Peter Strzok's Testimony Today

So, a guy walks up to a girl who is sitting on a bar stool, where she had gone to order another drink.  The male interloper leans over and starts yammering.  Mostly ignoring him, she begins texting her girlfriends at a nearby table, who are watching with amusement.

The string of texts she sends are these:

Total jerk!
😣😣😣
Guy is idiot.
Drink pls.
Drop dead.
NOT MY FAULT.
OMG!!!

When her drink arrives, she returns to her girlfriends.  Give me your guess.  Did he get her phone number or not?

At today's Congressional hearing, FBI special agent Peter Strzok insisted that his texts with Lisa Page had no influence on his investigation of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Indeed, according to him, his texts may have reflected his strong personal beliefs, but they do not reflect a bias against either of them vis-a-vis his investigative efforts.  Hmm.  Okay.  In that same vein, I assume the girl's texts merely expressed her private beliefs and had nothing to do with her refusal to pass out her phone number.  Um ... sure.

In fairness to Mr. Strzok, I completely understand that if a guy has a history of setting off explosives and you are currently investigating him on yet another terrorist charge, you may believe him guilty before actually collecting sufficient evidence to prosecute.  That's not a complicated notion.  Many law enforcement investigators start with a hunch or presupposition early into an investigation, depending on the prima facie evidence, and then use their skills to see if the facts fit the theory.  It's called experience.  Cui bono, right?  That's not a new idea.  But, as important as hunches can be when trying to solve a crime, that's not really the issue here, is it?  Hunch or not, compelling (or sufficient) evidence still must be gathered.  Deciding Hillary Clinton is innocent before she and her staff have been interviewed?  Deciding Trump must be stopped before he is even elected?  That's a different tack altogether.

While listening to Committee Democrats defend Strzok's self-defense, I was reminded of a joke:

A wife comes home and finds her husband naked and in bed with another woman.  She shrieks in disbelief and shouts that he is a slimy adulterer.  After pulling up the sheets, he denies the claim, insists that he is innocent, and retorts, "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?

... a defense that Democrats in today's Congressional hearing would have uniformly supported, based on their insistence that the wife obviously was biased and therefore must be a Republican.  Plus, the pre-planned Democrat dissembling in the first thirty minutes (Point of order!  Point of order!) was ludicrous, earning them four pinochios and a ...

Listen for yourself if you have time for it.  Otherwise, trust me on this one.  As with most other Congressional hearings, it's like Olympic fencing.  No one ever gets stabbed.  Contestants are judged merely on who can thrust and parry the best.