If only they really had "stopped" it
by digby
The most salient observation about Peter Strzok and the FBI investigation during the election:
If there was such a conspiracy, of course, it didn’t work. Trump is president and, before the election, there was barely a public whiff that any investigation even existed. If Strzok’s idea was to “stop” Trump from becoming president, it was a spectacular failure.
In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.
“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”
No matter what they say and what they do, they can't get past this fact.
If they had wanted to stop him they could have done it. They were investigating him at the time for colluding with Vladimir Putin. They waved off the New York Times instead.
They helped him win. The fact that they are holding this one sideshow of a public hearing in which they are pretending the opposite just proves how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.
.
