#or is this the animus giving them more agency than anyone expected

[teecupangel]

Here's an idea I think you might enjoy: animus but Des is in their head, controlling them. They can feel it and talk to him and everything, ratatouille style.

……………… You know what would be funny, nonny?

If Desmond sucks at controlling them.

Like, we’ve heard the rites of passage in AC games:

We make them jump instead of doing a leap of faith

We accidentally make them climb the wrong high building and the actual viewpoint is the tower next to it

We miscalculate a jump and fall into the waters below or into an unsuspecting civilian

And there’s the game specific problems I refuse to believe I’m the only one who suffered thru it.

So just imagine Desmond trying to control them in the Animus and they know they’re being controlled.

There’s this… change in the air around them. It feels more charged. More… mysterious.

And they also become clumsier for some goddamn reason.

Incidents include:

Altaïr falling into the waters in the docks of Acre for the fifteenth time and he just hisses under his breath, “What is wrong with you?! Do you enjoy seeing me wet?!” and Desmond’s just “Dude, your control sucks!” which leads to Altaïr having an argument with Desmond under his breath about how his ‘control’ (whatever that means) does not suck, Desmond just sucks at this thing he likes to call ‘platforming’ and they both just agreed that, yeah, okay, they’re gonna assassinate Sibrand by going around instead even if it meant Altaïr had to walk slowly and pretend to be praying the entire time.

Altaïr breathing heavily as he glared at the ten (nope, five more guards found him in open combat, damn it) guards trying to kill him. One of them stepped forward and raised his sword. Altaïr readied himself and he still got hit, “(Growl)! Desmond! Get your timing right!” “Your Hidden Blade counter timing is too fast, Altaïr! Let’s just use your swor-” “No! You will learn how to counter using the hidden blade or, I swear, I will find a way to control you and drill it to your body myself!” (Guards just glance at each other, thinking “oh shit, he’s insane”)

Ezio just staring into the sky as he places his hands on his waist as he called out, “Desmond! How about we try this again later?” “No! I almost got it!” “……… It’s been an hour, Desmond. Let’s try clearing this tomb after-” “No! We’re gonna get that Armor today if it’s the last thing we do! Just… this goddamn time limit is annoying! Time limit sucks!” Ezio who is already used to the mysterious voice (who calls himself Desmond)’s strange words: “………… (sigh)”

“I can take them out. Desmond, please, I’m begging you, let me take them out. I can do-” (Desmond takes control and Ezio watches as his recruits take down the targets) The recruits looking at Ezio for approval. Ezio: Bene, that was a good takedown. (inside, Ezio is just tired because Desmond is enjoying all this ‘summoning’ thing too much…)

“Why can’t we have different lethal bombs?! You have the ingredients for it!” “I don’t know, Desmond. Could we just please finish preparing all the bombs?” “Dude, wouldn’t it be better if we have, like, all of these bombs?” “… I don’t think I have enough space in belt for all of them…” “You should get a bag.” “(Sigh) Desmond, we already talked about this. This Animus of yours don’t allow more ‘inventory’, right?” (inside, Ezio is wondering what his life has become that he sorta kinda understand the words leaving his mouth)

“Desmond… I’m imploring you to not mess this up.” “I’m trying, man, this is hard.” “Who are you talking to, Haytham?” “Ziio! No… no one.” “…” “… sigghhh… Desmond say hello to Ziio.” “Hi, Ziio.” “… is this a curse placed upon you white men?” “…” “…” “…” “Perhaps.” “Sorta?”

“You are a Templar. May the Father of Understanding guide us.” “May the Father of Understanding guide us.” “Wait, what?!” “…” “…” “Master Kenway, is something the matter?” “… no, Charles. I simply… remembered something foul.”

“It’s okay, Desmond. You’ll get this soon enough. Just take a deep breath and………… Desmond. Desmond. Please stop doing whatever you’re doing right now. My head is starting to hurt.” “It’s not me! The cameras of these tree view points sucks ass!”

“How is it you came to captain a ship, given the way you sail?” “Oh, screw you, Haytham! You wanna talk shit, why don’t you try doing this shit yourself, huh?!” “…” “…” “…” “… Apologies, father. Desmond was out of line.” “No, I’m not, fuck you, Haytham!” “I can say with absolute delight I have not missed you one bit, Desmond.” “Bite me, tacohead.” “I still do not know what that means.”

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON  | Shouting, insults as FBI agent faces angry Republicans

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/aQAQ8B

WASHINGTON  | Shouting, insults as FBI agent faces angry Republicans

WASHINGTON  — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias vigorously defended himself at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok on Thursday testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of texts last year that were traded with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

In a chaotic hearing that spanned 10 hours, he insisted he never allowed personal opinions to affect his work, though he did acknowledge being dismayed by Donald Trump’s behavior during the campaign. He also said he had never contemplated leaking damaging information he knew about the Trump campaign. And he called the hearing “just another victory notch in Putin’s belt,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“At no time, in any of those texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” Strzok told lawmakers.

In breaking his silence, Strzok came face-to-face with Republicans who argued that the texts had tainted two hugely consequential FBI probes he had helped steer: inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s email use and possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.”

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa made Strzok read some of his texts aloud, including some with profane language. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked colleagues to imagine being investigated by someone who “hated you” and “disparaged you in all manner of ways.”

“Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’? I think not,” Goodlatte said.

Strzok repeatedly insisted the texts, including ones in which he called Trump a “disaster” and said “We’ll stop” a Trump candidacy, did not reflect political bias and had not infected his work.

He said the Trump investigation originated not out of personal animus but rather from concern that Russia was meddling in the election, including what he said were allegations of “extraordinary significance” of a Russian offer of assistance to a Trump campaign member.

He made clear his exasperation at being the focus of a hearing when Russian election interference had successfully sowed discord in America.

“I have the utmost respect for Congress’ oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok said.

The hearing brought to the surface a little-discussed reality of public service: Law enforcement agents and other government workers are permitted to espouse political views but are expected to keep them separate from their work. Strzok said he was not alone in holding political opinions, noting that colleagues in 2016 supported both Clinton and Trump but did not reflect those views on the job.

“What I am telling you is I and the other men and women of the FBI, every day take our personal beliefs, and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth — wherever it lies, whatever it is.”

To which Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, responded, “And I don’t believe you.”

Strzok said under aggressive questioning that a much-discussed August 2016 text in which he vowed “we’ll stop” a Trump candidacy followed Trump’s denigration of the family of a dead U.S. service member. He said the late-night, off-the-cuff text reflected his belief that Americans would not stomach such “horrible, disgusting behavior” by the presidential candidate.

But, he added in a raised voice and emphatic tone: “It was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. So, I take great offense, and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t.”

Plus, he said, both the Clinton and Russia investigations were handled by large teams that “would not tolerate any improper behavior in me anymore than I would tolerate it in them.

“That is who we are as the FBI,” Strzok said in an animated riff that drew Democratic applause. “And the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen.”

The hearing exposed clear partisan divides in the House judiciary and oversight committees, as Democrats accused Republicans of trying to divert attention from Trump’s ties to Russia by excessively focusing on Strzok.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said he would give Strzok a Purple Heart if he could. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, said, “I have never seen my colleagues so out of control, so angry.”

But Republicans eager to undermine Mueller’s investigation berated Strzok, citing the texts as evidence of partisan bias within law enforcement. An inspector general report last month blamed Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page for creating an appearance of impropriety through their texts but found that the outcome of the Clinton investigation wasn’t tainted by bias.

At one point, Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Texas Republican, invoked Strzok’s personal life by alluding to the fact the texts were exchanged while he and Page were in a relationship. Gohmert speculated about whether he looked “so innocent” when he looked into his wife’s eyes and lied about the affair.

The comments sparked immediate objections from Democrats, who called them outrageous, and Strzok was livid. He told Gohmert the fact that he would say that “shows more what you stand for” than anything else. Gohmert tried to shout over him and the committee chairman vainly tried to restore order.

When Strzok declined to answer some questions on the Russia probe, Goodlatte suggested Republicans might recess the hearing and hold him in contempt. Democrats objected and Goodlatte eventually let the hearing proceed.

In his opening statement, Strzok acknowledged that while his text message criticism was “blunt,” it wasn’t directed at one person or party and included jabs not only at Trump but also at Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

He said he was one of the few people in 2016 who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with the Trump campaign, and that that information could have derailed Trump’s election chances. But, he said, “the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

FBI Director Chris Wray says employees who were singled out for criticism by the inspector general have been referred to internal disciplinary officials. Strzok’s lawyer said he was escorted from the FBI building last month as the disciplinary process proceeds.

Page is expected to speak to lawmakers at a private meeting Friday.

__

By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

[yahoo-shutdown-corner-blog]

What happens this week with the NFL protests?

Welcome to the War Room, where Yahoo Sports’ football minds gather every week to kick around the topics of the moment. Today, we’re talking (yes) protests and the West divisions. Got an idea for the War Room? Hit us up right here. Onward!

1. So last weekend was an interesting experience, to say the least, given the protests throughout the NFL. What do you expect to see this weekend protest-wise?

Anthony Sulla-Heffinger It’s Wednesday, so we have at least 85 hours for Trump to tweet before the 1 p.m. games on Sunday, which means literally anything can happen. In all seriousness though, I expect somewhat of the same response from players during the national anthem. This past Sundaywas a turning point for the league on this issue and I don’t think we’ll see players changing their tune anytime soon. What will be different though, is you will probably not see owners taking part in protests with their teams. Shad Khan, Dan Snyder, and Jerry Jones should be applauded for taking a visible stand, but it was probably a one-time thing.

Zach Pereles I’m looking for more of the same when it comes to anthem protests. Some players will sit. Others will kneel. Others will stand. Others will raise fists. Others will lock arms. Some owners may — and should — join them to show support for their players. I’m interested to see what the teams who didn’t even come onto the field last week do, especially in light of the Alejandro Villanueva situation. One thing I think we will see less of, though, is the questioning in the locker room post-game. Might some outspoken players continue to use their position as a platform? Sure. But it won’t be the story this week as it was last week.

Blake Schuster I expect to see the word ‘unity’ used a lot more. This is the NFL’s fun little way of rebranding an important civil rights moment into positive PR for the league. It is meant purely to pull the conversation away from what the protest is about — racial inequality and police brutality — and avoid uncomfortable conversations. Talking about important, controversial issues doesn’t help the league make money. Selling t-shirts that say ‘Unity’ certainly does. And all without having to make any semblance of a statement on an important issue that has plenty of gray area to begin with.

Frank Schwab It’s simple, but I expect fewer demonstrations this week, but more than we saw before last week (of course, there are still some days to go, and Donald Trump could say something else to force even more players into a decision about the anthem). I think a lot of coaches feel as Mike Tomlin does: “I’m opposed to both factions to be quite honest with you. I’m an advocate for players. I’m an advocate for those that simply want to do their jobs.” Football coaches detest any outside distractions, and I’d bet heavily they want nothing more than to get back to their football tunnel vision. But it’s not that easy for the players. I still think many will want to get back to the normal routine, but it’s not like this story will go away anytime soon.

Jay Busbee We’ll see fewer protests, but hopefully more on-the-ground work. The protesters, and the teams, have awareness now; it’s up to them to move the ball down the field (sports metaphor!) and begin creating useful long-term structures for real change. One of the cheap, easy criticisms of the protest movement is that there’s nothing backing it up; not that protesters need to satisfy all critics, since that’s impossible, but some tangible efforts to reach out to communities in the wake of these protests would go a long way to building some bridges between the many raging factions here.

Aw, who am I kidding? People are pissed, and they’re going to stay pissed no matter what the protesters do. And the moment they stop getting pissed, someone’s going to come along to fire them right up again.

Shalise Manza Young Now that the NFL has co-opted and gentrified the protests into a shallow show of kumbaya, part of me hopes it stops. After this weekend, the real point of the protests, the reason why Colin Kaepernick decided to sit in the first place – the continued execution of unarmed citizens by police who don’t face consequences and pervasive racial injustice and inequality – has been completely lost. The entire point of protest is to make the unaffected uncomfortable, and hopefully to make them think. But with President Trump fanning the flames of racial animus, there’s little to no hope of that happening. Last weekend proved yet again to those of us in this country with brown and black skin that our legitimate concerns don’t really matter and if we’ve been “lucky” enough to earn a sizeable paycheck, no matter the hours and strife and sweat and sacrifice we’ve made to earn it, we should just shut up and be happy about it.

Jordan Schultz I actually anticipate fewer anthem demonstrations during Week 4. Then again, as long as the president continues his barrage of ridiculous tweets, he may continue to ignite more protests. As the season progresses though, players will want to solely focus on playing. It’s what makes the great players so great. Guys want to play football as Mike Tomlin noted. That’s the bottom line.

NFL protests dominated Week 3. (AP)

Question 2: Go West! Some of the most compelling early-season stories, pro and con, are out west. Which teams intrigue/disappoint you from the AFC and NFC West?

The Kansas City offense isn’t just good, it’s elite. Alex Smith is actually winning football games, and is actually fun to watch. I’m really disappointed in Seattle. The Jimmy Graham experiment has been an utter failure. He has just 81 yards in three games and is being used as a decoy and blocker instead of as a receiver. During Graham’s four seasons as the primary tight end with the Saints, he averaged 138 targets per season. In his two years with the Seahawks, he’s averaged 84. Better yet, he has scored just 8 combined touchdowns as a Seahawk. He never once scored fewer than 9 as the main starter in New Orleans. –Schultz

The AFC West might be the toughest division in the NFL this year, and whoever makes it out come January will definitely be battle-tested, though perhaps bruised as well. Well, three of the teams are strong. The poor Los Angeles Chargers have become not just one of the NFL’s sad franchises, they’re the red-headed stepchildren of their own new city. Off to an 0-3 start (after going 9-23 over the last two seasons) and once again dealing with injuries to key players, things don’t promise to get any easier in the near future: this week, L.A. hosts a strong Eagles team, and they also play in Oakland and New England before its bye. The Chargers are wasting the final years of Philip Rivers’ career. At least he got a sweet new ride out of the deal. –Young

I’m pretty interested by the Seahawks. They’re 1-2 with three disappointing games. The offense showed signs of life in the second half against Tennessee and we’ll see if that carries over, but this is not the Super Bowl contender we expected. Some of that is due to a tough early schedule, but it’s also hard to use that excuse when one of their sluggish games was at home against the 49ers. The Seahawks play in a division that isn’t scaring anyone so I assume they’ll end up in the playoffs, but I have no idea at this point how good they really are this season. –Schwab

Give me more Jared Goff. I don’t know how good the Rams will end up being this year, but they’ve got a mighty fun guy at quarterback who is starting to show some real progress. Only in his sophomore season,Goff has already made major improvements to his game. Compare his 118.2 QB rating through Week 3 this year to his numbers last season, when he only had one QBR over 100 in any game. No one is saying Goff can lead the Rams to the Super Bowl, or even the playoffs, just yet. But his rise has begun and it’s been incredibly entertaining to watch. –Schuster

From the AFC West, I’m intrigued by the Broncos. When they didn’t make a move for a quarterback this offseason and Trevor Siemian won the job over Paxton Lynch once again, a lot of people figured their season would play out much like last season: a strong defense keeps them in games and wins them quite a few, but not enough to survive in a very strong division. Then Siemian came out and played very well against the Chargers and the Cowboys, and those notions were no longer. Heck, people who watched the Broncos destroy the Cowboys might have crowned them AFC West favorites. But in a brutal loss to the Bills last weekend — maybe a letdown game after the big win over Dallas? — those same issues from last year emerged with Siemian tossing two costly interceptions and the running game never getting going. A Week 4 win over the Raiders, who also turned in a Week 3 dud, would get the Broncos back on track and move them to 2-0 in their division. A loss would put more heat on Siemian and the organization as a whole. –Pereles

The biggest surprise for me has to be the Kansas City Chiefs. In addition to crushing the Patriots in Week 1, Andy Reid’s team has beaten a pretty good Eagles team at home and the division rival Chargers on the road, the latter two of those victories coming without All-Pro safety Eric Berry who was lost for the season with an Achilles tear. I fully expected the Chiefs to take a step back this season, especially considering they lost Spencer Ware to a knee injury in August and Alex Smith lost one of this best targets in Jeremy Maclin in free agency. Instead, rookie Kareem Hunt has looked like Priest Holmes and Smith is doing his best Tom Brady impression. Kansas City is for real, and the entire AFC, not just the West, should be scared. –Sulla

That’ll do it for this week! Got a suggestion for next week’s War Room? Hit us up via email. Enjoy Week 4’s games! ____ Jay Busbee is a writer for Yahoo Sports and the author of EARNHARDT NATION, on sale now at Amazon or wherever books are sold. Contact him at jay.busbee@yahoo.com or find him on Twitter or on Facebook.

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | Hearing on Russia probe devolves into shouting match

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/5cFvfl

WASHINGTON | Hearing on Russia probe devolves into shouting match

WASHINGTON — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias vigorously defended himself at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok on Thursday testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of texts last year that were traded with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

In a chaotic hearing that spanned 10 hours, he insisted he never allowed personal opinions to affect his work, though he did acknowledge being dismayed by Donald Trump’s behavior during the campaign. He also said he had never contemplated leaking damaging information he knew about the Trump campaign. And he called the hearing “just another victory notch in Putin’s belt,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“At no time, in any of those texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” Strzok told lawmakers.

In breaking his silence, Strzok came face-to-face with Republicans who argued that the texts had tainted two hugely consequential FBI probes he had helped steer: inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s email use and possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.”

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa made Strzok read some of his texts aloud, including some with profane language. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked colleagues to imagine being investigated by someone who “hated you” and “disparaged you in all manner of ways.”

“Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’? I think not,” Goodlatte said.

Strzok repeatedly insisted the texts, including ones in which he called Trump a “disaster” and said “We’ll stop” a Trump candidacy, did not reflect political bias and had not infected his work.

He said the Trump investigation originated not out of personal animus but rather from concern that Russia was meddling in the election, including what he said were allegations of “extraordinary significance” of a Russian offer of assistance to a Trump campaign member.

He made clear his exasperation at being the focus of a hearing when Russian election interference had successfully sowed discord in America.

“I have the utmost respect for Congress’ oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok said.

The hearing brought to the surface a little-discussed reality of public service: Law enforcement agents and other government workers are permitted to espouse political views but are expected to keep them separate from their work. Strzok said he was not alone in holding political opinions, noting that colleagues in 2016 supported both Clinton and Trump but did not reflect those views on the job.

“What I am telling you is I and the other men and women of the FBI, every day take our personal beliefs, and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth — wherever it lies, whatever it is.”

To which Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, responded, “And I don’t believe you.”

Strzok said under aggressive questioning that a much-discussed August 2016 text in which he vowed “we’ll stop” a Trump candidacy followed Trump’s denigration of the family of a dead U.S. service member. He said the late-night, off-the-cuff text reflected his belief that Americans would not stomach such “horrible, disgusting behavior” by the presidential candidate.

But, he added in a raised voice and emphatic tone: “It was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. So, I take great offense, and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t.”

Plus, he said, both the Clinton and Russia investigations were handled by large teams that “would not tolerate any improper behavior in me anymore than I would tolerate it in them.

“That is who we are as the FBI,” Strzok said in an animated riff that drew Democratic applause. “And the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen.”

The hearing exposed clear partisan divides in the House judiciary and oversight committees, as Democrats accused Republicans of trying to divert attention from Trump’s ties to Russia by excessively focusing on Strzok.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said he would give Strzok a Purple Heart if he could. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, said, “I have never seen my colleagues so out of control, so angry.”

But Republicans eager to undermine Mueller’s investigation berated Strzok, citing the texts as evidence of partisan bias within law enforcement. An inspector general report last month blamed Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page for creating an appearance of impropriety through their texts but found that the outcome of the Clinton investigation wasn’t tainted by bias.

At one point, Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Texas Republican, invoked Strzok’s personal life by alluding to the fact the texts were exchanged while he and Page were in a relationship. Gohmert speculated about whether he looked “so innocent” when he looked into his wife’s eyes and lied about the affair.

The comments sparked immediate objections from Democrats, who called them outrageous, and Strzok was livid. He told Gohmert the fact that he would say that “shows more what you stand for” than anything else. Gohmert tried to shout over him and the committee chairman vainly tried to restore order.

When Strzok declined to answer some questions on the Russia probe, Goodlatte suggested Republicans might recess the hearing and hold him in contempt. Democrats objected and Goodlatte eventually let the hearing proceed.

In his opening statement, Strzok acknowledged that while his text message criticism was “blunt,” it was not directed at one person or party and included jabs not only at Trump but also at Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

He said he was one of the few people in 2016 who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with the Trump campaign, and that that information could have derailed Trump’s election chances. But, he said, “the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

FBI Director Chris Wray says employees who were singled out for criticism by the inspector general have been referred to internal disciplinary officials. Strzok’s lawyer said he was escorted from the FBI building last month as the disciplinary process proceeds.

Page is expected to speak to lawmakers at a private meeting Friday.

__

By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/q7Y9Tz

WASHINGTON | FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

WASHINGTON — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias vigorously defended himself Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of texts last year that were traded with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

In a chaotic hearing that spanned 10 hours, he insisted he never allowed personal opinions to affect his work, though he did acknowledge being dismayed by Donald Trump’s behavior during the campaign. He also said he had never contemplated leaking damaging information he knew about the Trump campaign and called the hearing “just another victory notch in Putin’s belt.”

“At no time, in any of those texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” Strzok told lawmakers.

In breaking his silence, Strzok came face-to-face with Republicans who argued that the texts had tainted two hugely consequential FBI probes he had helped steer: inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s email use and possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.”

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa made Strzok read some of his texts aloud, including some with profane language. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked colleagues to imagine being investigated by someone who “hated you” and “disparaged you in all manner of ways.”

“Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’? I think not,” Goodlatte said.

Strzok repeatedly insisted the texts, including ones in which he called Trump a “disaster” and said “We’ll stop” a Trump candidacy, did not reflect political bias and had not infected his work.

He said the Trump investigation originated not out of personal animus but rather from concern that Russia was meddling in the election, including what he said were allegations of “extraordinary significance” of a Russian offer of assistance to a Trump campaign member.

He made clear his exasperation at being the focus of a hearing when Russian election interference had successfully sowed discord in America.

“I have the utmost respect for Congress’ oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok said.

The hearing brought to the surface a little-discussed reality of public service: Law enforcement agents and other government workers are permitted to espouse political views but are expected to keep them separate from their work. Strzok said he was not alone in holding political opinions, noting that colleagues in 2016 supported both Clinton and Trump but did not reflect those views on the job.

“What I am telling you is I and the other men and women of the FBI, every day take our personal beliefs, and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth — wherever it lies, whatever it is.”

To which Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, responded, “And I don’t believe you.”

Strzok said under aggressive questioning that a much-discussed August 2016 text in which he vowed “we’ll stop” a Trump candidacy followed Trump’s denigration of the family of a dead U.S. service member. He said the late-night, off-the-cuff text reflected his belief that Americans would not stomach such “horrible, disgusting behavior” by the presidential candidate.

But, he added in a raised voice and emphatic tone: “It was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. So, I take great offense, and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t.”

Plus, he said, both the Clinton and Russia investigations were handled by large teams that “would not tolerate any improper behavior in me anymore than I would tolerate it in them.

“That is who we are as the FBI,” Strzok said in an animated riff that drew Democratic applause. “And the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen.”

The hearing exposed clear partisan divides in the House judiciary and oversight committees, as Democrats accused Republicans of trying to divert attention from Trump’s ties to Russia by excessively focusing on Strzok.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said he would give Strzok a Purple Heart if he could. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, said, “I have never seen my colleagues so out of control, so angry.”

But Republicans eager to undermine Mueller’s investigation berated Strzok, citing the texts as evidence of partisan bias within law enforcement. An inspector general report last month blamed Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page for creating an appearance of impropriety through their texts but found that the outcome of the Clinton investigation wasn’t tainted by bias.

At one point, Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Texas Republican, invoked Strzok’s personal life by alluding to the fact the texts were exchanged while he and Page were in a relationship. Gohmert speculated about whether he looked “so innocent” when he looked into his wife’s eyes and lied about the affair.

The comments sparked immediate objections from Democrats, who called them outrageous, and Strzok was livid. He told Gohmert the fact that he would say that “shows more what you stand for” than anything else. Gohmert tried to shout over him and the committee chairman vainly tried to restore order.

When Strzok declined to answer some questions on the Russia probe, Goodlatte suggested Republicans might recess the hearing and hold him in contempt. Democrats objected and Goodlatte eventually let the hearing proceed.

In his opening statement, Strzok acknowledged that while his text message criticism was “blunt,” it was not directed at one person or party and included jabs not only at Trump but also at Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

He said he was one of the few people in 2016 who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with the Trump campaign, and that that information could have derailed Trump’s election chances. But, he said, “the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

FBI Director Chris Wray says employees who were singled out for criticism by the inspector general have been referred to internal disciplinary officials. Strzok’s lawyer said he was escorted from the FBI building last month as the disciplinary process proceeds.

Page is expected to speak to lawmakers at a private meeting Friday.

__

By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK,  Associated Press

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/q7Y9Tz

WASHINGTON | FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

WASHINGTON — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias vigorously defended himself Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of texts last year that were traded with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

In a chaotic hearing that spanned 10 hours, he insisted he never allowed personal opinions to affect his work, though he did acknowledge being dismayed by Donald Trump’s behavior during the campaign. He also said he had never contemplated leaking damaging information he knew about the Trump campaign and called the hearing “just another victory notch in Putin’s belt.”

“At no time, in any of those texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” Strzok told lawmakers.

In breaking his silence, Strzok came face-to-face with Republicans who argued that the texts had tainted two hugely consequential FBI probes he had helped steer: inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s email use and possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.”

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa made Strzok read some of his texts aloud, including some with profane language. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked colleagues to imagine being investigated by someone who “hated you” and “disparaged you in all manner of ways.”

“Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’? I think not,” Goodlatte said.

Strzok repeatedly insisted the texts, including ones in which he called Trump a “disaster” and said “We’ll stop” a Trump candidacy, did not reflect political bias and had not infected his work.

He said the Trump investigation originated not out of personal animus but rather from concern that Russia was meddling in the election, including what he said were allegations of “extraordinary significance” of a Russian offer of assistance to a Trump campaign member.

He made clear his exasperation at being the focus of a hearing when Russian election interference had successfully sowed discord in America.

“I have the utmost respect for Congress’ oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok said.

The hearing brought to the surface a little-discussed reality of public service: Law enforcement agents and other government workers are permitted to espouse political views but are expected to keep them separate from their work. Strzok said he was not alone in holding political opinions, noting that colleagues in 2016 supported both Clinton and Trump but did not reflect those views on the job.

“What I am telling you is I and the other men and women of the FBI, every day take our personal beliefs, and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth — wherever it lies, whatever it is.”

To which Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, responded, “And I don’t believe you.”

Strzok said under aggressive questioning that a much-discussed August 2016 text in which he vowed “we’ll stop” a Trump candidacy followed Trump’s denigration of the family of a dead U.S. service member. He said the late-night, off-the-cuff text reflected his belief that Americans would not stomach such “horrible, disgusting behavior” by the presidential candidate.

But, he added in a raised voice and emphatic tone: “It was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. So, I take great offense, and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t.”

Plus, he said, both the Clinton and Russia investigations were handled by large teams that “would not tolerate any improper behavior in me anymore than I would tolerate it in them.

“That is who we are as the FBI,” Strzok said in an animated riff that drew Democratic applause. “And the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen.”

The hearing exposed clear partisan divides in the House judiciary and oversight committees, as Democrats accused Republicans of trying to divert attention from Trump’s ties to Russia by excessively focusing on Strzok.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said he would give Strzok a Purple Heart if he could. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, said, “I have never seen my colleagues so out of control, so angry.”

But Republicans eager to undermine Mueller’s investigation berated Strzok, citing the texts as evidence of partisan bias within law enforcement. An inspector general report last month blamed Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page for creating an appearance of impropriety through their texts but found that the outcome of the Clinton investigation wasn’t tainted by bias.

At one point, Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Texas Republican, invoked Strzok’s personal life by alluding to the fact the texts were exchanged while he and Page were in a relationship. Gohmert speculated about whether he looked “so innocent” when he looked into his wife’s eyes and lied about the affair.

The comments sparked immediate objections from Democrats, who called them outrageous, and Strzok was livid. He told Gohmert the fact that he would say that “shows more what you stand for” than anything else. Gohmert tried to shout over him and the committee chairman vainly tried to restore order.

When Strzok declined to answer some questions on the Russia probe, Goodlatte suggested Republicans might recess the hearing and hold him in contempt. Democrats objected and Goodlatte eventually let the hearing proceed.

In his opening statement, Strzok acknowledged that while his text message criticism was “blunt,” it was not directed at one person or party and included jabs not only at Trump but also at Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

He said he was one of the few people in 2016 who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with the Trump campaign, and that that information could have derailed Trump’s election chances. But, he said, “the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

FBI Director Chris Wray says employees who were singled out for criticism by the inspector general have been referred to internal disciplinary officials. Strzok’s lawyer said he was escorted from the FBI building last month as the disciplinary process proceeds.

Page is expected to speak to lawmakers at a private meeting Friday.

__

By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK,  Associated Press