There’s No Bias Like Shown Bias

Now that President Trump is on the pinnacle of announcing his second Supreme Court justice in 18 months, all his nominees owe a big thank you to a “couple” dinged in Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-plus page report.

Peter Strozk Mantra – I Didn’t Do It

Why? Thanks to dozens of incriminating text messages between Peter Strozk and Lisa Page demonstrating copious amounts of bias against both candidate Trump and later President Trump, we are expected to believe that the subjectivity of the “twin texting terribles” played no role in their investigation.

Strozk & Page Text Exchange

So what do texts from the FBI’s former paramours have to do with Trump’s Supreme Court nominees?

If law and order “professionals” like Strozk and Page can exhibit such blatant bias without it presumably affecting their work, why can’t Supreme Court nominees be held to a similar standard?

Consider:  Whoever President Trump’s selection is to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, that candidate is sure to be the target of intense interrogations and slanderous scrutiny about their views of Roe vs Wade, the Second Amendment, and the Trump administrations’s zero-tolerance border policy, just to name a few predictable litmus test issues.

But wait! Based on the new liberal standard that law and justice professionals can hold any subjective opinion regarding the target of an investigation, then let the justice confirmation hearings begin.

Think Trump’s justice nominee has a bias against Roe vs Wade? Doesn’t matter because whatever their typed or unspoken opinion, obviously it won’t affect their duties as a legal professional based on the Strozk-Page legal precedent.

What if the nominee has expressed a private opinion on favoring gun rights or the rights of Christian businesses not to participate in gay nuptials based on religious reasons?

That argument is now moot since, under the Strozk-Page standard, such “free speech” musings by a Supreme Court justice certainly wouldn’t affect how they interpret the Constitution and their subsequent rulings on the high court.

To believe that any individual could be so blatantly biased as Strozk, Page and many others in the DOJ and FBI, and that their bias wouldn’t affect their investigation, strains credulity.

Not to mention that that same blistering bias didn’t affect their judgment on Hillary’s illicit use of an private email server, her exposure of national security secrets and destruction of subpoenaed devices – none of that mattered because [“Trump’s] not ever going to be president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Apparently bias, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder – and all those that wallow in the Deep State swamp.

Thanks for reading Dean Riffs. Welcome to those who love American liberty, free enterprise, and who believe God has blessed our country. For those who believe in open borders, safe spaces, and who think free speech is hate speech, move on – there’s nothing here for you to see.

Sources: washingtonpost.com, foxnews.com, youtube.com

Photo sources: youtube.com, mediaequalizer.com, ednotesonline.blogspot.com

 

Copyright 2018, Dean A. George©

 

2 Comments

    • Thanks, Pete; appreciate the kudos! FYI – I’m rooting President Trump chooses Amy Coney Barrett for Kennedy’s old spot. At only 47 years of age she could be a conservative voice on the court for close to 40 years. She would also be the second sitting Hoosier on the Supreme Court and it’s always good to have a Golden Domer involved in matters of national importance. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *