FBI Trump-hater Strozk to testify publicly

#403
#403
Vol0725 said:
What I saw yesterday was the GOP asked actual indepth piercing questions. Now on occasion, the GOP got potentially too aggressive, but rarely. The GOP did have a few embarrassing moments indeed...but the Dems, OMG they were something else.

The Dems would only grand stand and blame the GOP (or talk about other subjects) of trying to give the FBI a bad name. They basically cheered, aided and abetted Strozk throughout the entire day. It’s sad the Dems actually could care a less what this guy may have done that's unethical or potentially illegal, all because he's an anti-Trumper.
Click to expand...


The Dems were in an untenable situation. They were trying to protect Strozk from answering the most dangerous questions, limit the damage by running out the clock, and take that clock-running as an opportunity to bash Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#405
#405
Mick said:
PR stunt by the GOP. Call it what it is.
Click to expand...

Equally so, an embarrassing defense circus from the Dems.

Let's call it what it is...the dude has ethics and honesty issues. He's at best an embarrassment, at worst a criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#406
#406
Roustabout said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is so easy and clear and yet people, including dems in our government, are defending him and supporting him. There is no integrity in politics at all, especially on the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#407
#407
Orange_Crush said:
The Dems were in an untenable situation. They were trying to protect Strozk from answering the most dangerous questions, limit the damage by running out the clock, and take that clock-running as an opportunity to bash Trump.
Click to expand...

There were a few SIMPLE, NON-SECURITY RISK questions that he could easily have answered. He hid behind FBI protocol that he couldn't comment about ongoing investigations, but commented on EVERY Dem questions about ongoing investigations. Joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#409
#409
Bassmaster_Vol said:
This is so easy and clear and yet people, including dems in our government, are defending him and supporting him. There is no integrity in politics at all, especially on the left.
Click to expand...

Remember, Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen from Memphis ( a left-wing filthy loony douchebag & a gutter rat that eats sh!t all day) wants to give Strozk a big Purple Heart because of his angry & hateful bias against Trump.

Democrats are such sick sick mental disasters roaming the streets wanting to bring down America at all cost. All & everything for the slimy Democratic Party over what's good & best for the American people all day everyday.....screw the American people because we (Dems) want to rule is their motto.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#410
#410
luthervol said:
No nothing that horrible. They were just illegally hiding the fact that they were fabricating the story of proof of Iraqi possession of WMDs so the world could be tricked into going to war.
Click to expand...

See, this is where you’re wrong. It’s already been proven they were moved to Syria. Oh, also they’ve found lots of the WMD’s buried. Say what you want, but you are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#411
#411
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Remember, Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen from Memphis ( a left-wing filthy loony douchebag & a gutter rat that eats sh!t all day) wants to give Strozk a big Purple Heart because of his angry & hateful bias against Trump.

Democrats are such sick sick mental disasters roaming the streets wanting to bring down America at all cost. All & everything for the slimy Democratic Party over what's good & best for the American people all day everyday.....screw the American people because we (Dems) want to rule is their motto.
Click to expand...

The Republican party and most repubs are little if any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#412
#412
Mick said:
PR stunt by the GOP. Call it what it is.
Click to expand...

If it's just a PR stunt, why did Mueller take one look at the situation and fire him?

Sure, they're going for a political investigation narrative which I doubt is entirely true, but face it.... Strzok is a weasel whose actions aren't worth defending no matter what you think people motivations are. You'd rightly lose your mind at such a blatant appearance of bias if the tables were turned and there was a Democrat in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#413
#413
GAVol said:
If it's just a PR stunt, why did Mueller take one look at the situation and fire him?

Sure, they're going for a political investigation narrative which I doubt is entirely true, but face it.... Strzok is a weasel whose actions aren't worth defending no matter what you think people motivations are. You'd rightly lose your mind at such a blatant appearance of bias if the tables were turned and there was a Democrat in office.
Click to expand...

Muller was doing his job to not taint any evidence by removing him from the case. Can you point to any tainted evidence in mueller's investigation? Otherwise it is a PR stunt to discredit the FBI and Mueller's investigation. If his dislike for Trump has any bearing on the evidence I would like to know what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#417
#417
Mick said:
This is nothing more than political theater for the Red Hats.
Click to expand...

You can try to dismiss it all you want, but anybody knows that it looks awful. Between the texts on a government phone and the extramarital affair, there's no way this guy should still be working counterintelligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#418
#418
GAVol said:
You can try to dismiss it all you want, but anybody knows that it looks awful. Between the texts on a government phone and the extramarital affair, there's no way this guy should still be working counterintelligence.
Click to expand...

It don't look good on him "personally" about the affair but his expressed dislike for Trump just shows he agrees with the majority of the world.
 
#419
#419
GAVol said:
You can try to dismiss it all you want, but anybody knows that it looks awful. Between the texts on a government phone and the extramarital affair, there's no way this guy should still be working counterintelligence.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love a man that is almost at the top of the FBI saying...."well, that text was late at night and I don't know what I was saying"........now THAT is a defense of a brilliant mind......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#422
#422
Mick said:
It don't look good on him "personally" about the affair but his expressed dislike for Trump just shows he agrees with the majority of the world.
Click to expand...

First of all, there's no "personal" to it. If he's engaged in an affair, he's open to blackmail. That's why it's relevant.

You can nod in agreement with him over the Trump texts, but that's a terrible road to go down for what is supposed to be an apolitical organization. There's a reason law enforcement and the judiciary go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#424
#424
Mick said:
Muller was doing his job to not taint any evidence by removing him from the case. Can you point to any tainted evidence in mueller's investigation? Otherwise it is a PR stunt to discredit the FBI and Mueller's investigation. If his dislike for Trump has any bearing on the evidence I would like to know what it is.
Click to expand...


So, Mueller knew that the investigation was tainted with the bias known. The problem is that the bias existed since before the first interviews were conducted. So, his presence leading the investigation tainted the investigation.


The logic is inescapable.


Mick said:
It don't look good on him "personally" about the affair but his expressed dislike for Trump just shows he agrees with the majority of the world.
Click to expand...


It looked even worse on him professionally. The "majority" of the world was not in a position to lead two investigations--one against Trump and the other "against" his political opponent. The "majority" of the world didn't lead the investigation against Trump and Clinton while texting beforehand that Trump was guilty and Clinton would be president.


You're not dumb, Mick. We have every faith that any lack of understanding of that on your part is willful, and not an inability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#425
#425
Orange_Crush said:
So, Mueller knew that the investigation was tainted with the bias known. The problem is that the bias existed since before the first interviews were conducted. So, his presence leading the investigation tainted the investigation.


The logic is inescapable.





It looked even worse on him professionally. The "majority" of the world was not in a position to lead two investigations--one against Trump and the other "against" his political opponent. The "majority" of the world didn't lead the investigation against Trump and Clinton while texting beforehand that Trump was guilty and Clinton would be president.


You're not dumb, Mick. We have every faith that any lack of understanding of that on your part is willful, and not an inability.
Click to expand...

Did he text that Trump was guilty?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top