[ By Charles Cameron — if the parallelism I see isn’t a mirage, it would seem highly relevant to both men and related issues ]
Peter Strzok and Brett Kavanaugh:
I’ll try to keep this brief, and won’t use my usual DoubleQuotes graphical formalism, which would be costly in both time and space.
Here we go:
It strikes me that there’s a parallelism between the issues swirling around the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the Supreme Court, and those concerning FBI agent Peter Strzok, formerly Chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section in the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees joint hearing today..
The parallelism can best be expressed in ternms of a question: can a professional in the field of justice holding strong political opinions credibaly claim to remain unbiased when in professional pursuit of justice?
In the case of Agent Strzok, Democrats would very much prefer the answer to be Yes, while Republicans would like the answer to be an incredulous No — while presumably in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, Democrats would tend to the incredulous No side, while Republicans would prefer a resounding Yes. No doubt there are more subtleties here, but I’m no lawyer and this is the best I can manage.
That quibble aside, the two situations apparently fall into different silos, and I haven’t seen anyone bringing the two situations together in the hope that one would illuminate the other.
Have I simply missed the relevant materials, or does no one else wish to admit the parallelism? It seems to me that most of what I see is partisanship without much principle.
Your comments, refinements and refutations are warmly encouraged.