The Prequel – Understanding Lisa Page and Peter Strzok…

As many people are aware, CTH has decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony and media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel assigned to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.

Suffice to say, this project was no small task; reading the messages in a chronological order takes a minimum of four to six hours.  It is understandable why so much mystery and confusion circles the rather complex storyline. However, before going into the deep weeds – two distinct issues must frame what will soon follow:

♦First, notice a catch-phrase by fired FBI Director James Comey in every interview: “that was not my understanding.”  That phrase is Mr. Comey’s  ‘go-to’ lead-in at the beginning of every explanation, amid challenging questions presented to him, on his current book tour.  That phrase is also a highly legalized linguistics and deployed for a specific reason.

♦Second, if you are going to endeavor to read through all of the released messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and/or review an outline of content that utilizes their communication as the background to understand events within the FBI and DOJ-NSD; it helps to have a familiarity from their perspective.

Having said that, this encapsulation of the Page and Strzok outlook by “Newhere” is both fair and accurate:

The nature and tone sound like a couple of earnest, self-important, professional bureaucrats who see themselves as high-achieving stand-outs among their peers, doing the “right thing” or at least the “best” thing among some ugly office politics and broader forces.

Among the two of them, they unquestionably believe themselves “the good guys,” with appropriate motives and judgment.

They are preoccupied with their professional reputations, ambitions and positioning. They spend lots of time dissecting the minutiae of day-to-day interactions and orchestrating mundane office dynamics, and often reassure each other on their respective “excellence” and superiority. All to a degree that pegs their maturity and self-awareness at a level of maybe adolescent. They interpret events and decisions around them in insular terms, like teenagers passing notes in homeroom about high school social cliques.

Takeaways?

— They weren’t driven by specifically by partisan bias. Viewing it as simple bias only minimizes the bigger problem. They were consummate professional bureaucrats, intuiting, anticipating, and expanding upon the goals of leadership, both spoken and implied. Contempt for the implicated political actors was a given; all politicians are intellectually and morally inferior, and (in their minds) the country needs professionals like them having the tools to stand watch and “protect” the country when necessary.

— Trump was viewed as so obviously “dangerous” that extreme measures were necessary. This wasn’t a *partisan* sentiment — it was (again, in their minds) a professional judgment. Which is how they managed the cognitive dissonance of behaving as they did while seeing themselves as moral actors.

These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences. They have the conscience of a common, professional technocrat. Self-delusion and self-importance that warps the moral compass (e.g., they feel aggrieved by things like being left out of a meeting, and they hyper-focus on their own “credit-seeking” vs. “team player” motivations, as if THESE are the pressing moral issues at stake . . ). They are professional technocrats like a lot of professional technocrats, who believe their jobs are singularly important, that they face pressures that are uniquely complicated — who know they hold replaceable jobs, but secretly believe themselves irreplaceable.

Professionalism becomes its own ethic, from which perspective actual ethics are quaint, a luxury for academics or simpletons. This isn’t spoken or acknowledged.

— The scariest part: conduct in the the Clinton/Trump investigations wasn’t anomalous. The fact that these “professionals” behaved this way with only a faint notion of the significance of what they were doing suggests it was more business-as-usual than the biggest scandal of our lifetimes. Meaning it’s even a bigger scandal.

— They did have at least a faint notion that they had ventured well outside of “by the book” territory, but were again deluded by feeling indispensable, hand-picked by the highest echelons of bureau hierarchy, to which they aspired. Page, in particular, felt special because she was chosen by McCabe. Their moral compasses were aimed at pleasing those whose favor they sought.

— They seemed to see the FBI as white hats vis a vis DOJ. I think they truly believed that any corruption/politicization came from DOJ, and FBI jockeying/mischief was trying to set things right against all these other corrupting [political] forces.

–Page’s final “never write to me again” doesn’t seem like a hostile snub. Seems more like a signal/coded message to a friend: “We’re scr*wed. Every (wo)man for himself. I’m looking out for myself. You should too.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

190 Responses to The Prequel – Understanding Lisa Page and Peter Strzok…

  1. Jay Wizz says:

    To this day, has anyone found ANY evidence that they were actually having an affair?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Crawler says:

      Well, since the two were trying to screw “We the People” who elected Donald Trump, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch for one to think that they were.

      Their love life is of no importance to me whatsoever; that’s their business and/or problem. However, their bureaucratic criminal behavior and acts are of the utmost importance to me.

      Drain the Swamp & MAGA!

      Liked by 38 people

      • Jay Wizz says:

        I don’t care about their love life either.

        But it’s relevant because we were told they were having an affair. I think this is an early cover story they gave as to why they were sending each so many messages.

        If it could be shown that they weren’t having an affair it would show they or someone else was trying to conceal their activities. Does anyone know where the affair claim originated? If it was Devlin Barrett are the WSJ, that would be very interesting as Page/Strzok likely would have been the source for that claim.

        Liked by 21 people

        • PS says:

          Maybe. The drop date for the affair story was Dec 2nd, 2017, and was carried by at least 7 major papers, according to Google Search Tools for time range filtering.

          Barrett wrote a cover story for the Washington Post about the phones on Dec 15th, 2017, after the comments on burner phones were revealed.

          “Two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from a spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to people familiar with the matter.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-officials-text-message-about-hillary-clinton-said-to-be-a-cover-story-for-romantic-affair/2017/12/15/23205bee-e1b6-11e7-bbd0-9dfb2e37492a_story.html

          “Page and Strzok used their work on the Clinton case as a cover story for the affair, these people said, adding that there was not a separate set of phones for untraceable discussions of the Clinton case. The text had nothing to do with the Clinton investigation, these people said.”

          Complete and utter bull.

          Liked by 18 people

          • Ditto the, “I don’t really care.”, but for clarity any personal communications were removed. Additionally the 7 major papers no longer carries the weight with most of us since the mostly echo each other (often including article structure and verbatim dialogue) using unnamed sources and even each other.

            Liked by 7 people

            • Patriot1783 says:

              Yeah but Fox’s Hannity and Brian Kilmeade/Fox & Friends have both in recent days referred to them as
              “love birds” so the dem’s affair theme is still being fed to the masses via Fox despite not really being known as a left controlled entity.
              Tells ya a lot about those two anchors.

              Liked by 2 people

              • josco scott says:

                I disagree.
                They’re not digging deep, and I wouldn’t expect them to speculate about this.

                This is why SD is here–to dive deep. Eventually others will hear, but it takes time.

                Liked by 3 people

                • Patriot1783 says:

                  By using the term “lovebirds” without research of whether it’s true or not shows they don’t care.
                  With their level of media pull and reaching the public masses it’s all about ratings and their personal net worth.

                  Liked by 2 people

              • Yeah, and Fox still uses the fake “Russia” influenced our elections so……Fox is just the lesser of the evils.

                Liked by 2 people

                • KeithBB says:

                  Fox IS still Murdoch owned/controlled. And as part of the zio-con order, Russia’s ‘evil’ – even as painting the backdrop – must always be spoken of as the larger threat to the free world; both as preparation for that eventual conflict, or as justification and blame for anything else that happens around the world. (“Russia must accept responsibility for the chemical attacks in Syria…. Russia did the Skripal poisoning in the UK so additional sanctions are necessary.. Russia helped Assad kick the US/ISISrael jihadis in Syria so they and Iran are the larger threat…”). And of course it was the Russians that wer obviously responsible for Hillary’s defeat. 😐 Oh the humanity..

                  Liked by 1 person

              • Sex sells. Hannity and Stormy/Mueller know it grabs headlines..

                Like

          • Bryan Alexander says:

            The truth is exactly opposite. They used the “Affair” angle to explain away all of the conversations about the Clinton case, WHICH THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE.

            Liked by 13 people

          • Didn’t I read somewhere that the story by Devlin Barrett about the Strzok/Page affair was leaked by Strzok/Page? IMO it was a smokescreen so they could withhold texts claiming that they weren’t relevant.

            Liked by 13 people

          • TheWanderingStar says:

            I believe that the affair angle was simply a way to contain the “conspiracy” to only these two people. It’s just an affair, nothing to see here – move along. This begs the question as to who made the decision to create the affair cover story. Clearly it wasn’t these two. Someone who is worried the investigation is going to spread and expose themselves and others. This maybe the first attempt to “firewall” the conspiracy. Look for many more to come.

            Liked by 9 people

        • Jenny R. says:

          Maybe they were having a “Scully and Mulder” type of affair?
          It would fit with their personalities.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Cathy M. says:

          In my experience, Special Agents (or any law enforcement person) usually presume that male/female work partners are having an affair. That presumption is then spread as fact, true or not. So , I’d take the “affair’ allegation with a grain of salt.
          I don’t believe an affair would have any bearing on this case.

          It’s also not unusual for Special Agents working large, complex significant cases to stay in constant contact with each other (at least those who love their jobs). They also frequently maintain contact with the AUSA. (assistant U.S. atty) in such cases.
          Personally, I wouldn’t use texting on such matters.

          So, it’s not the number of Texts, it’s the content of those texts that are important.

          Liked by 2 people

      • 17CatsInTN says:

        “Their love life is…”

        This isn’t love. It’s sex (if it came down to that), self-gratification and manipulation. Big diff.

        The best known definition of love we have says love is patient, kind, doesn’t envy or boast, isn’t proud, doesn’t dishonor others, isn’t self-seeking or easily angered, doesn’t keep a record of wrongs or delight in evil, but rejoices in truth and always protects, trusts, hopes and perseveres. Love never fails and is greater than faith and hope.

        Does what they did sound like this?

        Liked by 6 people

    • Normally Quiet Observer says:

      I do NOT remember which text stream it was but in one of them she told him she would even have time to “take a shower for {him}”. Alluding to the possibility their affair was a hit or miss booty call only … JMHO … but it really is irrelevant to me. As someone else also said …could have been a blind cover for so many texts and calls …

      Liked by 3 people

      • Sylvia Avery says:

        Oh, I hadn’t seen that. Hm. I may have to rethink that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 1stgoblyn says:

        We will never know the whole truth about these two. So many texts that are often ‘out of context’ b/c one cannot know for sure if the response is to something said in those gmail drafts or a convo on the phone, or something whispered in the hallway while they were each on their way to someone else’s office. One text IIRC Page said something to the effect that ‘we are like a married couple’. There were lots of lunch times they got together and rides shared to various places, (more than likely to carry out plans and make plots) but still it didn’t sound romantic IMHO.

        Liked by 4 people

      • trialbytruth says:

        Saw that too that was the only thing I saw in my read through that supported an affair. It is possible they were having some type of relationship, but it is obvious that the glue was the “romantic” notion that they were saving the world.

        That said that would be an easy send-off for a roll in the hay. After all they share a secret, Such secrets are the essence of shelves of romance novels with glistening bulging muscles and heaving bossums.

        Therd is another interpretation and the one I prefer based on my hatred for these clowns. The girl was so skanky that she needed a shower to be in a room with her.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Charlotte says:

        Looks like there were 2 plans–the one in the last bit of SD’s article and this one which someone called Jen was dealing with:
        Read the first box of texts here:
        https://www.scribd.com/document/377540616/PS-LP-Text-Messages-Dec-2016-May-2017#from_embed

        Like

    • JonMaxwell says:

      If you read the last set of texts one mentions showering for the other, so um yeah i didnt think so at first till i read that.

      Like

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Not that I’m aware of. There isn’t a hint of passion or desire or flirtation. They are office friends, office spouses if you will. But I have seen nothing whatsoever to suggest they were lovers. No pleas to meet for lunch or after work, no personal type comments at all.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Ken Lawson says:

        It sounds like you worked in their office with them. Is that the case? If it is, then you would have better credibility making comments about this than anyone here. You may be the most important person in this entire discussion thread when it comes to knowledge of the situation.

        Like

      • TheWanderingStar says:

        It certainly appears that way Sylvia. I think there are hints of something but nothing definitive. Affair or no affair it doesn’t matter to me or to the subject of the overall conspiracy. However, I am struck by the absence of any topic related to family life – kids, spouses – and how work schedules/pressures impact them. That doesn’t seem normal.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Cathy M. says:

          Why would they text about family while texting about an investigation?
          If they conversed about family, they would likely talk about family in person.

          Like

        • Sylvia Avery says:

          I agree with you all the way around. I’m frankly not interested in what when on between those two except as it impacts my understanding of them and what made them tick, what motivated them.

          I thought Sundance’s efforts at helping us glimpse a little bit of that in this Opening Post were really helpful and thought provoking.

          Liked by 3 people

    • brh82 says:

      In another place, i think a Sundance writing, they are definitely NOT having an affair. In fact, to me he sounds surly to her sometimes, like she is irritating him.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Pa Hermit says:

      If they had affairs, you would think that all that messaging was unnecessary. Pillow talk would’ve sufficed in those times. After hours socials would be another method of getting together and more private. This just doesn’t add up imho.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rvsueandcrew says:

        Good point, Pa.

        The “taking a shower” for you message appears to me that it might be a euphemism or colloquialism meaning something other than the literal meaning. The literal meaning doesn’t fit the flow of the conversation. It comes “out of the blue.”

        Trying to come up with a similar example… It’s like saying you’ll “take a bullet” when conversing about a situation.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Janetoo says:

        I know a person who had a lengthy affair. (Not me truly!) They texted back and forth CONSTANTLY all sorts of stuff, not just cooing. So, I think if there was a genuine affair between Page and Strozk, it became an offshoot to what was really a mind meld. They were in sync with each other. I think the affair fell by the wayside.

        Liked by 3 people

    • cavt says:

      I wonder why there has never been one word or anything from either spouse. It’s like they don’t exist. Surely the press would be trying to get something from them. You know they can’t be happy campers right now. Very odd–

      Liked by 2 people

      • AmericaFirst says:

        No. Had they been trying to conspire against the Marxist candidate as opposed to the Conservative candidate then the press would be trying to get something from the spouses; under the circumstances, the press is trying to completely ignore away the story and the mass criminal behavior under color of law.

        Liked by 1 person

    • MikeN says:

      The timing on the texts suggests late night communication, but if you look at Election Day, the times are actually GMT, making the late night stuff actually evening.

      Liked by 1 person

    • YeahYouRight says:

      The number of text messages suggests an intimacy, and their banter suggests such self-importance. I can see people like that getting off on their omnipotence.

      I CANNOT see a woman agreeing to this narrative to cover up her snarky tone, as SD suggests. She’s already burned because she’s cooperating. Why pin herself with the Scarlett A?

      Like

    • Fnu Lnu says:

      A witness tells me yes. Believe it.

      Like

    • Lu Calico says:

      There were too many redactions to make any judgment about their affair from what was released. I believe the affair was common knowledge.

      Like

  2. Rynn69 says:

    It is this simple – they broke the law by scheming to undermine a campaign, an election, and a sitting President. I do not give a —— how they view themselves or how they see their motives.

    Liked by 16 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      Absolutely agree but understaning the perpetrator and their motive helps solve crimes.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Lulu says:

      You should care because that author accurately described/assessed a significant portion of DC bureaucrats. Think what they are doing not just at DOJ but at State, the Dept. of Ed, EPA, USDA, etc.

      Liked by 3 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      Your absolutely right but that same attitude they had thinking they were superheroes is going to play itself out as they are cooperating with IG Horowitz and DOJ Prosecutor Huber.

      I excites the hell out of me that Lisa Page was attached to McCabe. McCabe in my mind was actually running the FBI and the mastermind behind all of their plans.

      This piece of the thread above put such a smile 😀 on my face:

      Page, in particular, felt special because she was chosen by McCabe. Their moral compasses were aimed at pleasing those whose favor they sought.

      McCabe threw her under the bus 🚌 to Horowitz! Horowitz had that meeting tap recorded. She got to hear it with her own ears. Her mission changed. She NOW is going to bury every last one of them!

      Liked by 5 people

  3. anthohmy says:

    Mirror mirror on the wall.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. White Apple says:

    It does not matter one way or another. What matter is these people are dangerous treasonist traitors.

    Liked by 10 people

  5. DanO64 says:

    Next week will be HUGE.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jay Wizz says:

      What’s happening next week?

      Like

    • WES says:

      DanO65: I suspect we are in for a rather too long wait! Sessions indicated recently two more weeks than originally thought. Maybe more like end of May now? I hope not.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Janetoo says:

        They keep dragging it out. If all of this does not surface before the election, I am worried it will never come out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A Belle says:

        Nooooooooo. 🙂

        While I want to see the initial report as much as everyone else, we need to think strategically, not tactically. The strategic goal is to cause maximum damage to the deep state, and in effect the Democrat chances in November, requires a measured (tactical) release of the IG reports. Do I think the IG is a rank partisan – no. Do I think he is very shocked at what he has found already – you betcha.

        Sessions, the IG’s boss, on the other hand, is a partisan and a politician. He sees the calendar and amount of time until November is ever present in his mind. The question then is when to tactically release the IG reports to cause maximum discomfort to the Democrats chances in November. A late May release starts the ball rolling. In late June Huber announces Grand Jury indictments regarding the handling of the Clinton email investigations. Mostly against lower level bureaucratic deep staters, Ohr, Page, Strzok, and announces they are cooperating in investigation. In late July, IG releases next report, this one about the genesis of the Russia “collusion” investigation.

        Late August, Huber announces that a different grand jury has handed down indictments in the Russia “collusion” investigation against higher level deep staters, think Comey, McCabe, et al.

        September comes the next IG release, which is the hammer. This one details high level officials in the Obama administration abused the FISA process, data collection by the NSA, and unmasking. In mid September, Huber announces a grand jury has handed down indictments against top level Obama administration officials: Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Clapper, John Brennan and Rod Rosenstein. (I have never trusted Rosenstein and it is noted Obama is conspicuously left off that list) This should happen about 6 week prior to the election, which should be just about enough time to have it sink in the minds of the electorate that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for sedition.

        The over arching goal is to destroy the deep state and their hand maidens the Democrats in an overwhelming display of legal fire power. Think B-61 sized legalfire power… 🙂

        Liked by 10 people

        • AH_C says:

          Spot on. I believe Trump’s team is constantly evaluating max destruction vs political damage to the progs come November. That’s the way I would game it out.

          On one hand, they had enough to bury the ringleaders for a good long while (February OIG release). While that decimates (10%) the deep state, it gives the donks time to recover with regards to November.

          Keep digging down the rabbit hole and they were uncovering connections to other players, to include Oboobie. Dig some more and others are snared.

          As long as you have the upper hand, keep digging and keep the deep state off balance. If somehow the deep state gets momentum, then start perp walking the ones already caught beyond a shadow of doubt.

          The ideal scenario would be to drop the bombs after the dems are locked in for the elections.

          To wit; Sen Tester. Trump just suggested there’s dirt on him. Would you drop it now or wait till he wins the primary then drop it. It will be a blow to the party on several levels. Defending him, spending extra money to replace him on the ballot and so on. The more bad news and revelations closer to November, the better for us.

          Liked by 4 people

        • KeithBB says:

          And the Clinton Foundation work ?!?

          Like

        • formerdem says:

          Either that or Sessions is getting cold feet. Which of these could it be… Well, have we seen Sessions make a brilliant political move before? mmmm, no…. Alternatively, have we seen Sessions get cold feet before? mmmmmm

          Like

          • Jay Wizz says:

            Yeah. This is the problem. If we keep saying Sessions will drop the bomb tomorrow, pretty soon tomorrow will be election day.

            All we know about how Session behaves as AG, is what we have seen him actually do. And that’s not much. And what he has done is created the conditions for every one of these problems and has enabled bad actors to build a castle in his front yard.

            Every indicator says that this will be a wave election. If the election were held tomorrow, D’s would take the House and Senate. That is the objective reality we are facing.

            If this all comes out in October, that’s not enough time for it to sink in. It will be enough time for the Media to successfully ignore it, and to start to counter it with their usual BS.

            It needs to start ASAP, or it will be too late if it’s not already. Washington moves at the pace of a snail.

            Like

            • formerdem says:

              agree. it appears Sessions thinks he is doing enough if he has words to swat away criticism – “i am recused! my fine team needs time!” No… every bad thing the DOJ has done since his swearing in is on the AG. And there has been a SERIES of flaming injustices.

              Like

            • CirclinTheDrain says:

              Do you seriously think rolling out the indictment of Comey in October, or the prosecution of the Clinton Foundation execs, including HilBill, would be buried by the msm and not understood by the majority of US citizens no matter what shenanigans the msm put out ?

              You have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens. Considering that we did actually elect Trump, I’m pretty sure that many plus a lot more Dems now off the plantation will understand and process it in days, not weeks.

              Liked by 1 person

  6. boogywstew says:

    I pick up the vibes that thieves give off from these two. I elected a worthy candidate to a National office in a completely legal, ethical manner and these two low lifes were trying to steal my God given right away from me. Thieves and liars … liars and thieves.

    Liked by 18 people

  7. Without a moral compass, humans like Page and Strzok flail about in a world filled with minutiae and self-importance.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Esperanza says:

      If you do not have a profound belief in democracy, which progressives don’t, you get here. In US terms, I guess that’s the Constitution. But ditto, they hate the Constitution. That part about swearing to uphold the Constitution is incredibly important, otherwise you end up here. Watching and reading the Caine Mutiny should be required. Their job should have been, in the face of a T election, making sure everything they did for his admin was by the book. In actual fact they conspired to help O and Clinton run rings around the law. Forget ethics, just the law.

      My respect for the framers only grows. They created an incredible system, from it feels, nothing. The Constitution is, indeed, a guard against tyranny.

      Liked by 9 people

      • got243kids says:

        “My respect for the framers only grows.”

        As has mine over 9 years. They did not create it from “nothing” they studiously applied 1000’s of years of history to create the perfect check on men. It requires men to uphold it and the malicious in check.

        Liked by 3 people

      • The Real Bob_W says:

        “My respect for the framers only grows.”

        As it likely will continue to do so for the rest of your life! Once a person’s brain kicks in and begins considering “this sort of stuff” (i.e. possible/various forms of national governments), nothing short of willful ignorance or the utter lack of critical thinking capacity can stop the process. As for willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking, think slugs/Swamp-Creatures like Lisa Page, Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Yates, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, Jarret, Obama, et. barfingly al…
        – – – – – –

        “T[he framers] created an incredible system, from it feels, nothing.”

        Keep digging! (And I don’t mean in the manner of today’s U.S. lefties.) While the framers were blessed to have pretty much a blank canvas on which to paint their vision, they also had a solid classical educational grounding (many in multiple languages) easily extending back to the Greeks – and earlier. I mention this not to disagree with you, but by way of further agreeing with your amazement. Their collective insight into human nature, and their collective motivation and persistence in creating and presenting to their fellow revolutionists what became our Constitution (and its coming-soon-to-a-Constitution-near you Bill of Rights), marks them as beyond “merely wildly exceptional” in my view. As in once in the human condition lifetime, is my guess. Which makes the sedition and treason of the scumbucket swamp-dwellers all the more serious, to those interested in KEEPing our Constitution…
        – – – – – –

        “The Constitution is, indeed, a guard against tyranny.”

        It certainly is if followed. If not…well, we’re seeing the inevitable result which will unavoidably come from NOT following its Highest-Law-of-the-Land strictures.

        In my Ideal World, the only thing I think our Founding Fathers neglected to include, was some arbitrary restriction on the fiscal size of government (relative, to, say, GNP). They DID provide us (we deplorable citizens) several Constitutionally-based ways to address that, though…

        Maybe if we can win the present battle, we can take up the gruberment size one next? (Hey! I’m an American. I have dreams!!!)

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Obs says:

    Lisa and Pete set the ideological scene for McCabe and Comey.
    The fact that no-one in the FBI sort of, slightly, at all, noticed Lisa and Peter’s ideological corruption says a lot about our “premier law enforcement agency” (sic).
    Yeah, I jest.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “our “premier law enforcement agency”

      The FBI was “re-purposed” under Mueller, which probably is why BHO wanted him to stay on two more years. Among other things, he ordered a database destroyed that contained ~50,000 suspected Islamic people inside the USA.

      Robert Mueller ordered the removal of any references to Islam from official FBI Terrorist training materials.These are not only used by the FBI, but other LE Agencies around the country.

      Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) released a blistering 48 page *.pdf file on problems with Mr. Mueller’s record over the years.

      Finally, I do have this copied into a *.doc from another Treeper that I will copy and paste below:

      ‘..https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/21/small-group-leadership-andrew-mccabe-coordinated-investigations-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials/comment-page-2/#comment-5151452
      I wrote a piece today titled: “Robert Mueller’s Financial Ties To Russia And Other High Crimes”, at this link:http://4wardcomm.wordpress.com with supporting links documenting the numerous crimes, for those of you that might feel so inclined.

      Mueller’s Russian Financial Interests With Links to George Soros
      Ahh, The Complicated and Shady World Of Hedge Funds…
      There are multiple open source articles available that prove Robert Mueller’s possibly criminal financial ties to Russia that supports the numerous “Conflict Of Interest” claims on top of the ones of Political Bias made obvious by the Clinton Crony Special Council Team he assembled.

      JasonF says:
      April 26, 2018 at 8:08 am
      In the above comments, people have cited the article “Robert Mueller: Unmasked“, by Congressman Louie Gohmert. The article includes a section that partially explains what Mueller did, when he was the FBI Director, to make the FBI systemically more corrupt and incompetent. That section is especially important; it is excerpted below.
      ______________________________________________________________
      MUELLER’S FIVE YEAR UP-OR-OUT POLICY
      In federal law enforcement, it takes a new federal agent or supervisor about five years or so after arriving at a newly assigned office to gain the trust and respect of local law officers. That trust and respect is absolutely critical to doing the best job possible. Yet new FBI Director Robert Mueller came up with a new personnel policy that would rid the FBI of thousands of years of its most invaluable experience.
      In a nutshell, after an FBI employee was in any type of supervisory position for five years, he or she had to either come to Washington to sit at a desk or get out of the FBI. In the myriad of FBI offices around the country, most agents love what they do in actively enforcing the law. They have families involved in the community; their kids enjoy their schools; and they do not want to move to the high cost of living in Washington, DC, and especially not to an inside desk job.
      What occurred around the country was that agents in charge of their local offices got out of the FBI and did something more lucrative. Though they really wanted to stay in, they were not allowed to do so if they were not moving to DC. Agents told me that it was not unusual for the Special Agent in Charge of a field office to have well over 20 years of experience before the policy change. Under Mueller’s policy that changed to new Special Agents in Charge having five to ten years of experience when they took over.
      If the FBI Director wanted nothing but “yes” men and women around the country working for him, this was a great policy. Newer agents are more likely to unquestioningly salute the FBI Mecca in Washington, and the Director, and never boldly offer a suggestion to fix a bad idea and Mueller had plenty of them. Whether it was wasting millions of dollars on a software boondoggle or questionable personnel preferences, agents tell me Mueller did not want to hear from more experienced people voicing their concerns about his ideas or policies.
      An NPR report December 13, 2007, entitled, “FBI’S ‘Five-And-Out’ Transfer Policy Draws Criticism” dealt with the Mueller controversial policy:
      “From the beginning of this year (2007) until the end of September (2007), 576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them — just 286 — opted to go to headquarters; 150 decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.”
      In the period of nine months accounted for in this report, the FBI ran off a massive amount of absolutely priceless law enforcement experience vested in 140 invaluable agents. For the vast part, those are the agents who have seen the mistakes, learned lessons, could advise newer agents on unseen pitfalls of investigations and pursuit of justice. So many of these had at least 20-30 years of experience or more. The lessons learned by such seasoned agents were lost as the agents carried it with them when they left.
      In the 2007 NPR report, the FBI Agents Association indicated that the Five-Year-Up-or-Out program hobbles field offices and takes relationships forged there for granted. In other words, it was a terrible idea.
      The incalculable experience loss damages the FBI by eliminating those in the field in a position to write to or meet with the FBI Director to advise him against some of the mounting judgment errors on his part which were listed in the NPR article. But this was not the only damage done.
      If an FBI Director has inappropriate personal vengeance in mind or holds an inappropriate prejudice such as those that infamously motivated Director J. Edgar Hoover, then the older, wiser, experienced agents were not around with the confidence to question or guide the Director away from potential misjudgment. I also cannot help but wonder if Mueller had not run off the more experienced agents, would they have been able to advise against and stop the kind of abuses and corruption being unearthed right now that occurred during the Obama administration.
      Rather than admit that his Five Year Up or Out Policy was a mistake, Mueller eventually changed the policy to a Seven Year Up or Out Program.
      ….
      ______________________________________________________________
      Thus, Mueller deliberately made the FBI more pliable and corruptible.

      Liked by 9 people

  9. stats guy says:

    I agree that they are wanna be technocrats. Because of their smartness they can lead the world to a better place. (sure in addition to the standard office politics).

    Yes, as this reminds us, the deep state goes back along way.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/28/louie-gohmert-rips-into-bob-mueller-in-48-page-report/

    This mostly has to do with Meuller and his many dubious prosecutions. But the short cutting the edges of the Constitution is not good. The Deep State also surveiled Congress while the Iranian negotiations were going on in addition to the William Jefferson raid, which did not follow protocol.

    It does seem that the larger part of DC plays by the By Any Means Necessary ‘rule’ book. Or in Alinsky’s words, the ends justify the means.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. Julia Adams says:

    I really like what Sundance did with this piece. He used a antastic play on words that illustrates what is wrong in today’s world of opinion based journalism. By all accounts, wouldn’t it be better if reporting was always fair and accurate and not necessarily fair and balanced.

    Liked by 9 people

  11. Obs says:

    Errr….
    Isn’t this all over now?
    Lying, leaking, felonies, conspiracies, corruption, crony politics at FBI / DoJ elite level….. and we’re still talking about low level perps Lisa and Peter……

    When the J walking indictments are, gasp horror, delivered ….you’ll know they won.

    Like

  12. ablefox says:

    There were lots of these so called technocrats working in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. Sound familiar? Same in Italy. The public/private partnerships. then and now.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Kate says:

      Ablefox, you made a good point as history keeps repeating itself it seems.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “history keeps repeating itself it seems.”

        Which is why the history of Western Civilization is no longer taught in American schools now (for the most part). Much of what still is has been corrupted by revisionist historians. Instead, our children are taught about Asian and African cultures and their contributions to modern life. Such as rubbing two sticks together.

        Liked by 6 people

        • mikey says:

          We are relentlessly EU bound as a society. The people that made this country great are being replaced via the MSM/UniParty/Globalist/Central Bankers and the (((Dual Citizenship Unmentionables))) and will be subsequently disarmed for the final takeover (last step). They rigged the immigration system to favour the easily wooed poor 3rd world leftists and communists versus bringing in the best and brightest who for the most part don’t want anything to do with that ideology. I still think our electoral system is rigged and fraud ridden and have seen little done to ensure only living, legal US Citizens are the only ones voting. Seeing the way our Congress and the Courts are behaving, I’ve seen very little to dissuade that opinion, however it is still early in DJT’s term of office and I still continue to hold out hope.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. Dutchman says:

    I get whats being said here: it wasn’t ideological, it WAS business as usual.
    Its why so many working in d.c. have the gut level dislike of VSG.
    Being business as usual is scary: means they and their ilk have been doing this KIND of thing for a long time.
    Strategic leaking is how the game is played, and they aren’t there to serve us, or their country, they are only there to serve themselves. And unless we see some intimate stuff, im doubting the affair, in which case that WAS another strategic leak, and bs

    Liked by 9 people

    • ablefox says:

      Control FBI and DOJ and you are home free for any crime you want to do.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “Control FBI and DOJ ”

        Which is why WJC fired all 93 (94?) sitting U.S. Attorneys the first day he was in office and replaced virtually all of them with “his own people”. If you think back, many Clinton people have 24 years to “rise to the top” (like scum) now in every Federal Agency because GW Bush did not purge all of them from his administration “in the spirit of bipartisanship”. Look how that turned out.

        Liked by 6 people

  14. MVW says:

    Lisa & Strzok are common, ordinary Liberals. Every Liberal I have ever known see themselves as having the Right to rule because of their superior understanding. Proof that their understanding is superior (in their eyes) is because they are Liberals. A circular circle jerk.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Esperanza says:

      They always admit they like their dictator better than yours if you press them. They always have profound contempt for the people.

      Liked by 5 people

      • nimrodman says:

        “Every Liberal I have ever known see themselves as having the Right to rule …”

        Two little Hitlers will fight it out until
        One little Hitler does the other one’s will

        – Elvis Costello

        Liked by 9 people

    • Albertus Magnus says:

      Believe me. conservatives as just as good at self-importance and self-delusion as any liberal is. They key moderator in all things is whether someone’s moral compass is based on obedience to God or based on his/her own world view and values.

      Liked by 8 people

      • GB Bari says:

        That statement badly misses a HUGE difference. Real American Conservatives base their moral compass on God and the Constitution when dealing with political and social issues from a government perspective. Real American Conservatives also believe that the means are as important as the objective (i.e., Rule of Law).

        While we are often frustrated by the imposition of our side following the rule of law, remember that the Left demonstrably chooses expediency (“by any means necessary”) to achieve their goals.

        Therefore IMHO, Conservatives are not guilty of “self-delusion” or “self-importance”. Those on our side who *do* fall into that line of thinking are not following conservative ideals.

        Liked by 2 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      Boom great observation .They feel so therefore they rule.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Yakmaster2 says:

    All their dreams of “saving” the nation (and buttering their own bread) are dust in the wind now. Reminds me of the biblical quote: “Pride goeth before the fall.” No matter what professional role they grandly envisioned themselves in, hubris was their downfall.

    Liked by 4 people

    • LongingForTruth says:

      (I replied but it didn’t show up so I’m trying again)
      Thanks for sharing this verse. The whole thing is even stronger:
      Pride goeth before DESTRUCTION, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

      Liked by 2 people

      • LongingForTruth says:

        Looking forward to all of the DESTRUCTION of the house of cards built upon sinking sand with the waves of a righteous tsunami rolling in amid hurricane force winds!! It’s all coming! Our God is working for us and revealing ALL everywhere…so much so that NO ONE will be able to deny anything anymore as the DEPTHS of evil are exhumed and brought to light! This is a very exciting time to be living. Waking up FREE and in peace and joy everyday. All thanks to our Mighty God!

        Liked by 2 people

    • LadyGrey says:

      I believe it’s — Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit goeth before the fall.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Julia Adams says:

    Their whole story is pure irony. Both Page and Strzok were one (or two) reporting levels down from their politically appointed bosses. They were boss pleasers, ladder climbers, aggressively trying to demonstrate their self importance, but they played too close to the fire and got burned by the same bosses they tried to please. Lord of the Flies 2.0

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Chris Four says:

    The bureaucratic familiarity breeds contempt attitude permeates many governmental agencies. I don’t how you change or prevent people from developing this attitude. You want esprit de corps and camaraderie but not to the point of blinding individuals to valid criticism and input.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. scott467 says:

    “♦ First, notice a catch-phrase by fired FBI Director James Comey in every interview: “that was not my understanding.” That phrase is Mr. Comey’s ‘go-to’ lead-in at the beginning of every explanation, amid challenging questions presented to him, on his current book tour. That phrase is also a highly legalized linguistics and deployed for a specific reason.”

    ___________________

    Oh the games people play now
    Every night and every day now
    Never meaning what they say now
    Never sayin’ what they mean…

    (Joe South, Games People Play, 1969)

    Liked by 6 people

    • TheWanderingStar says:

      Comey is “firewall #2” attempt to contain the conspiracy to those below him. Strozk/Page Affair cover being “firewall #1”, an attempt contain the conspiracy to just those two actors. Many more “firewalls” are hastily being constructed by Clapper, Brennan, et al.

      Horowitz and Huber need a bigger lighter!

      Liked by 2 people

    • AH_C says:

      Nice. Don’t recall ever hearing this original. Liked the bit about in the “black limousine”. Pretty prescient of limousine liberals.

      The “other” games people play would be Alan Parsons…
      _____________________________
      Games people play, You take it or you leave it
      Things that they say, Just don’t make it right
      If I’m telling you the truth right now, Do you believe it
      Games people play in the middle of the night

      Like

  19. scott467 says:

    “— Trump was viewed as so obviously “dangerous” that extreme measures were necessary. This wasn’t a *partisan* sentiment — it was (again, in their minds) a professional judgment. Which is how they managed the cognitive dissonance of behaving as they did while seeing themselves as moral actors.”

    _____________________

    The fact that they thought DJT was more dangerous than a mass-murdering planet-devouring psychopath like Hillary Clinton exemplifies their bias.

    Without that bias, they couldn’t have seen Trump as ‘dangerous’, certainly not in comparison to the creature from the black lagoon.

    Thinking Trump was ‘dangerous’ while ignoring the monster of Hillary Clinton is just a variation on the classic pot calling the kettle black.

    People who can’t see that Hillary Clinton is evil don’t possess the capacity for ‘judgment’ — professional or otherwise.

    It’s not just a ‘blind spot’, it’s a black hole.

    Liked by 17 people

  20. scott467 says:

    “Which is how they managed the cognitive dissonance of behaving as they did while seeing themselves as moral actors.”

    __________________

    They might as well have been jack-booted SS Officers supporting Hitler and thinking Rommel was dangerous.

    They were both officers of the government, he was an officer of the law and she an officer of the court, they were both breaking the law flagrantly and frequently, and they knew it, and they did it anyway, in support of a monster like Hillary Clinton.

    There is no way to reconcile that with seeing themselves as ‘moral actors’, unless they are delusional or psychopaths.

    Liked by 5 people

  21. scott467 says:

    “Page, in particular, felt special because she was chosen by McCabe. Their moral compasses were aimed at pleasing those whose favor they sought.”

    ____________________

    They have psychological profiles on everyone, certainly anyone they might hire to be an integral part of subverting the government and taking down a president if that became necessary.

    No doubt McCable chose her based on her psychological profile and her ‘need to please’. If she had ‘Daddy’ issues, all the better.

    McCabe would know that too.

    But the thing is, SHE should have known it about herself, and been aware that she was susceptible to being used specifically because of it.

    Liked by 5 people

  22. theresanne says:

    The thing missing from people like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok (and Comey and McCabe) is humility, and it is also the thing that makes President Trump a better person than any of them could ever be.

    Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:

      ^^^^This. What is ironic with your very accurate observation is that the Left, the media, the NeverTrump coalition has consistently painted Trump as an unfeeling, uncaring, egotistical narcissist. This dishonest portrayal is only possible to infer if one does not watch DJT interact with genuine care and admiration for so many people who really cannot further his personal gain. He did nor seek to placate the Uber-wealthy elitists; rather he sought to remove unjustly gained power from them and return it to the citizens.

      Liked by 3 people

  23. scott467 says:

    –Page’s final “never write to me again” doesn’t seem like a hostile snub. Seems more like a signal/coded message to a friend: “We’re scr*wed. Every (wo)man for himself. I’m looking out for myself. You should too.”

    ____________________

    That’s what I was thinking, too.

    But if so, even that was poorly done. They had to know that if things went wrong, their messages would become evidence. And they needed a way to signal each other that things had gone wrong without saying something like ‘don’t ever text me again’.

    Something prearranged, a simple phrase sounding like ordinary conversation to anyone besides themselves. Something that wouldn’t stand out as particularly odd to others, but which also wouldn’t come up in normal discussion by accident.

    Liked by 2 people

    • scott467 says:

      Strzok and Page obviously never saw the movie Body Heat (1981), 😉

      Mickey Rourke (playing an ex-con) to his lawyer, William Hurt: “I got a serious question for you: What the $%#& are you doing? This is not ^%$& for you to be messin’ with. Are you ready to hear something? I want you to see if this sounds familiar: any time you try a decent crime, you got fifty ways you’re gonna screw up. If you think of twenty-five of them, then you’re a genius… and you ain’t no genius. You remember who told me that?”

      Like

  24. RJ says:

    The games people play…we’ve gone from “musical chairs” to “hot potato” not knowing if and when it will be over. Couple this with the fact that the players–most of them, have been through a law school learning how to “deny everything, admit nothing and talk around any subject!”

    The humor of Page and Strozk emails is that this is the exact opposite of the those mob tapes, in that instead of the “made guys” talking we have the cops talking back and forth where we get to see the “inside baseball” realities on how to fix a “problem” they don’t like.

    So. as Ryan and other swamp people slither away to survive, we are left with what? Do we tune in to another adventure of “Better Call Saul” or is this just a normal day in Washington, DC?

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Here’s my thinking:

    Within the coup-conspirators (whatever we’re calling them these days), the DOJ-NSD and the FBI-CID elements needed a way to coordinate their efforts, without drawing suspicion. (These black hats are treasonous, but not stupid, and they know that strategically-positioned white hats either are watching or eventually will be.) Lisa Page was the official liaison between Sally Yates and Andy McCabe, but only so much can be done in that context without drawing scrutiny. Ergo, the need for the affair “cover story” with Page and Peter Strzok, because paramours can have all kinds of “discussions” in such a way that no one in DC would ever think about looking at, because affairs are a fairly common occurrence in the Tiber Creek Swamp.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. The Boss says:

    The “Newhere” description of Strzok and Page IMHO fits that of mid-level functionaries angling for a spot in the Deep State C Suite. Like the Little Miss and Mister Corporates many of us have seen, they’re managing up, looking for the status and perks that come with promotion to the higher ranks. These idiots will have done us all a favor when the smoke clears. That I can tell you.

    Liked by 4 people

  27. Bud Klatsch says:

    SD, you have described these two so deftly. They actually represent well, too many ‘bureaucrats’ that assume a mantel of righteousness over others and their way is the only way. A sick derangement. I am reminded of that British comedy set where the prime Minister is forever at the mercy of his ‘deep state’ civil ‘servants’ that orchestrated all kinds of mayhem. SD, you are doing truly yeoman’s work. Thank you.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. BobBoxBody says:

    Burn it to the ground. All of it. We don’t need the FBI or 90% of the bureaucracy in DC.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      IF they would decide to keep the FBI, change one major
      part of the qualifications. Jettison the requirement that
      agents need to have a law degree. How on God’s green
      earth do you expect any level of honesty to be present,
      when a requirement to work there is possessing an advanced
      degree on how to lie effectively?

      When did this requirement begin? How did they expect it
      to have a good outcome? What was going on at a higher
      level at the time that would have required covering up for
      the powers to be?

      Liked by 4 people

    • AH_C says:

      Congress wanys the 3 letter agency HQs close for political purposes. These HQs need to be scattered across the land, preferably in small to midsized towns.

      While I emphatically agree the 5 years up or out is bad policy, I think 5 to 7 years, over or out is good. Want to serve in govt and move up? You have to move around every 5 to 7 years to another office cross country, minus the generous relocation package. Otherwise, they have to move into a different dept every few years.

      This mitigates becoming entrenched in your own little fiefdom. Those that don’t want to move up into management can stay put locally because they’ll have different managers every few years.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. jeans2nd says:

    “They were consummate professional bureaucrats”
    Comey stated in the Mar 2017 testimony that the “culture” of the FBI was more important than how they followed the law.
    Now we know why. Also what that “culture” truly is.

    Still a great analysis by Newhere. NH may be new here, but Newhere is no noob. Thanks to Newhere again.
    And the “affair” b/tw Strzock & Page? Who cares? That is a squirrel for the entertainment of the plebes. Irrelevant. imo

    Like

  30. duchess01 says:

    Thank You, Sundance – this analysis is beyond imaging, but oh so relevant – not uncommon with so-called professionals, though – it goes to motivation of the ugliest kind – ego and greed –

    Did these two really believe what they were doing was the right thing to do? Or were they motivated by ego and their own ill-conceived self-importance? They not only deceived themselves but, they also played a very dangerous game – with their careers and their lives – SMH

    Sundance, you rarely cease to amaze me – your insightful, analytical mind is a rarity – I salute you – and thank you for all of your hard work – God will reward you – of that I am certain.

    Liked by 4 people

  31. rmramerica says:

    Newhere’s comment is very important:
    “— They seemed to see the FBI as white hats vis a vis DOJ. I think they truly believed that any corruption/politicization came from DOJ, and FBI jockeying/mischief was trying to set things right against all these other corrupting [political] forces.”
    What catches my attention is that this mindset is a culture of the FBI. Which exists today and is ingrained by all of the DC FBI. Watch these Ex FBI charterers on TV, radio, news there is a cult-like, religious fervor that all who have been a part of the FBI have about themselves. They really believe…that is frightening. Can there ever be honest introspection? Is it possible to critically review their methods and conduct? I don’t think so. Which is what worries me – that we will never know what really happened. The OIG and Huber are both from this culture.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. qzy says:

    Why do so many people not care if they were having an affair? If they were willing to betray their spouses, then you were willing to betray anyone.

    I don’t think Strozk and Page were having an affair. But, if they were, it’s important. It indicates their loyalty and judgement.

    Like

  33. Mike diamond says:

    Comey lied for his mafia mama hillary!

    Liked by 1 person

  34. MTK says:

    The Newhere analysis in five words.

    “The ends justify the means.”

    Liked by 3 people

  35. AH_C says:

    Good description of their perspective.

    Like

  36. g.w says:

    So in other words there is no real “there” there. Just more business as usual within an fbi cult-like mindset among a professionally ambitious “small group.” If that’s it, then it seems like a few(many) things are missing. Maybe locked in a vault?

    Like

  37. thedoc00 says:

    This is an excellent overview of each department in the entire long-term “professional” of the Executive Branch. Expect similar revelation’s will come out in the report on the State Department. Long-term service professionals who are not rotated and allowed to be rooted in one place develop this very same mentality, of being the actual decision making power of the government. Add to this the situation long-term professionals being rewarded for their action by the “power elite”, and the stage is set for utter corruption. As was stated above, this does not mitigate the crimes, but does expose the mind set underlying the crimes.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      Would like to add, this also fits the description of long-term congressional and Judicial Branch members as well. The cure here is a term limit amendment for both.

      Liked by 5 people

    • AH_C says:

      Exactly. They all need to be rotated and re-proving themselves worthy and valuable to continue working.

      Like

    • Tarstarkas says:

      Which is one reason why the military has a policy of rotating personnel between bases. Keeps commanders from building up a local power base. The ancient Romans found out the hard way what happens when generals were left in place too long.

      Liked by 2 people

  38. val66 says:

    >>>”Contempt for the implicated political actors was a given; all politicians are intellectually and morally inferior, and (in their minds) the country needs professionals like them having the tools to stand watch and “protect” the country when necessary.”

    The very definition of The DEEP STATE.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. Donzo says:

    A reasonable observer should conclude that any cache Comey could garner portraying himself to be the hardworking G-man keeping America safe (haha) in a byzantine system of duplicity was thrown out with the trash as soon as he decided to cash in with his book. True to form the Dimms bought it hook, line and sinker, literally speaking.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. J Gottfred says:

    “These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences. They have the conscience of a common, professional technocrat. Self-delusion and self-importance that warps the moral compass (e.g., they feel aggrieved by things like being left out of a meeting, and they hyper-focus on their own “credit-seeking” vs. “team player” motivations, as if THESE are the pressing moral issues at stake . . ). They are professional technocrats like a lot of professional technocrats, who believe their jobs are singularly important, that they face pressures that are uniquely complicated — who know they hold replaceable jobs, but secretly believe themselves irreplaceable.”

    So true! A political environment like this does not spontaneously occur (or in this case erupt) in an organization; rather it is a condition that is encouraged by the top leaders because they are engaging in this type of activity too. I firmly believe it all starts with the top and works it way down as underlings emulate their superiors to gain favor. One could not imagine a more “political” environment than the Obama administration. I think the corruption goes all the way to the top. I just hope we have the courage and stamina to root it out.

    Liked by 4 people

  41. TMonroe says:

    Quotes are from the commenter’s perspective:

    “They weren’t driven by specifically by partisan bias. Viewing it as simple bias only minimizes the bigger problem. They were consummate professional bureaucrats, intuiting, anticipating, and expanding upon the goals of leadership, both spoken and implied. Contempt for the implicated political actors was a given; all politicians are intellectually and morally inferior, and (in their minds) the country needs professionals like them having the tools to stand watch and “protect” the country when necessary.”

    As they all move within the same circles and are married to same — and often become the same, I disagree that they view politicos as inferior, especially the ones in question who have demonstrated the political bias (remember the comments about PS’s revulsion about the palpable Trump support in SW VA).

    The personal elitism of those being minders of others’ lives for the supposed common good is not was not the driving force for them getting into the positions they occupy. That — along with the political alignment — is feathering one’s nest and acquiring personal power. What is referenced about the myopia of self-importance centers around that. We however can never minimize the dem and gope aspect of this which offers the bureaucrats like this the means of nest feathering and personal power. Pass restrictive health care legislation that could drive personal care into the ground for millions? Their ambition is insulation formthat, so they don’t care. Rinse and repeat for every other aspect of political decisions — abortion, gun control (they’re in power, so they can pack and have security), etc.

    “Trump was viewed as so obviously “dangerous” that extreme measures were necessary. This wasn’t a *partisan* sentiment — it was (again, in their minds) a professional judgment. Which is how they managed the cognitive dissonance of behaving as they did while seeing themselves as moral actors.”

    Again, don’t separate the partisanship or minimize it; as it serves as a baseline to those who sell out to the power brokers. It’s like the plank of the democrat party acting to remove God from party platforms or the Canadian government prioritizing trans rights in nafta talks. You know full well the rank and filers are not evolving at their core over this issue. You can’t tell me that the urban voters are 100% evolved as it were on marriage, abortion, gun control, alphabet rights, and so forth. Rather, the politics and partisanship translate as a means to end for power and personal enrichment. You can’t separate them from the equation.

    “These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences. They have the conscience of a common, professional technocrat. Self-delusion and self-importance that warps the moral compass (e.g., they feel aggrieved by things like being left out of a meeting, and they hyper-focus on their own “credit-seeking” vs. “team player” motivations, as if THESE are the pressing moral issues at stake.”

    At this point, we see a convergence of why the rank and filers as well as urban centers with nothing in common with the Alinskyites as far as personal worldview vote and act the way they do. Willful blindness occurs brought on by the weight of autocratic pressure in different fronts, most of which are under the PC umbrella. Thus, we have the disconnects above of world views contrasted with votes once the Dem/globalist marching orders are dispatched. I would argue that over time, it becomes the definition of sociopathic behavior with no conscience. The older generation just wants their tomato soup on time, the middle-angers just want their wine and cheese, and the younger ones just want their harder intoxicant of choice. To finance that, they make the great compromise when the rubber meets the road, doing what they’re told and rationalizing it with the echo chamber provided by the social engineers. No indeed, we cannot remove or minimize partisanship and politics in this in any way, even when it moves into the realm of learned, natural behavior driving action.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Justbill says:

    In watching the Comey interviews and testimony, two things stood out. When he was asked a question, if his reply started out as vague, such as “it was my understanding…”, he’s getting ready to shade the truth. If his answer started out “ that’s a good question…”, he’s getting ready to tell an outright lie.

    Liked by 3 people

  43. AmericaFirst says:

    I am grateful that Newhere is here, whenever he/she came, and appreciate this very perceptive comment (also grateful that SD saw fit to re-publish it).

    1. “Trump was viewed as so obviously “dangerous” that extreme measures were necessary.”

    I find myself wondering if any of them actually ever listened to President Trump or even bothered to read any of his speeches. What was so dangerous about him … other than the fact that he was going to expose the calumny and enforce the law?

    2. “These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences. They have the conscience of a common, professional technocrat. Self-delusion and self-importance that warps the moral compass … ”

    My uncle had involuntarily been a part of the Nazi-Youth movement when he was young, and I used to wonder how such an educated populace such as existed in Germany in the 1930s could have ever fallen for Hitlerism. Technocratism is alive and well, thank you, just as it was then.

    3. “— The scariest part: conduct in the the Clinton/Trump investigations wasn’t anomalous. The fact that these “professionals” behaved this way with only a faint notion of the significance of what they were doing suggests it was more business-as-usual than the biggest scandal of our lifetimes. Meaning it’s even a bigger scandal.”

    Everything about this attempted coup we are now seeing in ever greater detail, the layers of the iceberg being revealed daily, was BUSINESS AS USUAL. Think about that. It would not have been accepted behavior with ethical leadership.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jenny R. says:

      Thing is, with people like this, they are smart…but they aren’t savvy. A smart person can be very easily manipulated and will be very loyal to the point of blindness — why? because all you have to do is give them enough “insider” knowledge, build up their egos (by constantly telling them how smart, loyal, and good they are), and then pat them on the head ever so often (because they are arrogant and ambitious — good little worker bees).
      And if you are an evil, corrupt person yourself, then these are the best sort of underlings to have.
      Of course, when it comes to real detective, intel, or spook stuff they’re completely incompetent because they aren’t capable of thinking outside the box, and they’re smart (but not savvy) so they don’t think they need to learn or know anymore than what they’ve been given. They’re so bad at lying themselves that they can’t tell when they are being lied to.
      And if you are a corrupt official, then you wouldn’t want it any other way, because you don’t really care about national security (you’re breaking and endangering it anyway). All you care about is surrounding yourself with smart/stupid good little worker bees who won’t go sniffing in places they shouldn’t — wouldn’t even have the wits to do it anyway — and who will believe you wholeheartedly and work incessantly for whatever purpose you want them to thing is the “good cause”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jenny R. says:

        That’s why I mentioned the “Mulder and Scully” sort of relationship — in fact, this is one way to control people like that.
        Heck, they may not have even had a sexual relationship…but pairing them together would have reinforced their loyalty and their dedication to “the good cause”.
        The truth is out there!…and thus their controllers could get them to do, well, just about anything.

        Liked by 1 person

      • w5ovf says:

        “Thing is, with people like this, they are smart…but they aren’t savvy.”
        I agree! Military officers are educated\smart; enlisted have skill\savvy driven in to them by training, including ‘Yes Sir’! —P45, AG Sessions, & Gen Mattis have both! We the people need potty training and parental love, not modern EDUCATION\smartass!

        Like

        • Jenny R. says:

          Well, it’s good to have both — a good education paired with knowledge of the real world can make a person highly effective.
          Example: the President

          Like

  44. bkrg2 says:

    Newhere – thank you for the good summary. I particularly liked “technocrats” label as it explains many of the actions the “small group” took.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. Truthfilter says:

    To me, Strzok comes across as an emotional girly man. So does James Comey in his recent interviews. Too touchy-feely. Too much gushing over Obama- almost like a teenage crush.

    I just read an article about Comey at Lawfare Blog. It compared Comey’s leadership to that of Mueller at the FBI. Apparently the rank and file were afraid of Mueller and he rarely interacted with them, demanded that they all wear white shirts, etc. When Comey came in, he tried to “humanize” the FBI. He let them wear colored shirts and allowed “therapy dogs” for them. He even petted the therapy dogs whenever he saw them. These are silly details about Comey but between the Strzok/Page text messages, Comey’s drooling interviews, and the article at Lawfare, I get the impression that Comey was director of a daycare center instead of law enforcement agency.

    Liked by 3 people

  46. The Real Bob_W says:

    I stepped away from “paying attention to national news” the day after the election, right after hearing NPR’s eye-rollingly-asinine “reportage” speculating the Rooskies had manipulated national vote tallies. (My wife and eye nearly pulled eye-rolling muscles when this belly-laugher came over the car radio.) Doing so was a form of blood pressure self-medication.

    This past January, my blood pressure felt down to self-education vis-a-vis the national political scene, and “discovering” CTH was one result. (Thanks Sundance!) It wasn’t long before the only rational conclusion was: “Our Constitution was/is/continues-to-be under attack!!!”

    Just because in recent weeks I’ve noticed lots of new-to-me “reader handles” this particular (assisted) post by Sundance seems a decent time to rhetorically ask two related questions: 1) What’s the highest law of the land? and 2) What’s the only crime mentioned in it? (Meaning, to me, our Founding Fathers thought it THE most serious crime a citizen could commit.)

    A1) The Constitution. (Not that I imagine any reader didn’t know the answer!)
    A2) Treason.

    At my lower emotional moments, I fear “the Jeff Sessions of the world” – and a few of his closest prosecutorial friends – will lose sight of “the treason fact.” Point being, it’s NOT “merely” technocratic hubris we’re talking about here, but TREASON!!! I think this fact needs to be hammered home again and again and again by (for example) the “Joe DiGenova’s [sp?] of the world” until Joe Average American understands the seriousness of the crime AND the need for sweeping indictments and trials. As others have pointed out, this is “an American Nuremberg” situation (for some of the criminals), but at the very least, “the Goerings/Jodls/Keitels/Von Ribbentrops/Streichers/Rosenbergs/Franks/Funks/Fricks/Kaltenbrunners/Sauckels/Speers/Seyss-Inquarts/Schachts/Doenitzes” of the swamp need to be TRIED FOR TREASON!.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. NC Nana says:

    Newhere’s comments are unsettling. They are certainly a new way of viewing data.

    Newhere says:

    “Page, in particular, felt special because she was chosen by McCabe. Their moral compasses were aimed at pleasing those whose favor they sought.”

    “I think they truly believed that any corruption/politicization came from DOJ, and FBI jockeying/mischief was trying to set things right against all these other corrupting [political] forces.”

    “They weren’t driven by specifically by partisan bias.”

    “These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences.”

    To me McCabe was very partisan. Look at the $700,000 from the Democrats. Look at his comments from the “small group” secret meeting.

    How could Page fit McCabe’s partisanship in with this view (not partisan, not sociopaths) to her value systems?

    I don’t care how you describe it. Deviance is deviance.

    No matter what, Page and Strzok should receive maximum punishment within the law for their actions.

    Like

  48. trump called them lovers…………sooooooo…they must be , yes ? no ?

    Like

  49. I have to pay my consulting neuropsychologist(s) like $5,000 for a psych report on my defendant/ clients, at this level and quality of analysis. This report answers a lot of questions.

    My take on these two is that they justified their conduct in the coup as “ad maiorem bonum,” or For the Greater Good. For Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok, laws and democracy cannot stand in the way of what they believe is best for America. Very Stalin-esque, and very scary.

    Well done indeed.

    S.J. Britt
    Asst. U.S. Attorney (retired)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s