Just how far down does the anti-Trump FBI Deep State go? Wow – I just reread that sentence. It sounds like Alex Jones! No matter.
We hear from every political pundit on the right, that the problems at the FBI and other intelligence agencies are concentrated at the top. Every pundit or politician I’ve seen or heard speak on the topic has prefaced their criticisms with, “Now let’s be clear. I’m not talking about the hardworking agents on the ground – I’m talking about the leadership that has become politicized,” or some such malarkey. In politics, the first thing you learn is to CYA.
But how does anyone know at this time? The answer is that we don’t. No one does, which is why that statement or those like it is such bull crap. The FBI employs well over 35,000 people. Within its ranks, like any other company or department of that size, there will bad apples at every level. But unlike government, corporations don’t change ownership consistently every four to eight years. Seems to me that a working environment like that would lend itself to becoming more political – not less.
It’s impossible to determine how many anti-current administration players there are and thus how many are capable of steering a given narrative. Yet we’re just expected to trust that almost all agents are exceptional and but a few are bad actors, driven to bias by politics – especially in the present anti-Trump climate.
Last Thursday, it was reported, “Department of Justice officials told Fox News they are in the process of going through the texts so they can hand them over to the House Intelligence Committee.”
The text messages in question are from former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, to Lisa Page – a lawyer who was part of Mueller’s “dream team” hit squad. They are said to contain both anti-Trump and pro-Hillary messages.
“Justice Department officials say the process of reading and redacting the texts could take ‘weeks,’ and that the thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page span over ‘several months.’”
Now, why is that? Why does Justice have to first comb through 10,000 text messages before handing them over? And why must portions be redacted? Are not members of the House Intelligence Committee (HIC) read in? Do they not maintain proper security clearance to observe these texts first hand?
Why yes – yes they do.
According to the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence: “There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years,” writes ClearanceJobs.com.
The obvious question would then be, who exactly at Justice determines the “needs and concerns” of the HIC? Are they all mind-readers? Is it some Obama hold-over, because it sure doesn’t appear that many Trump people reside at Justice.
“House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional.”
So again – why on Earth can’t Justice, whom I also don’t trust regardless of who is in charge, and the HIC scour these messages simultaneously? Could it be that some at Justice may also fear being outed by a text? I have no idea. Who is responsible for assuring that one or two just don’t happen to get misplaced? And out of 10,000, how would the HIC even know?
This may sound conspiratorial and paranoid, but at this juncture, do we really know who is and isn’t trustworthy?
A former senior Trump administration official said Strzok was evenhanded in all his dealings with the Trump White House. “I had the occasion to work closely with Special Agent Peter Strzok and never experienced even a hint of political bias. He was one of the most competent [counterintelligence] agents, and a role model,” the official said. “The country is tearing itself apart, and men like Pete Strzok are victims. The enemy is better off with him sidelined,” the former official added, referring to foreign adversaries, wrote the Washington Post.
Competent agent, eh. It would seem to me that even an incompetent counterintelligence agent would know not to “text” potentially damaging or politically charged statements. But what do I know. I’m not an FBI Special Agent.
What I do know is that the FBI appears less competent than years past and certainly more political.
This whole Strzok episode, like many others which seek, or sought, to damage the President and benefit Hillary Clinton, stinks to high-heaven. I hope the truth will make an appearance soon, but I won’t hold my breath.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.