JUNE 19, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


“BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PARDONS, SHE SAYS, “ABSOLUTELY, HE’S SENDING A MESSAGE YOU’LL PROTECT ME AND I’LL PROTECT YOU.”
IS THIS NOT THE EXERTING OF A HYPOTHETICAL INFLUENCE ON POTENTIAL WITNESSES? ILLEGAL AS WELL AS IMMORAL, VERY LIKELY.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/19/poll-if-trump-pardons-himself-most-would-back-impeachment/713479002/?csp=chromepush
Poll: Pardon me? Most say Trump should be impeached if he pardons himself
Susan Page and Merdie Nzanga, USA TODAY Published 2:36 p.m. ET June 19, 2018

President Trump has declared that he has the “absolute” right to pardon himself.

Americans disagree.

By more than 3-1, 64 percent to 18 percent, those surveyed in a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll say the president doesn’t have the power to pardon himself. Even Republicans are inclined to split with Trump on this. Just 29% say he has the power to pardon himself; 45% say he doesn’t.

Trying to do so could spark a constitutional crisis for the White House: 58 percent of Americans, including 31 percent of Republicans, say the House of Representatives should impeach the president if he pardons himself.

“If he has to have a presidential pardon for it, then he shouldn’t be president,” says Valeri Crankshaw, 57, of Hayward, California. She voted for Trump in 2016, but her admiration for him has waned since then. On everything from pardons to foreign policy, she said, “I think he’s trying to send a message to the world that he can and will do whatever he wants to do, and no one can stop him.”

The survey of 1,000 registered voters, taken Wednesday through Monday, has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

"GOP voters are still as supportive of Trump as they have ever been, but a sizable portion don't see him as above the law of the land,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. “This finding signals the introduction of a possible wedge issue within the Republican party, the likes of which we haven't seen in this presidency."

Unconventional pardon process

President Trump’s unconventional approach toward the pardons process has divided even his core supporters. More than six in 10 of those surveyed say he should use the traditional process that relies on a Justice Department review of applicants for presidential pardons and clemency. One in four, 26 percent, say he should “make his own judgments” on whom to pardon. Republicans split 42 percent-42 percent on which option he should use.

So far, the president has been relying on his judgment and the suggestions of friends and celebrities. Trump granted clemency to former Arizona sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who supported him during the campaign. He commuted the life sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, a grandmother convicted of a nonviolent drug crime, after Kim Kardashian West urged him to do so.

“There will be more pardons,” he said this month, mentioning as possibilities legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, and lifestyle mogul Martha Stewart.

More: Analysis: Trump's bold Joe Arpaio pardon breaks with presidential tradition

Only 30 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Trump is handling pardon, significantly lower than the 43 percent who approve of how he’s handling the job of the presidency generally.

Self-pardon would cause alarm, concern
Pardoning himself would spark a strong reaction from Americans.

Given four options, 39 percent said they would feel “alarm” and another 20 percent would feel “concern.” Twenty-five percent said their reaction would depend on the circumstances.

Nine percent said they would feel support — including just 17 percent of Republicans.

“Well, honestly, in most circumstances the president has a certain amount of executive latitude,” said James Marsh, 56, a retired attorney from Tripp, South Dakota, who was among those surveyed.

But in follow-up interviews, some said they thought Trump’s action on pardons was designed to send a message to associates who might get ensnared in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.

“If he was doing good things but doing them in an unconventional way, I wouldn’t mind, said Frances Sussna, 84, a retired teacher from Belmont, California, who voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016. But when it comes to pardons, she says, “Absolutely, he’s sending a message you’ll protect me and I’ll protect you.”



WHY DOES TRUMP KEEP DOING THINGS THAT WORRY ME DEEPLY? ISOLATIONISM IS BAD FOR THE USA – AND IT’S NOT GOOD FOR GENERAL MOTORS, EITHER. AND THIS PARTICULAR THING LOOKS AS THOUGH HE WANTS TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM POTENTIAL JUDGMENT BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. I WONDER WHY ....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/amid-withdrawal-threat-pompeo-haley-speak-u-n-151017726.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=69f70237-124f-3ea9-acd0-fc922af945e2&.tsrc=notification-brknews
U.S. quits U.N. human rights body, citing bias vs Israel, alarming critics
Reuters
By Lesley Wroughton and Michelle Nichols
Reuters • June 19, 2018

PHOTOS 1/6 -- 1 / 6
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attends the daily briefing at the White House in Washington
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attends the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S., June 7, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

By Lesley Wroughton and Michelle Nichols

WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States withdrew from a "hypocritical and self-serving" United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday over what it called chronic bias against Israel, a move activists warned would make advancing human rights globally even more difficult.

Standing with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the State Department, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley slammed Russia, China, Cuba and Egypt for thwarting U.S. efforts to reform the council. She also criticized countries which shared U.S. values and encouraged Washington to remain, but "were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo."

Washington's withdrawal is the latest U.S. rejection of multilateral engagement after it pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

It also comes as the United States faces intense criticism for detaining children separated from their immigrant parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein on Monday called on Washington to halt its "unconscionable" policy.

"Look at the council membership, and you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic rights," said Haley, citing Venezuela, China, Cuba and Democratic Republic of Congo. She did not mention Saudi Arabia, which rights groups pushed to be suspended in 2016 over killings of civilians in the Yemen war.

Among reforms the United States had pushed for was to make it easier to kick out member states with egregious rights records. Currently a two-thirds majority vote by the 193-member U.N. General Assembly is needed to suspend a member state.

Haley also said the "disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the U.S. decision.

The United States has long shielded its ally Israel at the United Nations. In citing what it says is bias against Israel, the Trump administration could further fuel Palestinian arguments that Washington cannot be a neutral mediator as it prepares to roll out a Middle East peace plan. Washington also relocated its embassy to Jerusalem after recognizing it as the capital of Israel, reversing decades of U.S. policy.

The United States is half-way through a three-year term on the 47-member Geneva-based body and the Trump administration had long threatened to quit if it was not overhauled.

'MISGUIDED POLICY'

Rights groups have criticized the Trump administration for not making human rights a priority in its foreign policy. Critics say this sends a message that the administration turns a blind eye to human rights abuses in some parts of the world.

"Given the state of human rights in today's world, the U.S. should be stepping up, not stepping back," Zeid said after Haley announced the U.S. withdrawal.

Reuters reported last week that talks on reforming the council had failed to meet Washington's demands, suggesting the Trump administration would quit.

"The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those that committed no offense," Pompeo said.

Diplomats have said the U.S. withdrawal could bolster countries such as Cuba, Russia, Egypt and Pakistan, which resist what they see as U.N. interference in sovereign issues.

Haley said the withdrawal "is not a retreat from our human rights commitments."

Twelve rights and aid groups, including Human Rights First, Save the Children and CARE, warned Pompeo the U.S. withdrawal would "make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world."

Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, said Trump's "misguided policy of isolationism only harms American interests."

The EU said Washington's decision "risks undermining the role of the US as a champion and supporter of democracy on the world stage". British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it was regrettable and that the council was the "best tool the international community has to address impunity."

FIRST MEMBER TO WITHDRAW

The Human Rights Council meets three times a year to examine human rights violations worldwide. It has mandated independent investigators to look at situations including Syria, North Korea, Myanmar and South Sudan. Its resolutions are not legally binding but carry moral authority.

When the Council was created in 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush's administration shunned the body.

Under President Barack Obama the United States was elected for a maximum two consecutive terms on the council by the U.N. General Assembly. After a year off, Washington was re-elected in 2016 for its current third term.

U.N. officials said the United States would be the first member to withdraw from the council.

Haley said a year ago that Washington was reviewing its membership. The body has a permanent standing agenda item on suspected violations committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories that Washington wanted removed.

The council last month voted to probe killings in Gaza and accused Israel of using excessive force. The United States and Australia cast the only "no" votes.

"The U.N. Human Rights Council has played an important role in such countries as North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and South Sudan, but all Trump seems to care about is defending Israel," said Human Rights Watch executive director Ken Roth.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington, Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva and Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Writing by Michelle Nichols, Editing by Yara Bayoumy and James Dalgleish)


THIS LOOKS DANGEROUS FOR SALAZAR IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY, BUT HAS NO MORE MONEY TO CONTINUE BEYOND THAT. AS FOR POLICIES, I DON’T THINK ANY DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE BACKING FRACKING. EARTHQUAKES, EVEN SMALL ONES, ARE A SIGN THAT INJECTING ANY LIQUID DOWN INTO ROCK WHICH IS HOLDING THE EARTH’S SURFACE IN PLACE, SO TO SPEAK, IS A BAD THING TO DO. THE TOXIC CHEMICAL WATER HAS MADE ITS’ WAY INTO PEOPLE’S WELL WATER, TOO. THAT’S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/hickenlooper-intervenes-colorado-ag-race-prevent-upset-sanders-backed-insurgent/
Hickenlooper Intervenes in Colorado AG Race to Prevent Upset by Sanders-Backed Insurgent

PHOTOGRAPH -- Gov. John HickenlooperGov. John Hickenlooper / Getty Images
BY: Haris Alic
June 18, 2018 6:10 pm

The divisive battle between the Democratic Party's establishment and progressive wings for the Democratic nomination in Colorado's attorney general race escalated in a big way on Monday.

Democratic governor John Hickenlooper waded into the race to endorse Phil Weiser, a former Obama administration official, in a last-ditch effort to prevent an upset victory by a progressive insurgency candidate, Joe Salazar, who enjoys the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), the Denver Post first reported.

In his endorsement, Hickenlooper praised Weiser as an inclusive leader who could bridge the political and geographic divides between the state's voters.

"At our best, we Coloradans are creative, collaborative, and inclusive," Hickenlooper said. "We don't look for leaders who divide; we look for leaders who can bring us together. Phil Weiser is just this sort of leader."

Hickenlooper had refrained from backing any candidates running for office this election cycle, but asserted he was compelled to support Weiser because the candidate had showcased his commitment to running a positive campaign with ideas "aimed at building up all of Colorado."

"His values have shown through in the type of campaign he's running—a positive, optimistic campaign about ideas aimed at building up all of Colorado," he said. "That's the sort of leadership we need."

The governor's endorsement seems to be a direct rebuke of Salazar, a Colorado state representative and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for attorney general. Salazar, a civil-rights attorney and three-term member of the Colorado General Assembly, has run an insurgency-style campaign with a willingness to attack both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Hickenlooper and Salazar have openly clashed before on issues related to Colorado's oil and gas industry, with Salazar at one point taking to social media to lambast the governor for having swallowed the fracking "Kool-aid."

The race between Salazar and Weiser highlights the struggle for power that has unfolded within in the Democratic Party between the establishment, aligned with the likes of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and progressives, aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders, since the 2016 presidential election.

Weiser, a former dean of the University of Colorado Law School who served in both the Obama and Bill Clinton administrations, is heavily favored by the state's mainstream political establishment. His candidacy has received the high-profile backing of former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth, and former state Attorney General J.D. MacFarlane, among others.

Salazar, on the other hand, has long been a fixture in the state's progressive political landscape. In 2016, he was one of only a handful of Colorado elected officials to back Sanders over Clinton in the state's Democratic caucuses. The decision paid off as Sanders won Colorado by nearly 20 percentage points. Sanders and Our Revolution, the political action group that spun out from the senator's campaign, repaid Salazar by enthusiastically endorsing his bid for attorney general. Salazar has also garnered the support of the Colorado AFL-CIO, the Progressive Democrats of America, and a handful of elected officials.

Polls have consistently shown Weiser lagging behind Salazar by double digits ahead of the June 26 primary.

Salazar's lead in the polls has held firm, even though he is overwhelmingly trailing Weiser in fundraising. Between Jan. 1 and May 2, Weiser raised $326,000 to Salazar's $31,000, according to the Post. The disparity was even greater in the candidate's cash on hand totals, with Weiser having more than $880,000 heading into the primary while Salazar only had $7,127 on hand, as of May 2.

The winner of the primary will face Republican nominee George Brauchler in the general election.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2018 Election, Colorado, Democratic Party, John Hickenlooper, Progressive Movement. Bookmark the permalink.

Haris Alic Email | Full Bio | RSS
Haris Alic is a Social Media Writer at the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the staff, Haris worked in communications and government relations at various non-profits. Haris lives in Northern Virginia. His Twitter handle is @realHarisAlic. He can be reached at alic@freebeacon.com.



I FEEL SORRY FOR STRZOK AND LISA PAGE, WHO ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS MINE, IDEOLOGICALLY, EXCEPT THAT THEY AREN’T SANDERS BELIEVERS. SINCE IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO THE MOST FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE THAT TRUMP IS A “BAD DUDE” TO THE POINT OF BEING DANGEROUS, THEIR COMMENTS WERE RIGHT ON, BUT THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE MADE THEM ON THEIR OFFICE COMPUTERS. I REMEMBER A YOUNG MAN, CHEERFUL AND FRIENDLY, WELL-LIKED AT ONE OF MY WORKPLACES BEING MARCHED OUT LIKE THAT. THEN IT CAME OUT THAT HE HAD HIS RESUME ON THE OFFICE COMPUTER AND A NUMBER OF APPLICATION LETTERS TO OTHER BUSINESSES. WHATEVER WE DO, WE SHOULD DO IT AT HOME. EVEN PHONE CALLS NEED TO BE MADE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR OR AT HOME.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/fbis-peter-strzok-author-of-anti-trump-texts-escorted-from-building.html
FBI Agent Peter Strzok, author of anti-Trump text messages, escorted out of bureau headquarters but still employed: Lawyer


FBI Agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the bureau's headquarters, but remains employed by the bureau, his lawyer said.

Strzok wrote a number of text messages critical of President Donald Trump that have come to light.
Trump supporters and the president have argued that special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry into the 2016 presidential election and Russian meddling in the campaign was tainted by Strzok's bias against the president.
Dan Mangan | @_DanMangan
Published JUNE 20, 2018 4 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

PHOTOGRAPH -- Ron Sachs | picture-alliance/dpa | AP
FBI Agent Peter Strzok in January.

Peter Strzok, the FBI agent whose text messages highly critical of President Donald Trump have fueled claims that the special counsel's ongoing investigation of the Trump presidential campaign is tainted by bias, was escorted out of the bureau's headquarters, his lawyer said Tuesday.

But Strzok "remains a proud FBI agent who wants to continue working to keep the American people safe," his lawyer Aitan Goelman said in a prepared statement.

Goelman said that Strzok was "escorted from the [FBI] building as part of ... ongoing internal proceedings."

Goelman's statement was issued on the heels of Twitter posts by several reporters saying that Strzok had been marched out of the FBI building in Washington on Friday. That was a day after the release of a report by the Justice Department's internal watchdog, which criticized Strzok for his conduct.


Laura Jarrett
✔
@LauraAJarrett
News - FBI special agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building on Friday, source familiar tells me; as of today, he is still employed; he's been stationed in Human Resources since dismissal from Mueller team.

4:22 PM - Jun 19, 2018
1,608
1,269 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

An FBI spokeswoman, when contacted by CNBC, said "we don't have a comment," when asked both if Strzok remained employed by the bureau, and if he was escorted from the building as reported.

"Generally speaking, we do not comment on personnel matters," the spokeswoman said.

Goelman, in his statement, said, "Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks," Goelman said.

"All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political influence," Goelman said. "Instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political pressure."

"Our leaders and the public should be very concerned with how readily such influence has been allowed to undermine due process and the legal protections owed to someone who has served his country for so long. Pete Strzok and the American people deserve better."

Goelman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.

Strzok was removed from the investigatory team headed by special counsel Robert Mueller last summer after he became aware of Strzok's communications with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer romantically involved with the agent.

Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign team with Russians, and possible obstruction of justice by the president.

In one message before the election, Page asked Strzok, "Trump's not ever going to be president, right? Right?!"

"No. No he won't. We'll stop it," Strzok replied.

A report issued last week by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General — which was largely focused on an inquiry into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server — recommended that the FBI take administrative action against Strzok and Page, as well as three other unnamed bureau employees.

"The damage caused by [Strzok and Page's] actions extends far beyond the scope of the [Clinton email] investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral fact finding and political independence," Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in the report.

But Horowitz's report did not say that that Strzok's bias influenced the FBI's probe of Russian meddling.

During testimony Tuesday before Congress, Horowitz was asked if he believed whether Strzok's texts showed political bias.

"I think as we found it clearly shows a biased state of mind," Horowitz said.

Asked if he believed that Strzok's bias had an effect on the initiation of the Russia investigation, Horowitz said "that's a matter that we have under review and are looking at right now."

Trump has seized on the texts to criticize Mueller's probe.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who headed the Clinton & Russia investigations, texted to his lover Lisa Page, in the IG Report, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from becoming President. Doesn’t get any lower than that!

6:35 AM - Jun 15, 2018
91.4K
41K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Dan Mangan
Reporter


AITAN GOELMAN THE WRITER IS STRZOK’S ATTORNEY, SO HE CAN SPEAK FOR HIM TO SOME DEGREE. I DON’T KNOW HOW FREE FBI PERSONNEL ARE TO SPEAK ON POLITICS IN PRIVATE OR WHILE AT THE OFFICE, BUT EVERY TIME TRUMP HAS EVEN SUSPECTED THAT ANYONE IS AGAINST HIM, HE HAS BEEN BRUTAL TOWARD THEM. THIS IS NO SURPRISE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/19/donald-trump-wrong-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-patriot-not-sick-loser-column/712673002/?csp=chromepush
Donald Trump is wrong. My client Peter Strzok is a patriot, not a 'sick loser.'
Aitan Goelman, Opinion contributor Published 1:45 p.m. ET June 19, 2018 | Updated 3:27 p.m. ET June 19, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Donald Trump says the Justice Department watchdog report on the Clinton email probe shows the FBI was biased against him, and he called former FBI Director James Comey "the worst FBI director in history, by far, there's nobody close." (June 15) AP

Donald Trump is attacking Peter Strzok, the FBI and the Justice Department in order to pre-emptively discredit the results of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

AP CLINTON EMAILS INSPECTOR GENERAL A USA DC
(Photo: Jon Elswick, AP)

The president of the United States used the term “sick loser” Sunday to describe a man who has helped keep our country safe for more than two decades. The tweet followed months of attacks on this Army veteran and law enforcement official, including one in which the president accused him of treason. So what monstrous act did this man commit? He spoke his mind.

Pete Strzok, who is my client, served four years in the 101st Airborne and then joined the FBI, where he has spent the past 22 years working to protect this country’s national security. His skill and commitment led him to be picked as one of the lead agents in the Russian spy ring “illegals” case, and he has led numerous Chinese espionage investigations and was involved in the FBI’s 9/11 effort and many other highly sensitive cases. So it’s no surprise that every agent, prosecutor and U.S. intelligence community officer who has spoken publicly about Pete has described him in glowing terms — as independent, highly professional, truly skilled and without bias of any kind.

So what’s the reason for this barrage of attacks on his character and this effort to portray him as a hyperpartisan member of a "deep state" conspiracy that is determined to thwart the will of the American people?

Make no mistake: It is all part of a calculated political strategy to demonize Pete and the men and women of the FBI and the Department of Justice in order to pre-emptively discredit the results of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

More: No, Donald Trump has not been 'exonerated' on Russia

More: FBI and Justice Department are gravely damaged when we need them most

Unfortunately, Pete inadvertently provided ammunition to this effort by expressing personal political views to another FBI employee. In several of these text messages, he was critical of then-candidate Donald Trump.

But as Pete has played by the rules — fully cooperating in an investigation and now agreeing to freely testify before Congress — the president and his allies have done the opposite. They have spent months cynically taking these texts out of context and saying that one- or two-word snippets somehow prove that the FBI investigations of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Russia probe itself, were biased.

The problem is, such a conclusion was proved false by the independent Inspector General investigation. And, in fact, investigators determined that Pete had repeatedly pushed for more aggressive action in the Clinton investigation, sometimes bringing him into open conflict with the Justice Department’s more cautious approach.

Despite the obvious partisan gamesmanship going on, the reality is that Pete did nothing more than express his personal opinions in private conversations with a friend and colleague. And what his attackers fail to ever mention is that, among the many other texts, Pete criticizes a range of both Democratic and Republican figures, including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Loretta Lynch.

The texts reveal that Pete is one of a rare, vanishing, breed: a centrist. In one text, Pete labels himself a “Conservative Dem;” in another he reports on someone guessing he was a vote for John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio.

But his accusers aren’t entirely wrong — bias does exist in one area. Pete is deeply and passionately biased toward American democracy and the need for it to be vigorously protected. The messages show that our national security is paramount in Pete Strzok’s mind, work and convictions. His texts are fiercely critical of foreign adversaries, such as Russia, and foreign rivals, such as China, and passionately protective of the United States. And they show his tremendous pride in having the opportunity to serve the country he loves, declaring in one: “I’m glad I’m on Team USA.”

More: What if Hillary Clinton had won? A thought experiment for Republicans

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Other accusations leveled at Pete are just as absurd as the text-related attacks. There is no truth to the suggestion that he “back-burnered” the analysis of Anthony Weiner’s laptop as part of the Clinton email investigation. As the IG report noted, Pete considered the Russia investigation a priority at that point. But as the report also noted, when he learned that the laptop might contain relevant Clinton-related emails, he immediately directed two of his most experienced investigators, neither of whom was working on the Russia investigation, to go to New York to determine its content.

The New York office told the agents their trip would be premature because the laptop was still being processed, and they ended up not going. But subsequent delays in the forensic examination were entirely the result of bureaucratic snafus and had nothing to do with any action by Pete.

With all of the texts released and the independent investigation completed, it’s clear that Pete is far from the monster that political operatives have self-servingly tried to create. But if what Pete has done in 20 years of law enforcement is not enough to convince you, consider what he hasn’t done.

In October 2016 Pete was one of a handful of people at the FBI who knew the full scope and gravity of the Russia investigation. Significantly harming — even stopping — the Trump presidency could have been accomplished by leaking that information to the news media. Instead, Pete and others at the FBI went out of their way to prevent leaks and, in the weeks before the election, actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation.

These aren’t the actions of a partisan conspirator, they are the actions of an American patriot.

Aitan Goelman, a former federal prosecutor, is a partner at the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. He represents Special Agent Peter Strzok.



RELIGION AND MAYHEM, UNFORTUNATELY, GO TOGETHER TOO OFTEN. RELIGION IS WHAT WE MAKE IT, AS IS LIFE. IF WE DON’T MAKE A SINCERE EFFORT TO BE A DECENT PERSON, RELIGION WON’T MAKE US BETTER, BUT MERELY MORE DOGMATIC. JESUS TAUGHT US TO VALUE THE GOOD SAMARITAN AND RESCUE THE WOMAN BEING STONED; AND WE TWISTED THOSE THINGS INTO FIGHTING ALL WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND LOOKING THE OTHER WAY WHEN THE WOMAN IS BEING ASSAULTED. RELIGION SHOULD BE MORE THAN A SET OF HARD-SET RULES, BUT A BASIC PART OF ENLIGHTENED THINKING AND LEARNING. IF WE ARE AN AGNOSTIC OR ATHEIST, THAT IS OUR RELIGION, AND IT DOESN’T NEED TO MAKE US IMMORAL OR DANGEROUS PEOPLE.

AMERICANS, WE ARE ON A PRECIPICE AT THIS POINT. LET’S OPEN OUR MINDS, LEARN FREELY FROM MORE THAN JUST ONE SOURCE, DISCUSS ISSUES, AND DEVELOP MORE EMPATHY, NOT MORE PATRIOTISM AND OTHER FORMS OF DIVISIVENESS. WE HAVE PLENTY OF THOSE ALREADY; AND GIVEN THE SOCIAL CLIMATE TODAY, WE MAY NO LONGER HAVE A NATION IF WE CONTINUE IN OUR CURRENT PATH.

WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT WE WANT FOR OUR SOCIETY AND STAND UP FOR IT. PASSIVITY IS NOT GENTLENESS. IT’S MENTAL ILLNESS. YOU DISAGREE? WELL, THAT’S YOUR RIGHT AS ANOTHER THINKER IN A FREE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, SIT DOWN WHEN YOU’RE FREE TO RELAX AND WATCH THIS HELPFUL AND BEAUTIFUL VIDEO BY A WELL-KNOWN AVOWED ATHEIST OF HIGH MORALS AND UNDERSTANDING.

VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGOl9IDA3zk
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Wady Afriadi
Published on May 1, 2014
Category -- Education
License -- Standard YouTube License