DOJ recovers missing text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents Strzok and Page

#3
#3
Good.

I have been wondering if the FBI secret society met at the pizza Comet Ping Pong place. Maybe we can find out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5
#5
"What this is all about is further evidence of corruption, more than bias," the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview with Fox News Channel. "Corruption of the highest levels of the FBI. The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group that was holding secret meetings off-site."


Let's see where they were meeting.

PS, if it is never proven that there were meetings of a secret society, and no confidential informant saying that, then this Senator deserves to be impeached, forthwith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
Regardless of whether or not there was/is a secret society conspiracy, the fact remains that the text messages and emails show an EXTREME BIAS within the Obama justice department, and the FBI.

There is no denying that fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
Let's see where they were meeting.

PS, if it is never proven that there were meetings of a secret society, and no confidential informant saying that, then this Senator deserves to be impeached, forthwith.

Secret societies tend to work that way


You know, the first rule of Fight Club...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
Is the charge of obstruction of justice based on formal broken laws or is simply a matter of belief?

If the former, what difference does it make if the two FBI people thought Trump was a moron? If Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation for example, how is it relevant what these two believed, however ethically debatable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
Regardless of whether or not there was/is a secret society conspiracy, the fact remains that the text messages and emails show an EXTREME BIAS within the Obama justice department, and the FBI.

There is no denying that fact.

What is EXTREME BIAS?

That sounds like something someone with EXTREME BIAS would accuse someone else of having if they didn't agree.
 
#10
#10
Is the charge of obstruction of justice based on formal broken laws or is simply a matter of belief?

If the former, what difference does it make if the two FBI people thought Trump was a moron? If Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation for example, how is it relevant what these two believed, however ethically debatable?

How did or would the firing of Comey impede the investigation? You have to be able to answer that question before you can accuse him of obstructing justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
How did or would the firing of Comey impede the investigation? You have to be able to answer that question before you can accuse him of obstructing justice.

Are you asking how firing the person investigating you would impede the investigation? :blink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Is the charge of obstruction of justice based on formal broken laws or is simply a matter of belief?

If the former, what difference does it make if the two FBI people thought Trump was a moron? If Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation for example, how is it relevant what these two believed, however ethically debatable?

Because they allowed it to shape how they performed their duties which, as civil servants, is a no no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#15
#15
Are you asking how firing the person investigating you would impede the investigation? :blink:

Oh lawd, if Trump really wanted to watch y’all crash and burn, he’d fire Mueller.

There’s not enough water in the TN River to put out such a blaze.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#16
#16
The investigation continued and Comey was fired for good reason.

Not really what I was asking but OK.

"Good reason" is subjective, I'm asking if there are objective lines that must be crossed to qualify as obstruction of justice.

If that threshold was met, what difference does it make what these two fbi agents thought?
 
#19
#19
Not really what I was asking but OK.

"Good reason" is subjective, I'm asking if there are objective lines that must be crossed to qualify as obstruction of justice.

If that threshold was met, what difference does it make what these two fbi agents thought?

It begins to introduce a good bit of "reasonable doubt" if you have biased people performing the investigation. which is why you see most people remove themselves from the case.
 
#20
#20
Not really what I was asking but OK.

"Good reason" is subjective, I'm asking if there are objective lines that must be crossed to qualify as obstruction of justice.

If that threshold was met, what difference does it make what these two fbi agents thought?

He admitted he leaked classified info to a professor pal...... sounds like a good reason to me
 
#21
#21
Because they allowed it to shape how they performed their duties which, as civil servants, is a no no.

I believe all law enforcement investigations are biased. How does that matter if the law was proven to have been broken?

I'm simply looking for a rational explanation for the conflation of the subjective beliefs of these two agents causing the law to objectively have been broken.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
He admitted he leaked classified info to a professor pal...... sounds like a good reason to me

Technically, the information leaked by Comey after his firing was not classified. That's been addressed already. That's not to say there weren't many reasons to fire him.
 

VN Store



Back
Top