Give Me Bananas

     Peter Strzok is the new version of Oliver North: controversial man sits before a Congressional panel with extensive mainstream news coverage, some of the questioners are hostile, others helpful and willing to supply explanations for the subject's actions.  Congressman Gohmert of Texas, a Republican who seems like a supporting character in The Andy Griffith Show, stood out when he brought up Strzok's extramarital affair, causing his Democratic colleagues to erupt with exclamations like, "Have you no shame?" and "Did you miss your medication?"
     I didn't watch the Strzok hearing in its entirety, just saw some clips, but my main reaction is, "I don't give a shit about any of these motherfuckers."
     Strzok used to be Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI.  As put by Wikipedia, "[He] led the...investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server."
     What else did Strzok do as a Fed?  He was Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, and "...led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."
     A year ago, Strzok worked for Robert Mueller in the latter's endless ongoing and so far evidence free quest to connect Trump's campaign with Russian officials.  In spite of the very recent naming by Mueller's apparatus of twelve GRU Russian government officials as instruments of U.S. elections interference, no evidence has been presented yet by Mueller and his team directly linking the Trump campaign with these scary Russian individuals.
     On MSNBC and CNN the past two days I've seen the same U.S. Intelligence Community-connected people I don't trust, professional propagandists, making this new "revelation" from the Mueller team out to be the "smoking gun" evidence that it isn't, just ahead of Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.  The Mueller "revelation" also came along in time with Peter Strzok's testimony.  It's almost like Robert Mueller likes to craftily present ambiguous but provocative information to the public and news media in relation to upcoming ratings-grabbing news events.  I'm sure, though, he's completely neutral and it never occurs to him to pay any attention to the outside world.
     Mueller fired Strzok last year when text messages critical of President Trump surfaced.  In his Congressional testimony, Strzok pointed out that a government official having private political views is normal and lawful, yet, as counter-argued by Republicans, Robert Mueller deemed the texts biased enough to remove his subordinate from the Trump investigation.  This plays into the idea that Robert Mueller is such an honorable and decent man (believed in by Republicans and Democrats) that he has no bias himself against Donald Trump, and would never lie or participate in the building of a grand pile of bullshit (the Russia-Trump campaign collusion theory) unless there really was something to sniff.
     Robert Mueller, so honorable and decent that in 2003 he lied to Congress and the American people about the WMD capabilities of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  I maintain that it's not unreasonable to distrust Robert Mueller, or Peter Strzok for that matter.  Peter Strzok worked for a government agency, the FBI, that spies on Black Lives Matter protestors, similar to what they did in the 1960s with their COINTELPRO program, a racist and politically oppressive secret police-like action that still exists, just as the CIA's 1949-initiated Operation Mockingbird that infiltrated U.S. news media with intelligence agents and cultivated CIA assets therein still exists.  Much of what passes for news on the mainstream channels gets filtered through the CIA and the Defense Department, just like any Hollywood movie or TV show using intelligence and/or military themes and equipment and personnel has to be cleared (final cut of film or TV show presented for censorship) by the CIA and/or Department of Defense.  Bear that in mind when you watch a movie directed by the Pentagon-approved Michael Bay.
     Back to Strzok: is it unreasonable to not trust him?  As part of the U.S. Intelligence apparatus he investigated Hillary Clinton (although he seems to have been a Clinton supporter, judging from his anti-Trump bias written about in his texts), but he also investigated Trump and the alleged Russia influence on the 2016 elections.  His high profile questioning by Congress stood out as a burnishing of his character.  He went from being a controversial figure (fired by the noble granite monument of integrity Robert Mueller) to looking good on television, especially when compared to the Neanderthal morons among the Republicans questioning him about irrelevances.  He became Oliver North in the eyes of the news media.  A splendid man aggrieved by a fucked up system, like King Lear saying of himself, "More sinned against than sinning."
     Or, is Peter Strzok a typical American intelligence official; someone providing part of the truth, someone wrapped up inside a system designed to further American power domestically and abroad.  Strzok was one of the FBI's top Russia experts, and "oversaw investigations involving Russia and China."
     Why was Robert Mueller last year willing to expose one of his top spooks over personal anti-Trump text messages?  Why were Strzok's text messages opened up for the world to see?  Why the fuck is it any of our business what Peter Strzok wrote in his personal texts?  Did Mueller sacrifice Strzok for the sake of not seeming biased against Trump, who he thought, at least for a time, might fire him as Special Counsel?
     What with Strzok's knowledge and experience, is he actually still working behind the scenes for Mueller?  That's pure speculation on my part.  I'm just suggesting that Robert Mueller is a cold and calculating intelligence official who doesn't give a shit about justice or humanity, but rather serves agendas mostly hidden from the American people, like when he participated in enabling the NSA in its ongoing electronic spy work against everybody in this country, meaning he's a criminal for helping the NSA violate the Fourth Amendment rights of every American citizen.  He also serves the anti-Russia agenda embraced fully by MSNBC and CNN, as well as the Democratic Party establishment.
     We need to worry about Russia?  No, we need to worry about the people who want us to worry about Russia.
     I await evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to steal the 2016 elections.  I'm still waiting, Mueller.  I suspect I will wait a long time, but my best guess is you don't have actual evidence because the collusion didn't fucking happen.
     I heard Michael Isikoff, author with David Corn of a book about Trump and Russia (a conspiracy theory book in other words, since the evidence isn't in), say that Mueller's new reveal about the twelve Russian officials allegedly involved in U.S. elections interference can't include the evidence because it's "classified."
     Trust us, we have the evidence, and it's a doozy!  Saddam Hussein tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger...oh, no, that was something that didn't happen twenty years ago.  Russia, yes, Russia...
     It isn't unreasonable to make a final determination after having seen convincing evidence.  It isn't unreasonable to distrust the word of a man, Mueller, who lied about WMD in Iraq, which helped lead to an illegal invasion and the killings of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  Detesting Donald Trump and his sickening family as I do does not cause me to surrender my ability to think critically about issues.
     Congress couldn't ask Peter Strzok, an Intelligence Community representative and true believer, the most important question: Is the anti-Russia hysteria an attempt by U.S. Intelligence to generate a new Cold War, for the purpose of carrying on the Global War on Terror under a different name and against a new enemy so that war profiteering interests can continue their destructive activities which benefit only themselves?  Were you actively participating in this, Mr. Strzok, and are you now so participating by virtue of your role as anti-Trump and anti-Russia propagandist?

                                                                             Vic Neptune