Ingraham: Pro-Hillary Investigators in Mueller Probe Unacceptable, Disgusting and Unfair
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” host Laura Ingraham chided special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election for enlisting an apparent anti-Donald Trump investigator.
Ingraham called it “unacceptable,” “disgusting” and “unfair” that backers of Trump’s 2016 election opponent Hillary Clinton were parts of this investigation.
All right, guys, we are loaded up tonight. You are not going to want to miss one moment of this show. But first — we’re only now learning why former FBI Director Jim Comey contorted himself to not indict Hillary Clinton regarding her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.
Tonight, we can tell you that it appears that the FBI’s lead investigator and deputy chief of counter-intel has been revealed to be just another Clinton crony and Trump hater. Peter Strzok was found to have exchanged anti-Trump texts during the 2016 presidential debates with another colleague at the Justice Department. This according to The New York Times.
And get this, he attended Hillary’s pre-Fourth of July interview that was never transcribed, and he reportedly urged Comey to strike the phrase “grossly negligent” to describe Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information. He softened it to “extremely careless.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COMEY: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Unbelievable. And this gets better. This same partisan official was one of the lead investigators assigned to the bureau’s Trump Russia inquiry. He was very busy. And not only that, but he was also part of the interview team that questioned Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn on January 24.
What a coincidence! This guy is just everywhere! But wait, there’s more. Mr. Strzok is a pal of Comey’s. He wasn’t taken off the case by special counsel Robert Mueller until this past summer in July.
So why the heck didn’t Mueller inform the public given the stakes involved and the need for public trust in this investigation? Why didn’t he tell anybody? This guy was writing anti-Trump texts during the debates. So much for transparency.
And, of course, let’s not forget we have a gaggle of anti-Trump, pro- Hillary prosecutors who are still working for Mueller right now. My friends, this is unacceptable. It’s disgusting. And it’s unfair.
Tonight, I urge the DOJ’s inspector general who seems like a terrific guy, Michael Horowitz to release a full transcript of Mr. Strzok’s text and maybe even those of other key Clinton and Russia investigators.
Now, remember, this is the same man who helped lead the investigation into the so-called Trump-Russia collusion, this Mr. Strzok character. I have a question — how can anyone at this point just learning this fact and the other facts that we’ve cited on this show trust the Mueller office at this point?
No transparency. They’re not telling us the truth about this. And we’re only learning it when the inspector general somehow releases this information to the public. Since the Mike Flynn plea deal, just last week, the media experts are predicting, it’s curtains. It’s over for the Trump presidency.
R.I.P. Donald Trump’s political life. But I’ll tell you what’s obvious. Here it is, although Flynn did lie, the collusion case died. So now they’re on the so-called obstruction of justice case against President Trump. The experts think it’s all cut and dried.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, host MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: Public record, there’s one piece of evidence for obstruction of justice after another, and this seems to be exhibit one.
CNN’S JAKE TAPPER: That seems to be in the territory of obstruction of justice.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): I think that we’re beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Move over, F. Lee Bailey. Now, so how worried should Trump be at this point? Well, time will tell. We don’t really know at this point.
But consider that the media and legal and political experts who are predicting Trump’s impeachment, they also predicted this about the president’s travel ban.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CNN’S VAN JONES: There is a discriminatory intent here and the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear.
RICHARD PAINTER, LAWYER: It was premised on religious discrimination. It’s very clear that the president is acting unconstitutional.
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): You said we don’t want to ban any — on the basis of religion. That’s against our constitution. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.
WAJAHAT ALI, MUSLIM-AMERICAN PLAYWRIGHT: Thank you for calling it what it is. I’m going to call it what it is. It’s a Muslim ban.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, today, a refreshingly sane order by the Supreme Court on President Trump’s so-called travel ban of six mostly Muslim countries. Court declined to halt the ban despite rulings in two different lower courts.
This was a preliminary but nevertheless, a major victory for President Trump who always had the constitutional right to determine the classes of people who can and cannot enter the country for security reasons.
Now, once again, the experts are wrong. And while the media has a case of the vapors — a total meltdown over Flynn’s cooperation with Mueller, the president is racking up win after win. Tax cuts are coming. Retail is soaring this Christmas season. The market is way up.
And now, a key win at the Supreme Court. And it’s only Monday, my friends! And that’s “The Angle.”
[contf] [contfnew] 
Breitbart
[contfnewc] [contfnewc]
