FBI Trump-hater Strozk to testify publicly

#352
#352
I will say, before Gowdy becomes FBI Director (or Attorney General) he needs to shave that ratty beard.
 
#354
#354
Squints said:
Every four years.....

Democrats: “Give us your vote. If you want free everything and a Venezuelan economic model, we’re your party.”

Constituents: “Here, have our vote.”

Constituents after the election: “I’m broke as ****.”

Me: No sh!t, you dumbass!
Click to expand...

Squints: "blah, blah, blah......"

Me: WTF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#356
#356
Grand Vol said:
I will say, before Gowdy becomes FBI Director (or Attorney General) he needs to shave that ratty beard.
Click to expand...

I'll bet the other Representatives tell him that if he wore the Paula Poundstone shoulder pads in his suit he might be mistaken for Ellen Degeneres.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#358
#358
luthervol said:
In my opinion, more time, energy, and money has been spent investigating Hillary than any person in history. The fact that the investigations continued to come up empty couldn't outweigh the 26 years of constant and relentless right wing propaganda. IMHO
Click to expand...

You're right. Hillary is an angel and the right has been out to get her for the last 40+ years.

That is a really tired narrative. She's been involved in scandal after scandal. It's not because anyone is out to get her. Her own highly questionable ethics have led to bad decisions over and over. The fact she has escaped punishment is beyond me, but certainly owing to her political connections. I mean, the whole email thing is clear as day and she should have at least faced charges similar to those brought against General Petraeus, but once again she escapes scot free.

Hillary is no one's victim. Everything she has faced from a scandal standpoint she brought upon herself. It truly baffles me how Democrats have continued to support her through the years rather than begging her to return to the shadows. They had to know at some point the rest of America would see her for the crooked person she is, and they did, which is why Trump really won the election. Had nothing to do with Russia. America did not want Hillary as POTUS. At some point, the left needs to stop swinging on her balls and put her out to pasture. They will be much better off without her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 people
#360
#360
luthervol said:
In my opinion, more time, energy, and money has been spent investigating Hillary than any person in history. The fact that the investigations continued to come up empty couldn't outweigh the 26 years of constant and relentless right wing propaganda. IMHO
Click to expand...

It drives them insane. After decades, they have nothing on her but what some idiot dreams up to support Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#361
#361
zeppelin128 said:
It drives them insane. After decades, they have nothing on her but what some idiot dreams up to support Trump.
Click to expand...

Did she or did she not inappropriately use her private email and a private server while acting as SoS. The answer is yes, she did. So to say they have nothing on her is a complete fabrication. Yes, she has escaped punishment, but don't mistake that as she's innocent of wrongdoing. It's like claiming OJ didn't kill his wife because a jury found him not guilty. We all know the bastard did it. Same thing with Hillary. And it's not the first thing she's gotten away with. Hopefully it will be the last.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#362
#362
Weezer said:
Did she or did she not inappropriately use her private email and a private server while acting as SoS. The answer is yes, she did. So to say they have nothing on her is a complete fabrication. Yes, she has escaped punishment, but don't mistake that as she's innocent of wrongdoing. It's like claiming OJ didn't kill his wife because a jury found him not guilty. We all know the bastard did it. Same thing with Hillary. And it's not the first thing she's gotten away with. Hopefully it will be the last.
Click to expand...

Trump gave away national security assets. That is okay though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#364
#364
Bassmaster_Vol said:
I'm convinced that Hillary could murder someone on live television and wouldn't spend so much as a minute in jail.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton has made a mockery of our justice system. And James Comey helped her. That cannot be debated. She committed a felony as proven by Comeys testimony. But because she is a former first lady, she is immune to the rule of law. It is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#366
#366
evillawyer said:
Let's get clear on what we mean by bias. Is bias belief? Motivation? Action? If belief, then clearly strzok is biased. If motivation, we need a lot more context to determine, because actions can often have multiple motivations. Actions? IG looked at the actions Strzok took and couldn't find anything amiss.
Click to expand...

Bias means that as an investigator you ought to recuse yourself from cases where your obvious bias could even be perceived as affecting your handing of the case.
Strzok made statements about Hillary’s case, assuming innocence, before he had done the proper investigation.
He made statements about Trumps guilt (impeach!) before one had even began. And this wasn’t some mild off the hip comment. His was laced with outright vitriol toward Trump, and worship towards Hillary. (She should win 10 million to zero). Only a shat for brains, soulless, twit would even try to say this isn’t a major ****ing problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#367
#367
Weezer said:
Did she or did she not inappropriately use her private email and a private server while acting as SoS. The answer is yes, she did. So to say they have nothing on her is a complete fabrication. Yes, she has escaped punishment, but don't mistake that as she's innocent of wrongdoing. It's like claiming OJ didn't kill his wife because a jury found him not guilty. We all know the bastard did it. Same thing with Hillary. And it's not the first thing she's gotten away with. Hopefully it will be the last.
Click to expand...
Look at Gowdys questioning of Comey.
-Did this happen?
Comey: yes
-ANd this?
Comey: yes
-So Clinton said.... was that true?
No

Confirms, over and over in a series of questions to the point where you thought, “Holy shat!”
Then Comey basically says, “oh well.”

You have the tarmac meeting. And you now have what appears to be several in the FBI that are in actual collusion to bring down Trump. Oh well. Trumps a dick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#368
#368
Trey Gowdy:

He thinks calling someone destabilizing for the country isn't bias. He thinks promising to protect the country from someone he hasn't even begun to investigate isn't bias. He thinks promising to stop someone he is supposed to be, fairly, investigating from ever becoming president isn't bias.

He thinks talking about an insurance policy to keep someone from becoming president isn't bias. But that's for one of the folks he was investigating. He has a different set of rules for others that he's investigating.

Agent Strzok thinks saying someone he is, allegedly, investigating should be elected president 100 million to zero before he ever interviews. He doesn't think that's bias. Agent Strzok thinks pronouncing someone innocent before bothering to interview more than 30 different witnesses isn't bias.

He thinks claiming you can smell the Trump supporters isn't bias, but he doesn't say a single solitary word about being able to smell the support of any other candidate. To him, that isn't bias.

The moment Special Counsel Bob Mueller found out about Peter Strzok's text and e-mails, he kicked off of the investigation. But that was a year and a half too late. The text and the e-mails may have been discovered in May of 2017, but the bias existed and was manifest a year and a half before that, all the way back to late 2015 and early 2016.

So, it wasn't the discovery of text that got him fired. It was the bias manifest in those texts that made him unfit to objectively and dispassionately investigate. So, if the bias existed in late 2015 and early 2016, and it did, his own fitness to investigate existed then, as well.

Agent Strzok struggled to define bias for the better part of 10 hours. For the rest of us, bias is the prejudging of a person, a group, or a thing. It usually has a negative connotation, but it is a preconceived position or a prejudgment. It is the making up of your mind ahead of time based on anything other than the facts, and that is exactly what he did. Bias is saying, Hillary Clinton should win the presidency 100 million to zero, when she was still under investigation, wasn't even the nominee, hadn't been interviewed and 30 other witnesses had also not been interviewed.

In March of 2016, Agent Strzok had Clinton winning 100 million to zero, even though the investigation was far from being over. That is the prejudging of someone's innocence before all the evidence is in.

On the other hand, he said, Trump would be destabilizing, called him an idiot, abysmal, bigoted nonsense (ph), called him a disaster. He said he should F himself.

Strzok promised to stop Trump from becoming president before the investigation even began. He talked, longingly, of Trump resigning two months after he was inaugurated and well before the special counsel investigation even began.

Strzok even talked about impeachment the day the special counsel was appointed. That is prejudging guilt, it is prejudging punishment, and it is textbook bias. We live in a 50/50 country and we accept that. But we're a 100 percent country when it comes to having law enforcement that doesn't prejudge innocence before investigations are over and doesn't prejudge guilt and punishment before an investigation even begins.

Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her. Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.

Agent Strzok may not see it, but the rest of the country does. And it's not what we want, expect, or deserve from any law enforcement officer, much less the FBI. A fair, bias-free investigation is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's an American issue. Or at least it used to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 people
#372
#372
Roustabout said:
Bias means that as an investigator you ought to recuse yourself from cases where your obvious bias could even be perceived as affecting your handing of the case.
Strzok made statements about Hillary’s case, assuming innocence, before he had done the proper investigation.
He made statements about Trumps guilt (impeach!) before one had even began. And this wasn’t some mild off the hip comment. His was laced with outright vitriol toward Trump, and worship towards Hillary. (She should win 10 million to zero). Only a shat for brains, soulless, twit would even try to say this isn’t a major ****ing problem.
Click to expand...


This is little more than Eddie Murphy's old "wasn't me" adultery bit. Even when she catches you in bed with the other woman, you never fess up. You deny, deny, deny until the questions end.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top