Democrats Turn Strzok Hearing Into a Monkey Poo Fight

If you're watching, you know it's hard to watch.

It began with Peter Strzok reading a prepared statement in which he claimed he totally, completely wasn't biased at all, and certain reporters were moist at his honeyed words:

Ken Dilanian, hinted by William Browder to be a primary cog in Fusion GPS' political spin operations, was effusive:

The media was cheering almost as hard as their Democrat counterparts actually in Congress:

When questioning began, it was immediately halted by an hour or more of endless Democrat objections and points of order that weren't points of order and interruptions to make non-germane motions, such as demanding that Steve Bannon be re-subpoenaed. The Democrats spent a lot of time trying to stop any questioning of the man they claim has nothing to hide:

Once the antifa-style disruptions ended, Peter Strzok began contradicting himself.

First he asserted again that he did not remember writing the "We'll stop it" text, then he offered up specific details about why he wrote it.

His memory seems to toggle ON and OFF depending on his needs at any particular moment:

He then contradicted himself some more:

Then he claimed when he said he could "SMELL" the Trump support in a Wal*Mart he didn't really mean "smell." He also said he had nothing against the SMELLY Wal*Mart people. It was all just a friendly intercounty rivalry.

And the county that Strzok found so hillbilly-SMELLY turns out to have voted for Hillary by big margins -- but apparently not big enough for the unbiased Strzok:

He continues insisting he has no bias at all:

All that said: Republican questioning is ineffectual and keeps pushing on irrelevancies and silly points, like Gowdy taking four minutes to parse Strzok's text that Hillary should win by 100 million to zero. Gowdy really drilled down into those numbers, for some reason.

No one has asked yet about the IG's findings that Strzok's (and the rest of the gang's) answers as to why they didn't seek Anthony Weiner's laptop emails sooner were gibberish, nonsensical, and did not persuade the IG that there was not bias involved in the decision.

My problem is that a lot of questions (especially duplicative questions about Trump voters "SMELLing") seem to be designed to convince the public that Strzok is a bad guy, rather than questions designed to commit him to a specific factual claim that can be proven or disproven and thereby expose him to legal jeopardy.

Since then, however, Representative Ratcliffe had more interesting questions, causing Strzok to claim a fresh loss of memory:

Meanwhile, the Cucks are cuckening:

This Vox reporter sure liked David French's tweet (and Pastor AllahPundit's retweet of it).

Though they all seem to think it's natural and right that Strzok should have a low opinion of "the people he's investigating," they don't seem to remember that Strzok was also investigating Hillary Clinton and her gang, and yet seemed to hold Hillary Clinton and her confederates in a high level of esteem.

Gee I wonder why. And I wonder why they forgot that, despite also (supposedly) investigating Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok was very fond of her, and imagined she should win the election "100 million [votes] to zero."

If they're claiming that a prosecutor is unavoidably disgusted by the person he's investigating, I'd like these TrueCons to explain how Strzok managed to so beautifully avoid it in Hillary Clinton's case.

Or -- wait. Do they think the Hillary Clinton email thing is just a trumped-up Hobbit Conspiracy Theory as their liberal pals and newfound fans do?

I guess "Owning the Cons" is the only important thing to them now.

#ImWithHerForever.

Because Strzok has refused to answer any question which he claims is about an ongoing investigation -- including simple stuff like "how many people did you interview before declaring Trump must be stopped?" -- despite having no legal basis to do so, Goodlatte says he'll be recalled to face a contempt charge.

posted by Ace of Spades at 01:18 PM

| Access Comments