The Strzok hearing has provided some great political theater. Strzok and I obviously share some similar opinions of the values and behavior of Mr. Trump. Trump’s public behavior warrants some scrutiny and it just seems individuals come to different conclusions regarding whether what is visible is appropriate or should be criticized. I regard bullying, sexist and racist behavior as inappropriate. The public statements are there for anyone to consider and anyone is certainly free to explain these behaviors to themselves and to others. There is a difference in Mr. Strzok and my capacity to act on our observations. I have just spoken openly about my opinions with the intent of influencing others. Mr. Strzok was compelled to speak publicly about his personal opinions because he was required to testify in a public forum. Given the tone of the political spin guiding today’s questions, I think I would also have been willing to defend myself. Remember, his original opinions were expressed in a forum he wrongly assumed was private. You can’t both make these opinions public and criticize someone for openly expressing opinions.
What I think is key in the broader perspective is asking what would be required of Mr. Strzok in order to do damage in his professional capacity. I assume that any damage would have to part of a process that provided evidence showing wrongdoing by the President or the President’s associates. If such evidence were provided some might dispute origins of this evidence by claiming it was a lie or that the evidence was not complete and hence misleading in some way. Arguing that the potential of investigator bias as resulting in falsehoods or incompleteness is not possible without the supposed biased investigator offering evidence to be considered. What is the point of this “investigation” at this point? Mueller and others have been very quiet about what they have been doing. These have not sought public attention regarding topics for which there is no evidence and likely for other topics when there is evidence (in order not to hamper the investigative process). The investigation is far from lengthy when it comes to other investigations of far less significant potential damage to the country (the Clinton email or Benghazi investigation vs. Trump collusion with a foreign power to influence an election). Very little evidence warranting action was ever produced in the Clinton investigations and it is possible this will be the same outcome with the Trump investigation.
My point – wait for the evidence.