The fact you believe intelligence services have or should have opposition parties is terrifying. I can understand why this sentiment translates into believing intelligence services should or do fall under the President's direct control.
Intelligence services don't, but people working there certainly do. I.e. Strzok messages showed pretty clearly where his loyalties lie. Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but when one works in a position with vast coercive powers that can be deployed to tip the scales, having strong opinions towards one of the sides usually raises the question of conflict of interest.
My loyalties lie in FBI top brass not playing politics.
> They showed that he supported John Kasich.
Strzok – He asked me who I’d vote for, guessed Kasich.
Page – Seriously?! Would you not D?
Strzok – I don’t know. I suppose Hillary.
Page – I would D.
Not exactly ringing endorsement of Kasich. Later:
Strzok - Exacty re Kasich. And he has ZERO appeal
Also:
Page - God Trump is loathsome human.
Strzok – Yet he many win.
Strzok – Good for Hillary.
Page – It is.
Strzok – Would he be a worse president than Cruz?
Page –Trump?, yes I think so
Strzok – I’m not sure.
Strzok – Omg he’s an idiot.
Page – He’s awful
Strzok – America will get what the voting public deserves.
Page – That’s what I’m afraid of.
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page – I know
Strzok – That Texas article is depressing as hell. But answers how we could end up with President trump
Page – Wasn’t it? Seriously, how are people so incredible ignorant?
Strzok – I have no idea, but it depresses me. Same people who drive more when they get extra daylight from daylight savings, I’m guessing.
Strzok – They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate the absolute bigoted nonsense of Trump
Strzok – God that’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.
And so on and so forth. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a person thinking "F TRUMP". Except when the person is also in charge of investigations that may actually "f Trump" and benefit his opponents. In this case, it might be better to actually have somebody with more balanced approach.
==In this case, it might be better to actually have somebody with more balanced approach.==
Do you have evidence that these texts ever had an impact on this agent's approach? Or are you just speculating to fog the entire discussion?
Did you have this same concern when Republicans were investigating Benghazi and later admitted it was explicitly meant to hurt Hillary politically? That doesn't seem like a "balanced approach" at investigation (https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-beng...).
How about Guiliani talking about a "very big surprise" a few days before the Comey memo? Did he get that information from FBI agents? Again, doesn't seem like a "balanced approach" to me (http://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-hinted-fbi-new-inves...).
The fact you believe intelligence services have or should have opposition parties is terrifying. I can understand why this sentiment translates into believing intelligence services should or do fall under the President's direct control.