“F Trump”: Bias doesn’t begin to describe the FBI investigation- see the Strzok texts

That Mueller sure used a fine tooth comb to make sure he has the best, most objective, professional and unbiased team he could get, didn’t he?

Love the concern for using “untraceable” methods for their texting. Apparently, they thought their liberal view might not be found acceptable by the FBI?

Hey, let’s comply with the demands of the phony Trump sexual harassment accusers and have an independent investigation. Let’s let Trump pick the team of investigators. OK?

I’m genuinely confused by this reaction from the right. What broadly-applicable legal principle is violated by Strzok having an anti-Trump bias? Where is the conflict-of-interest if a prosecutor feels and/or expresses disdain for the suspect being investigated?

The fundamental charge of Mueller’s team is to fill the role of prosecutor (with respect to the allegation of criminal election rigging and treasonous collusion with foreign states). A succinct definition of this role:

The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case against an individual who is suspected of breaking the law, initiating and directing further criminal investigations, guiding and recommending the sentencing of offenders, and are the only attorneys allowed to participate in grand jury proceedings

Our justice system is adversarial by design. A bias is only a conflict of interest when it dis-incentivizes people from performing their role to the best of their abilities. Whether we think a suspect is guilty or innocent, we should *celebrate* biases that motivate prosecutors to find evidence of (and make the strongest possible case for) a suspect’s guilt. Nobody (except for nefarious individuals who feel the suspect is guilty but shouldn’t be punished) should want suspects to be prosecuted by close friends or political allies. The legal system is at its best when everyone can point to a prosecution team and say, “If there’s any evidence that the suspect is guilty, these guys are going to find it.”

For conservatives who believe that Trump did not break any laws (or run afoul of any Constitutional guidelines), the more biased Mueller’s team is against Trump, the happier they should be. Say Mueller did not dismiss Strzok. Or that Mueller’s team was full of Strzoks. In fact, let’s pretend Strzok’s comments were made by Mueller himself. If, in that light, Mueller’s team failed to indict Trump (either choosing not to bring charges, or failing to convince a grand jury to indict), it wouldn’t be “case closed.” It would be “CASE. FUCKING. CLOSED. PERIOD.” The question of “Russian Collusion” would be DEAD.

An alternate hypothetical might help illuminate this. Suppose a special council was appointed to investigate allegations of Clinton’s illegal activities in the “Uranium One” scandal. If, during that investigation, video footage was found of the lead special councilor attending a pro-Trump rally and joining in chants of “Lock her up!”, how would that influence your confidence in the investigation? Presumably, if you believe Clinton committed a crime, you’d feel exuberant: “If Clinton made even the tiniest mistake, this guy is going to find it!”. What might be surprising, though, is that as a leftist liberal who is 100% convinced that Clinton did nothing illegal, I’d be equally delighted! My attitude would be, “Please! Hit her with your best shot! Let’s put these bullshit charges to rest once and for all.”

I suspect the difference in my reaction to that hypothetical, and the present conservative’s reaction to Strzok’s texts boils down to one distinguishing point. I’ll rewrite my words, and add emphasis to make this distinguishing point more clear:

As a leftist liberal who is 100% convinced that Clinton did nothing illegal I’d be delighted!

@Bill… Deplorable Me: They have been up DT’s butt looking for a Russian connection for 1 and 1/2 years, if no connection no collusion, let alone a conspiracy to tamper with the election.
Why is this investigation still going on? The US code is huge and they may only have tried a small portion of it to try to impeach the president. Kevin could have stopped his post in his first 3 words.

@Greg:

Let me think… How long did Benghazi investigations go on?

As long as the Obama administration lied and stonewalled the investigation. In contrast, all the members of the Trump team that have been called to testify all testify instead of refusing to show up or pleading the 5th. First, there was noting there but a liberal fantasy and, second, all questions are answered and requests fulfilled, so there is no excuse (other than ardent witch-hunting) for this investigation to continue.

Mueller will do far better. There’s already been one guilty plea and a couple of 12-count indictments.

That have NOTHING whatsoever to do with any collusion accusations. In other words, a waste. Meanwhile, after the Benghazi investigations, we know Obama and Hillary lied, Hillary left the consulate exposed, Hillary had personnel there when they shouldn’t have been, Hillary ignore security warnings, Obama was probably running weapons through the consulate, the Obama administration was corrupt and incompetent and Hillary needed to be kept away from the White House.

You need to cut the cord on your fantasy of finding Trump deeply involved with collusion with Russia. You imagined it from the beginning and you are setting yourself up for a tremendous disappointment. This “investigation” has been exposed for what it really is: a partisan witch hunt pursued by people that are too liberal to accept a legal election that did not go their way.

@DrJohn: And, beyond any doubt, Strzok is not a lone wolf. If any vetting of the members of this team was conducted at all, it appears they were LOOKING for people like him.