About a week ago, writing in National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy rose to the defense of his former profession as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York: a prosecutor in other words. His point was that political bias or passion cannot possibly be a reason for disqualifying a prosecutor or an agent of the FBI. It would set a dangerous precedent. That was on December 6, when his piece was published, and he was referring of course, to Peter Strzok the FBI agent who exchanged around 10,000 text messages with then FBI attorney Lisa Page, some of them very critical of Trump.

McCarthy said this:

Are we now saying that whether a prosecutor or agent is qualified to work on a political-corruption case depends on his or her party affiliation or political convictions? That would be a terrible mistake. It would do more to intrude politics into law enforcement than remove it.

Yes Andy, it sure would. And you suggested in the same article that we should wait to see more evidence. The facts please. Unfortunately, the facts are starting to suggest that it was precisely their political leanings and/or affiliations that seemed to matter whether they were picked to be part of Mueller’s team charged with investigating any possible Russia collusion. In other words, the political test was applied before the team even started. It was already baked into the very process of this increasingly dubious investigation.

Victor Davis Hanson sums up the accumulating evidence against Mueller’s team – One Mueller-Investigation Coincidence Too Many in National Review – and how each individual demonstration of bias, or outright opposition research in the case of Bruce Ohr’s wife Nellie, is rationalized away, until the long trail of denial becomes too obvious to wish away or normalize. Like the case of Andrew Weissman – Mueller’s right-hand man in the investigating team – praising Acting AG Sally Yates’ refusal to implement President Trump’s travel ban. In other words, openly praising resistance-like actions that were clearly an act of insubordination as Yates disobeyed her constitutionally-mandated boss, President Trump.

But the fatal piece of evidence (we only have information on around 375 text messages out of a total of about 10,000) is a single text message that reads:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you’re 40 …

Peter Strzok sent the text message to Lisa Page. “Andy” is likely Andrew McCabe, the 2nd in command at the FBI . “He” (as in “he gets elected”) could very well refer to Trump, at that time in the heat of the campaign against Hillary. Strzok had texted Page on August 15, 2016 with the message above. But what was Peter Strzok referring to when he wrote “It’s like an insurance policy”? What the hell is “It”?

I can hardly wait to read Byron York’s next column on the matter. He’s been quietly and methodically piecing together the disparate strands of evidence that seems to suggest there may have been a plot from the time Trump was nominated to undermine him. A plot that may turn out to be the real collusion story. Because it sure seems that FBI Agent Peter Strzok was working out ways to make sure Trump would never be elected President of the United States.

But because it may very well involve the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Justice, working with the DNC, Hillary’s campaign and Fusion GPS; who were working with the Russians through Christopher Steele’s contacts in Moscow, the puzzle will be spread out all over the place in hard to reach places. Places that are protected by government secrecy clauses or by the arrogantly absurd insistence that they can’t reveal the information as successive FBI Directors have been doing, and as Jeff Session’s Department of Justice has been doing. Slow-walking or stone walling Congress.

In his December 6 article, Andrew McCarthy defended the character of prosecutors and agents in general, saying:

If an investigator knows he or she cannot be fair to a suspect, or that the investigator’s participation in the case would create a reasonable perception of bias, the investigator is obliged to recuse himself – and, failing that duty, the supervisor must disqualify the investigator.

And when the investigator knows he (and she in this case) cannot be fair, because the objective of the investigation is to produce a political outcome (the defeat of candidate Trump in the election)? The whole point seems to be not to be fair.

If half of this turns out to be true, it will be the FBI and the DOJ who have shredded their own ethics and credibility. From the inside. That will do enormous damage to America, but it may be unavoidable if we are to have an FBI and DOJ and intel community worthy of voters’ respect and worthy of a reasonable and workable degree of trust that voters place in them in order to see justice done.

Comments