FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify

Hillary Clinton showed bad judgement in setting up her email server.

I don't think anyone would or has argued that point.

However, Hillary Clinton, like Alberto Gonzales before her, did not meet the legal criteria for prosecution in the opinion of the investigative team at the FBI in the Midyear Investigation and the IG report found no issues with that conclusion.

a reply to: rickymouse

Right because the only one worthy of your trust is the one proven to lie to you on a daily, sometimes hourly basis.
Got it...

a reply to: carewemust

He's probably going to confirm what the IG report said... He didn't do anything wrong in the performance of his duties. But you can hope. Like you hoped the memo would end the investigation into Trump then you hoped this IG report would do it and now you're hoping that this agents testimony before Congress will.
When is reality ever going to play a role?
Because basically you're saying he lied to Horowitz when he was interviewed for this report but is NOW willing to tell the truth.
Do you believe this FBI agent is going to come out and tell the world he lied to the inspector general?
Do you believe he lied to the inspector general?

a reply to: Sillyolme

A telling moment will be whether Strzok's testimony is open or closed to the public.

If it's closed we can rest assured that there are facts that the Republicans providing cover for Trump don't want us to know!

Brilliant move on the part of Strzok's legal team.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Yeah the IG report really supports this. Lol.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: carewemust
Devin Nunes says that FBI Agent "Whistle Blowers" told the House Intel Committee about Hillary E-mails sitting on Weiner's laptop, way back in Sept 2016.

Source: truepundit.com...

But some will be on to say Nunes is a liar..... Even when the facts come out that prove he was right or mostly right all along, they still obfuscate.

It's pretty certain that Nunes is a blatant liar ... but that's irrelevant.

The matter of emails on Weiners laptop has been dealt with, as has Weiner.

What's the big issue again?

I just knew I could count on someone to step up and embarrass themselves about reality. I was hoping I was wrong but did make the challenge. Kudo's for maintaining the literal innocence of your brand in your mind.

Those just to the right of the so called Liberal's are noticing how this works and are only getting more evidence for our honestly needed righteous indignation. It is for those three letter agencies who have let the USA, and the freedom of our citizens to govern ourselves from the globalist and former Kings, down.

I know what you need real bad. You need to binge watch "Green Acres" and let Mr. Douglass explain how this works. He did a good job of making it so anybody could understand it. He was having to talk to idiots and get it across in a fantastic manner that sticks with most anyone, (ETA) even idiots.

a reply to: Justoneman

If you're looking for someone to embarrass themselves about reality, the possibilities abound (particularly with zealots).

I don't have "a brand" nor do I think anyone involved in professional politics is "innocent" but please, keep projecting.

The rest of your post is "blatta blatta political nonsense" so I'll not waste any more time on it.

Best.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I think Strzok (his lawyer(s)) is following the same pattern McCabe is.

Start wooing Congress and hope for a plea bargain that reduces the impact of a conviction.

😎

originally posted by: Justoneman
Pure speculation but surely he has some proof of his innocence or has some major bombshell proof. Otherwise he should be fired and charges allowed to be pondered by a Grand Jury.

He is not charged with anything. What innocence does he need to prove? What grand jury? Again he is not charged nor is he accused of doing anything resembling a crime.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

I think Strzok (his lawyer(s)) is following the same pattern McCabe is.

Start wooing Congress and hope for a plea bargain that reduces the impact of a conviction.

😎

It is equally possible that Strzok is making Congress aware of facts that certain quarters would rather keep quiet.

I look forward to seeing what happens!

a reply to: Justoneman

What evidence? What could his crime possibly be? Having an opinion? Having the opinion that trump sucks as president isn't a crime. Much as trump and his cult want to make it one.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: elementalgrove

Yeah the IG report really supports this. Lol.

It is the only reason the guy has not been fired.

What are your thoughts on this little bit from the IG report?

Funny that the media has not touched it no?

a reply to: Justoneman

There is suspicion of several charges that deserve a fair investigation.

Like what? What are they considering charging him with?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Justoneman

What evidence? What could his crime possibly be? Having an opinion? Having the opinion that trump sucks as president isn't a crime. Much as trump and his cult want to make it one.

That is what I am wondering and perhaps I am out of the loop. What crimes is he being accused of?

a reply to: Gryphon66

For someone that had been First Lady in the 90's, she sure plays the "DUMB" card card when it comes to National Security.

Seems a little deeper than "oops" I didn't know

a reply to: elementalgrove

It's from someone's transcribed personal notes about meeting points.

Let me guess, Pizzagate?

LOLOL. Even Alex Jones has decried that boondoggle.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: Gryphon66

For someone that had been First Lady in the 90's, she sure plays the "DUMB" card card when it comes to National Security.

Seems a little deeper than "oops" I didn't know

Clinton, like all politicians, plays whatever card nets them the best results.

a reply to: introvert

I think it's called "Saying Mean Things about our Wonderful President Trump."

I'm sure they'll be calling for a Constitutional amendment to that extent, soon.

a reply to: The GUT

But his conclusions state otherwise dont they?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

I think it's called "Saying Mean Things about our Wonderful President Trump."

I'm sure they'll be calling for a Constitutional amendment to that extent, soon.

As I feared...