|
Post by Cooter Brown on Jul 12, 2018 11:11:14 GMT -6
Shelia Jackson Lee is really out in left field-----Any questions coming ? Another dumb democrat wanting to make it something it isn't about. Jackson Lee..."did you pacifically know..." Fuckin pathetic
|
|
|
Post by Cooter Brown on Jul 12, 2018 11:38:05 GMT -6
I don't think it is COMPLETELY possible to remove personal bias' from ones job. If you hate something, you hate it and it will affect how you view situations. It is possible to not do it overtly or blantantly...but if you hate Ford's you hate Fords...also crash test are pretty cut and dried...not clearly as cut and dried as an "investigation". It's all about the prism you view things through.. But that's my point: You can see with hard evidence whether or not Russians tried to influence the election by buying ads, for example. You can ascertain as to whether Hillary was using a private server. Those are not affected on iota by bias. What IS affected by bias are making determinations, such as using terms (as noted in the hearings), careless or negligent (as it pertains to Hillary). Whether or not Trump penned the letter for his son one the plane is not subject to the bias of the interviewer who asks the question or the investigator doing the investigating....he either did or didn't. I'd like to know what parts of the investigation do they KNOW were tainted due to bias? In regards to the Hillary email scandal...there is ZERO doubt in my mind that "gross negligence" being removed is border line criminal. I also think that Strzok tired to downplay his role in the investigation and how much he affected what information was actually revealed. He is a 26 yr vet of the FBI, it would have been easy for him to misplace or lose vital information (not accusing, just pointing out) that could have affected the final outcome. I hold a clearance and I can sure as hell tell you that if I did 1/64th of what Hillary did...I would be in jail...they would pumping in sunlight. As far as the Russia investigation...you can rest assure if there was ANY evidence that Trump was involved...we would have know about it LONG ago.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:11:16 GMT -6
Time for Mueller to testify:
Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ Strzok testified Mueller kicked him off his team not because of the clear bias he revealed in his text messages but because of "appearance." In other words,he implied Mueller wd have kept him on if not for the political fallout. lf that's true, Mueller should be called to testify 11:51 AM - Jul 12, 2018
1,948
1,135 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by redrex1 on Jul 12, 2018 13:12:44 GMT -6
I loved the question about personal bias-----Mr. Strzok other than the thousands of messages about f trump ,impeachment and stopping him that you sent from your FBI phone you were in no way bias. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:13:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:15:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:20:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:22:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:26:06 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32997/peter-strzok-claims-congress-holding-him-ryan-saavedraDisgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congressional leaders on Thursday that their attempt to hold him accountable for his actions in light of his strong anti-Trump political bias is a "victory" for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Strzok made the comments during a Congressional hearing on how his animus toward Donald Trump and fondness for Hillary Clinton impacted investigations involving both political figures in which he played an integral role. "I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity," Strzok said during his opening statement. "But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy." Strzok then claimed that Congress' attempt to hold him accountable for his actions was a win for Putin and the Russian leader's goal of destroying the United States. "Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful — sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions," Strzok continued. "I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:28:41 GMT -6
Kimberley Strassel ✔ @kimstrassel 90-minute takeway from Strzok hearing: Democrats have forged new strategy for shutting down oversight. Interrupt, call points of order, argue over points of order, demand recorded votes, eat up time, protect the witness. Hope Republicans are taking notes. 11:30 AM - Jul 12, 2018
15.9K
8,118 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:29:39 GMT -6
Ben Siegel ✔ @benyc Strzok hearing has devolved into shouting match between Democrats and Chairman Goodlatte. Nadler trying to adjourn the hearing, as R's criticize Strzok for not answering questions. Strzok says he's been instructed by FBI counsel not to answer. 11:07 AM - Jul 12, 2018
38
36 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:32:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 13:55:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Jul 12, 2018 14:08:28 GMT -6
Not understanding why the democrats in attendance feel like Peter Strzok, who is an adult, needs them to hold his hand.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 12, 2018 14:08:31 GMT -6
Can anyone, and I mean this sincerely as I have not kept up as much lately, provide ACTUAL evidence where this guy's obvious bias affected his conducting the investigation? Can a guy who likes Chevy's and hates Ford's conduct a crash test on Fords for consumer reports magazine or some other entity without his bias affecting the investigation? The evidence is the evidence is it not? I can understand why it would be questioned, but without any proof, the evidence is the evidence. What if it was discovered that that guy had sent text messages and emails to colleagues saying how shitty he thinks Fords are, how he once owned one and had all kinds of problems with it, how he knows a Ford executive and how he hates him and thinks he's a terrible person, and how he thinks Ford needs to go bankrupt? And what if he has a vested interest in Chevy doing well (he owns Chevy stock), and in Ford's sales tanking? And what if there was a text message discovered with a colleague where the colleague asked about the upcoming crash test and what happens if Ford does great and Chevy not so much...and he responds with "Don't worry, I'll take care of it"? And then the next consumer report comes out, and lo and behold...Chevy does much better than Ford in the crash test ratings? Then all of this comes out, but, oh snap! There's no proof or evidence of any wrongdoing by this guy! He should keep his job and not be held accountable!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 15:11:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 15:12:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 15:13:29 GMT -6
James Woods ✔ @realjameswoods How dare this squealing sycophant pig #Cohen denigrate the integrity of the Purple Heart? To what depths will #Democrats sink to protect their fellow swamp denizens? 2:30 PM - Jul 12, 2018
10.5K
4,687 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 15:14:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 15:23:06 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/07/12/comey-directed-strzok-russia-investigation-priority/FBI Assistant Director Peter Strzok testified Thursday that former FBI Director James Comey directed him to focus his time and resources on the Russian election interference investigation over Hillary Clinton’s use of classified information. In a fiery joint Judiciary and Oversight Committee hearing, Strzok was asked by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler why he thought it was important to “prioritize” the Russia investigation in October 2016 over the recent reopening of the Clinton case due to the discovery of emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
|
|
|
Post by nmgaucho on Jul 12, 2018 15:28:45 GMT -6
In his wildest dreams, Putin couldn't imagine that, two years after he directed attacks against American elections, an American president would be undermining generations-old alliances of Western democracies, while a majority of members of the US House of Representatives would be destroying the credibility of the intelligence agencies tasked with investigating Russian interference.
|
|
ou48a
Quarantined
Posts: 79
|
Post by ou48a on Jul 12, 2018 15:37:34 GMT -6
The Democrats and their media have zero boundaries and zero respect for the rule of law and its process!
Their continued outrageous behavior as seen in today’s hearings has caused them become a threat to our democracy… they must be severely punished by all in the voting booths.
No doubt about it….The democrats and most of their media have been hijacked by George Soros. This is getting into dangerous territory for a nation.
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 12, 2018 16:36:12 GMT -6
Anyone in prison yet? Still only kabuki theater...
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 19:29:54 GMT -6
Nice of the House Democrats to applaud Strzock:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 19:33:17 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Strzok: "Mr. Ohr provided information to the FBI that included material that is what everybody is calling the dossier."
Fusion GPS didn't hire Nellie Ohr for her expertise. They hired her because of her contacts. 6:23 PM - Jul 12, 2018
776
415 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2018 19:37:52 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/07/12/ig-clinton-foreign-emails/A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added. Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information. Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the “specific content.” “The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, “but you were given that information and you did nothing with it.” He also said that someone alerted the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to the issue. “Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,” Gohmert said.
|
|
|
Post by soonerbounce13 on Jul 13, 2018 6:31:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2018 6:39:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2018 6:42:01 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/07/12/strzok-security-clearance/Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was given a limited security clearance ahead of his testimony before Congress on Thursday, a Justice Department official tells The Daily Caller News Foundation. The official disclosed Strzok’s security clearance status after Strzok claimed during a joint hearing on Thursday that he has a top secret security clearance. “You currently have what classification?” Strzok was asked by Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees. “I have a top secret clearance with some SCI compartments,” replied Strzok, the former deputy director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. “SCI” is an acronym for highly classified materials known as Sensitive Compartmented Information.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Jul 13, 2018 7:02:01 GMT -6
But that's my point: You can see with hard evidence whether or not Russians tried to influence the election by buying ads, for example. You can ascertain as to whether Hillary was using a private server. Those are not affected on iota by bias. What IS affected by bias are making determinations, such as using terms (as noted in the hearings), careless or negligent (as it pertains to Hillary). Whether or not Trump penned the letter for his son one the plane is not subject to the bias of the interviewer who asks the question or the investigator doing the investigating....he either did or didn't. I'd like to know what parts of the investigation do they KNOW were tainted due to bias? In regards to the Hillary email scandal...there is ZERO doubt in my mind that "gross negligence" being removed is border line criminal. I also think that Strzok tired to downplay his role in the investigation and how much he affected what information was actually revealed. He is a 26 yr vet of the FBI, it would have been easy for him to misplace or lose vital information (not accusing, just pointing out) that could have affected the final outcome. I hold a clearance and I can sure as hell tell you that if I did 1/64th of what Hillary did...I would be in jail...they would pumping in sunlight. As far as the Russia investigation...you can rest assure if there was ANY evidence that Trump was involved...we would have know about it LONG ago. So the answer is you and others really don't know? You don't really have any hard evidence that ANY aspect of this massive investigation was tainted because onE of the investigators doesn't like the campaign and the associates of the one being investigated? If that is not correct, please feel free to set me straight.
It appears from your answer that you FEEL that some malevolence was almost assuredly committed because of one's dislike of Trump (and I understand why a person might QUESTION whether a person is being treated fairly by the mere presence of bias) but, again, you and congress, have no real evidence of this taking place. To the contrary, you have an IG report stating the opposite (but for some reason, they're assumed by some to be on the take as well, which begs the question, "are the only people not on the take the people who support Trump?).
So, if there has been no evidence showing that the investigation, to this point has been tainted by a biased view, why do you hold that belief? And in comparison, do you hold Trump in the same light as he lied about the why his campaign members were meeting with Russians and even penned a letter for his son that he also lied about at one time saying he didn't? Those are actual facts, that illustrate the desire to hide the truth for some ASSUMED reason, which we can intelligently deduce (although not necessarily iron clad in it's correctness) given the facts that came from the horse's mouth, unlike ASSUMPTIONS that Strozk was tainting an investigation due to his bias (not saying it couldn't have happened; simply saying we have no evidence of it).
So in one case you have FACTS: Trumps/Trump campaign multiple lies ( didn't meet with Russians/did meet, only talked about adoptions/talked about sanctions, wrote a letter without daddy's help/daddy did write the letter) and the other you have ASSUMPTION (tainted investigation) based on fact (political opinons).
|
|