No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.

“It” being Trump winning the election. The speaker, or more accurately, the person texting those words being FBI agent Peter Strzok.

What do you think he meant by that? According to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Agent Strzok assured them that he did not mean by those words that he would do anything to impact the election. So apparently, Strzok is signaled out for potential bias, but not for actively undermining – or more accurately displaying a willful intent to undermine – an election campaign to ensure that candidate Trump would not be elected president.

Give me a break. What the hell else do those words possibly mean?

No he won’t. We’ll stop it.

Comey on the other hand, comes in for harsher criticism. He was, according to the report, “insubordinate” for the way he handled the Hillary email investigation. Ok, while this report is just out and will have to be parsed further, it seems Comey is being criticized for a “serious lack of judgement” for sending his October 28th letter about re-opening the Hillary probe as a result of the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop that came from his estranged wife – Huma Abedin – one assumes. And for not consulting with the DOJ when he closed the Hillary investigation just before the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2016.

Let’s see, could the difference in how Strzok’s actions are handled in the IG’s report compared to Comey’s, have to do with the fact that Strzok still works at the FBI while Comey obviously doesn’t? And that Horowitz’s main objective is to somehow preserve what remains of the FBI and the DOJ’s reputations as trustworthy institutions?

In other words, Horowitz is already behaving in a manner reminiscent of the man who appointed him, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, where he is trying to balance conflicting interests all in the name of institutional reputations. So, Comey is left standing alone while Strzok gets a little more cover. Interesting to note that on Thursday morning, just before Horowitz’s report was released, John Podesta – who ran Hillary’s failed campaign – lashed out yet again at Comey, essentially blaming him once more for Hillary’s loss.

Does the IG report set up Comey as the fall guy? The narcissistic and self-righteous Director who thinks of himself as an avenging angel but who’s seen as a political klutz by Hillary’s team, and on the other hand, as a traitor by Trump’s team? The unsettling thing is that the FBI Director is now a highly politicized position, like it or not. That means any FBI Director is more likely to be partisan, given that Comey’s actions can best be explained by political calculations he made before taking those three vital decisions of 2016: not to prosecute Hillary, and then to release the October letter and then keep to his original not-guilty assessment of Hillary and her private server. Something that Horowitz also does in this report.

This is reading the tea leaves, if clumsily, before making any major move as FBI Director. Should we be surprised? Look at ex-CIA head Brennan. He’s turned into a less profane version of Rick Wilson since he stepped down as CIA chief. Astonishingly partisan rants about Trump have become standard fare for him. Bureaucrats – especially the top ones perhaps – are as partisan as any voter in America, whatever their technical qualifications for the highly-paid and influential jobs they hold. And this is what both Rosenstein and Horowitz are desperate to tamp down on. Like Michael Hayden’s dismissive sarcasm of his interviewer’s mentioning of the Deep State. They all have to toe the party line to make sure their constituency does not lose power and prestige. The administrative state – especially it’s intel branch – must be protected by the wise!

IG Horowitz is more than likely just one more voice in this chorus.

Comments