FBI Trump-hater Strozk to testify publicly

#201
#201
Septic said:
Without going back through the last 13 pages, is it safe to assume that rational people all agree that the Strozk finally had his day and laid to rest that he is a boogeyman for the anti trump FBI?

Cause' from what I saw, he laid an epic verbal beatdown on jock sniffing trump window lickers.

Or are the knuckle draggers still entrenched in their cloak and dagger fantasy land where it's them against the world?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLtmzdzCeRsyHbGTxOX4BZvSgXBh20n-_4&v=JRy8z5-CAE0[/youtube]

Gowdy's face at the end is priceless.
Click to expand...

You're very gullible. The texts speak for themselves.

I knew he was full of **** when the GOP brought up that he had said the word "impeachment" in his texts (on the same day the Mueller investigation started no less), and then Strzok tried to argue that he didn't really mean that. I mean come on.

What a joke of an agent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#202
#202
BowlBrother85 said:
As I clearly mentioned in a post above, I only watched today's hearing in bits and pieces. So, if it happened today, I'm not privy to it. If a democrat referenced Stormy Daniels it was just as wrong and just as partisan. Now, the post I was responding to, implied that it had happened before today...
Click to expand...

When don’t you have faux outrage? It is the Left’s thing.
 
#203
#203
SpaceCoastVol said:
Nope faildozer. It was your intent to characterize anyone that disagrees with you in that fashion.
Click to expand...

No one had disagreed with me, it was my first post in this thread. Your logic is as busted as your ability to match my wit.

One of those (probably the window licker one) clearly struck a nerve and you unnecessarily launched a personal attack on me.

It's hurtful, your little cuts leave lasting scars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#204
#204
Septic said:
Without going back through the last 13 pages, is it safe to assume that rational people all agree that the Strozk finally had his day and laid to rest that he is a boogeyman for the anti trump FBI?

Cause' from what I saw, he laid an epic verbal beatdown on jock sniffing trump window lickers.

Or are the knuckle draggers still entrenched in their cloak and dagger fantasy land where it's them against the world?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLtmzdzCeRsyHbGTxOX4BZvSgXBh20n-_4&v=JRy8z5-CAE0[/youtube]

Gowdy's face at the end is priceless.
Click to expand...

Sadly the media didn't use crayons to draw you an accurate picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#205
#205
evillawyer said:
Let's see if ANYBODY in the GOP comes to Goober's defense over that episode. My guess is no. But who knows. Those freedom caucus guys have no shame.
Click to expand...

The Left defends ridiculous statements made everyday by them and their surrogates. Remember when Clarence Thomas wash black enough, Alberto Gonzalez wasn’t Hispanic enough, and virtually anyone nominated by a Republican being too Christian. It’s about time the Left got to hear the crap they constantly spew out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#206
#206
The few minutes of testimony I saw told me a couple of things....first.... Peter Strozk is little beeotch.....the second .... the Dems in attendance all want to fellate him
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#207
#207
AirVol said:
I bet you have your vagina hat on while you typed that.
Click to expand...

Weak.

Don't bring that re-tread nonsense in here. It was funny the first time someone else said it.

Step up your game.
 
#208
#208
Carl Pickens said:
The few minutes of testimony I saw told me a couple of things....first.... Peter Strozk is little beeotch.....the second .... the Dems in attendance all want to fellate him
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't understand the Democrat's response to this guy. They keep portraying him as some kind of hero, when in reality both he and his accomplice have single-handedly undermined our highest law enforcement institutions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#209
#209
Septic said:
Without going back through the last 13 pages, is it safe to assume that rational people all agree that the Strozk finally had his day and laid to rest that he is a boogeyman for the anti trump FBI?

Cause' from what I saw, he laid an epic verbal beatdown on jock sniffing trump window lickers.

Or are the knuckle draggers still entrenched in their cloak and dagger fantasy land where it's them against the world?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLtmzdzCeRsyHbGTxOX4BZvSgXBh20n-_4&v=JRy8z5-CAE0[/youtube]

Gowdy's face at the end is priceless.
Click to expand...

Well your assessments also view Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff, Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Edwards as intelligent/capable leaders. And, government run healthcare and open borders as sound policies so your judgment is duly noted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#210
#210
Matt2496 said:
You're very gullible. The texts speak for themselves.

I knew he was full of **** when the GOP brought up that he had said the word "impeachment" in his texts (on the same day the Mueller investigation started no less), and then Strzok tried to argue that he didn't really mean that. I mean come on.

What a joke of an agent.
Click to expand...

That is a part of the disconnect that we have. Text messages don't speak for themselves. They need proper context. An honest, reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that most of us put things in text messages sent to our family and close friends all the time that we don't really mean. One important question to ask is simply: Did Peter Strzok ever follow through with actions consistent with what he had expressed in those text messages to Lisa Page? The texts themselves are just words to a girlfriend... which he claims weren't intended to be interpreted literally. What about his actions? Did he take steps to follow through on this expressed bias? That is what is most important and there is no evidence that he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#211
#211
Carl Pickens said:
The few minutes of testimony I saw told me a couple of things....first.... Peter Strozk is little beeotch.....the second .... the Dems in attendance all want to fellate him
Click to expand...

He is their hero right up there with Mao and Fidel. They have never been good at choosing heroes. The Left still thinks Che Guevara was a brilliant revolutionist
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#212
#212
landscapingvol said:
Well your assessments also view Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff, Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Edwards as intelligent/capable leaders. And, government run healthcare and open borders as sound policies so your judgment is duly noted
Click to expand...

My "assessments"

LOL, you don't know me kid.

Cite your source or gtfo with that nonsense.

I think all of those people suck ass, except for Maxine Waters - she's a national treasure who's character and wisdom is beyond your pathetic reproach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a part of the disconnect that we have. Text messages don't speak for themselves. They need proper context. An honest, reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that most of us put things in text messages sent to our family and close friends all the time that we don't really mean. One important question to ask is simply: Did Peter Strzok ever follow through with actions consistent with what he had expressed in those text messages to Lisa Page? The texts themselves are just words to a girlfriend... which he claims weren't intended to be interpreted literally. What about his actions? Did he take steps to follow through on this expressed bias? That is what is most important and there is no evidence that he did.
Click to expand...

^Some serious spinnage.

Since when do side whores constitute being a family member or a friend?

She was nothing but a piece of ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#216
#216
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a part of the disconnect that we have. Text messages don't speak for themselves. They need proper context. An honest, reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that most of us put things in text messages sent to our family and close friends all the time that we don't really mean. One important question to ask is simply: Did Peter Strzok ever follow through with actions consistent with what he had expressed in those text messages to Lisa Page? The texts themselves are just words to a girlfriend... which he claims weren't intended to be interpreted literally. What about his actions? Did he take steps to follow through on this expressed bias? That is what is most important and there is no evidence that he did.
Click to expand...

Please list the reasons where impeachment is a legitimate subject for an FBI employee in the middle of a contentious election who happens to be investigating the duly elected president he doesn’t support
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#218
#218
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a part of the disconnect that we have. Text messages don't speak for themselves. They need proper context. An honest, reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that most of us put things in text messages sent to our family and close friends all the time that we don't really mean. One important question to ask is simply: Did Peter Strzok ever follow through with actions consistent with what he had expressed in those text messages to Lisa Page? The texts themselves are just words to a girlfriend... which he claims weren't intended to be interpreted literally. What about his actions? Did he take steps to follow through on this expressed bias? That is what is most important and there is no evidence that he did.
Click to expand...

If you want to express your dislike of a political candidate as an FBI agent, why the **** would you do it on a government-issued smartphone? Why not do it on your private phone?

We also know for a fact that Strzok prioritized the Trump-Russia investigation over the Weiner laptop finding. And that Hillary was given preferential treatment by allowing more than just herself (witnesses to be exact!) during her interview with the FBI. This was made clear during the Horowitz hearings that this was not typical DOJ procedure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#219
#219
landscapingvol said:
Please list the reasons where impeachment is a legitimate subject for an FBI employee in the middle of a contentious election who happens to be investigating the duly elected president he doesn’t support
Click to expand...

My favorite moment was the look on Gowdy's face when Strzok told him that his impeachment text didn't imply that he was making a judgement about whether Trump should be impeached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#220
#220
Septic said:
My "assessments"

LOL, you don't know me kid.

Cite your source or gtfo with that nonsense.

I think all of those people suck ass, except for Maxine Waters - she's a national treasure who's character and wisdom is beyond your pathetic reproach.
Click to expand...

I have upset you? I don’t need to cite your lunacy it is firmly on display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#224
#224
landscapingvol said:
Please list the reasons where impeachment is a legitimate subject for an FBI employee in the middle of a contentious election who happens to be investigating the duly elected president he doesn’t support
Click to expand...

You're still just talking about the content of the texts he sent to Page; not actions he took to follow through on his expressed bias. And he wasn't investigating the president specifically. He was investigating Russia's efforts to influence the election.

*If he had wanted to damage the Trump campaign, he knew about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower well ahead of the election. He could have made that public. He didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#225
#225
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a part of the disconnect that we have. Text messages don't speak for themselves. They need proper context. An honest, reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that most of us put things in text messages sent to our family and close friends all the time that we don't really mean. One important question to ask is simply: Did Peter Strzok ever follow through with actions consistent with what he had expressed in those text messages to Lisa Page? The texts themselves are just words to a girlfriend... which he claims weren't intended to be interpreted literally. What about his actions? Did he take steps to follow through on this expressed bias? That is what is most important and there is no evidence that he did.
Click to expand...
wow.

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top