Believe it or not, I have been entrusted with a position that puts me into a supervisory position over dozens of employees. I am their boss, and I can fire most of them at will or whim because that's the stupidity of U.S. labor laws. I like to think I'm a decent boss - that I'm fair and that I listen to all the people who work under me and that I consider what is best for everyone - but I know that I do things that piss people off. How can I not? My bosses do things that piss me off. Their bosses do things that piss them off. It's the way things work. And I hope the people I supervise shit-talk me. I hope they blow off steam about what an asshole I can be. I hope they say vulgar things and terrible jokes and horrible insults. I hope they do it in person, in emails, and in texts. It's not masochism on my part. It's because if you shit-talk your boss, it means you fucking care. It means your job means more to you than a paycheck. And I'd rather have a bunch of people working with me to make things better than mindless drones who couldn't be bothered to give a sad turtle shit about what we do.
So the House Oversight and Judiciary committees' joint hearing yesterday where FBI agent Peter Strzok's texts to his girlfriend about what a fucking disaster a Donald Trump presidency would be was a complete clusterfuck disaster because, essentially, it boiled down to being pissy that Strzok shit-talked his future boss. Not a single Republican who huffed and puffed and pounded the table could produce a single instance of Strzok doing anything sinister, except, of course, investigate the involvement of Russia in the 2016 election. Indeed, today's indictment of a dozen Russians for hacking the DNC and Hillary Clinton shows that every Republican at the hearing, including living abortion Trey Gowdy and sentient dog shit bag Louis Gohmert, is merely dancing to the tune that Vladimir Putin is playing.
The main assertion, something along the lines that Strzok must be a supervillain who has concocted a Russia/Trump collusion conspiracy out of thin air, exists only because of some messages that the FBI agent sent to another agent, Lisa Page, who he was banging. They were sharing, along with the majority of Americans, the horror of the idea of Trump winning in 2016. Strzok said yesterday, in his pantsing of Gowdy, that he was reacting to Trump's attack on the parents of a soldier who died in the Iraq War in some of the messages.
But if Strzok's texts are supposed to reveal actions that he took (and, again, there is no evidence he took them and there is no evidence that everyone else in the chain of command at the FBI looked the other way while he took actions that he didn't take), then what do Donald Trump's insane, constant tweets about Strzok demonstrate? I'm not allowed to go on social media and say that someone who works for me is an asshole and is plotting to get me. That's fucking wrong and violates all kinds of workplace laws and rules.
Yet over and over, since their names were revealed, Trump has bitched about Strzok and Page. He constantly mocked them as "the great lovers." He said they are both "incompetent and corrupt" who worked on a "Rigged Witch Hunt" (or even led it). He called Strzok "the FBI's sick loser" and one of the FBI's "hating frauds."
If the Strzok/Page texts are some Rosetta Stone of the true purpose of the Russia investigation, then what the fuck do Trump's tweets reveal? (Answer: Sweaty fear and the feeling of impending prison time.)
Let's end here with an exchange you might not have seen anything about. It's not as soul-satisfying as Strzok pimp-slapping Gowdy and Goodlatte or reaming Gohmert's dumb face or barely containing laughter at Paul Gosar claiming that he can read body language because he's a dentist. But it's instructive.
Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican jizz bucket from the suburbs of Houston, wondered, "How do we know that there's not bias in the FBI in this particular investigation or other investigations? How do we know that?"
After some back and forth, Strzok answered, "You look at what I did. You look at what the inspector general concluded, not only me, but all the agents and assistant directors and EADs and DDEs and everybody involved in the investigation. And you see that the evidence, unequivocally, is there is no act of bias. So this false assertion that you're making that political personal belief must equal bias, that somehow we have merged those two words together in the dictionary is one of the triumphs of what's been going on recently that I cannot disagree with more. A judge asks jurors, are you able to set aside your personal opinions and render a judgment based on the facts? Sir, you know that, based on your extensive experience. What I am telling you is that I and the other men and women of the FBI every day take our personal beliefs and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth wherever it lies, whatever it is."
Then a Republican congressman from Texas looked at an FBI agent with years of experience dealing with Russia and who was under oath and said, "And I don't believe you."
As much as it pains this liberal to side with the FBI after their history of mistreating the left, it was genuinely stunning to see Republicans take the side of the country's enemies and against the people who serve the nation. That's a bold assertion, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it's the only rational explanation.
