make these hearings become a chance to use Hillary Clinton’s name as much as possible, while not asking or worrying about the actual contents of the FBI investigation into Russian collusion in our 2016 elections. The focus for Republicans during Strzok’s testimony is to repeatedly point out that Strzok sent texts that showed a dislike of then candidate Donald Trump. The implication on the GOP’s part is that Strzok is biased and the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a witch hunt in service of the evil Hillary Clinton.
[I just almost went blind rolling my eyes.]
The biggest problem that Republicans have is that they aren’t really particularly impressive people. In fact, they are all middle-management types who have failed up and lick the boot heels of wealthy donors. FBI agents like Strzok, regardless of what you believe about them personally, are usually very hard working and determined people. The worst thing that a cabal of Republican hacks can find themselves facing is a smart and articulate person who understands law and the facts. It’s like watching Superman try to eat a bowl of kryptonite. So they’ve been trying to monologue their “questions,” eat up the time allotted and then not allow him to answer.
Rep. Goodlatte, wearing a green striped tie (symbolizing avarice and envy is all I can imagine), had to sit there with the trained smug look of a paid-off shill, while agent Strzok explained how our Constitution and law enforcement institutions are supposed to work.
Strzok: In terms of political speech, that is radically different from any sort of protected category of race, gender, or ethnicity—or other categories. Political speech, political thought is protected. Courts have recognized, the Constitution recognizes we all have political belief; and so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body—under the Hatch Act—enumerated under the categories of what was prohibited, and then expressly stated that if it is not prohibited then it is expressly encouraged. So I would tell you that no one in here—it’s an impossible definition to say that people must not have political opinion. Everyone does. The test is whether or not that is left behind when you are doing your job. To your question of whether I would express that to a jury? Of course I wouldn’t. That would be inappropriate. As to your question of whether each and every one of those jurors, when they go home and are sitting in their backyard with their friend, has a political opinion? My answer would be undoubtably, almost all of those jurors would.