Oh, Peter . . . My Hero
Prior to today’s (wholly appropriate) uproar over the two feet that our President stuck in his mouth subsequent to his meeting with Czar Vlad I, the narrative on left wing cable TV and social media was all about the Peter Strzok hearing. He has been labelled a hero and a martyr. One congressman suggested that he deserved a Purple Heart. As a combat veteran (who fortunately avoided the award, but many of whose friends did not), I find that suggestion offensive.
The point I wish to make is that this response to Peter’s smirk and testimony is wholly inappropriate and tribal in the extreme. No hero is he.
Lest you judge that my response is equally tribal, we will clear up the confusion.
It is asserted that the hearing was a political circus and a waste of time. You’ll get no argument from me on that score. Almost no new ground was broken.
It is asserted that the Republican congresspersons were idiots and buffoons. I would mostly stipulate to that assertion. However, the few serious questions they asked Peter were rudely interrupted by obnoxious and obvious heckling from Democratic congresspersons in order to give him cover. This is a well trod and destructive path characteristic of many controversial hearings. The Democrats are usually better at the practice than Republicans.
That said, let’s get to Peter. This guy is in a senior leadership position at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which bills itself as the premier law enforcement agency on earth, and a paragon of integrity. Peter, a married man, was playing hump-hump with another FBI employee. That behavior should cause serious concern in any organization, most especially one attempting to sell integrity as the core of its brand and reason to defer to its judgment.
This guy was exchanging literally thousands of personal/political texts with his lover, all on a government machine (subject to FOIA disclosure) and on government time. It’s a wonder he was able to get any work done in the time left over. What was he thinking? Why would anybody in authority trust his judgment to handle sensitive matters? Apparently Mueller and the Inspector General asked those questions and came up with the same answers I have. I would have gone further and summarily fired him as soon as I saw the texts.
This guy, in the midst of one of the most divisive presidential campaigns in our history, repeatedly expressed the highest level of disdain for one of the candidates. Referring to Mr. Trump as a “douche” by a senior government employee may mark a new low in campaign discourse. He should never have been allowed within shouting distance of the Hillary investigation or the Russia probe.
This guy does get the chutzpah award. He sits in front of a national television audience and tells us that his personal political views . . . at no time in his 26 years of valiant service, and in no way, shape or form . . . had any impact on his actions as a public servant and law enforcement professional. I don’t believe that. A straightforward reading of a great many of his texts say just the opposite.
Let’s grant that Peter has every right, as a citizen of a free country, to his political opinions. Let’s pretend that those opinions did not color any of his thinking as he did his work. Even the appearance of blatant bias is utterly destructive tothe reputation of the FBI. It adds to the high level of distrust that exists in the millions of people who voted for Donald Trump (the douche). Our democracy is diminished as a result. Peter is no hero.
