It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

page: 23
66
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
"You do have security clearance, don't you?"

"Today I do, yes..."





posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Strzok?

The people he loves ?

His wife or mistress?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
OMG.

STrzok does have hands.

I was beginning to wonder.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What does "I'm going to stop him" mean?

If he didn't plan on using that bias, what did he mean by "stop him"?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TomLawless
What does "I'm going to stop him" mean?

If he didn't plan on using that bias, what did he mean by "stop him"?


Sidearm possibly?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Strzok just said he doesn't look at a persons politics.

He clearly does.

That diatribe he made about Trump and laid out a well rehearse rebuttal.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Gowdy is one cool cat. I love how when he is interrupted he says nothing and just waits looking at the person patiently...lol I like how the one liberal said he is over time, and Gowdy just said "it will take me a lot longer to get though this if you keep interrupting me" lol

They do not want him asking questions...

Lol add his poke at Bill Clinton with a small reference between "it" and "is"...
edit on 12-7-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TomLawless



What does "I'm going to stop him" mean?

If he didn't plan on using that bias, what did he mean by "stop him"?


Those are just words.

Apparently, we now live in a time where clear expressions of intent don't actually show intent. Only a subsequent action proves a previous intent. Accordingly, we'll need to throw out half of our current criminal statutes and rewrite them.


edit on 12-7-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Ms. Kelly just used her time to dig at Trump and his aides, and to praise the level of service her district office provides her constituents....

I don't think she got the memo.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
mis-post
edit on 12-7-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The more I look at this low life agent the more and more he looks just like bill "depends on what the definition of is , is " clinton. Furrowed brows and sleazy smirk and all. Can I confer with council , fbi council at that. This guy and the dems are sickening.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Strzok...Hell. Should I answer that? I feel I shouldn't answer that but...Damn, Erm...Haaaalllllppppp!!!!



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: TomLawless

Those are just words.

Apparently, we now live in a time where clear expressions of intent don't actually show intent. Only a subsequent action proves a previous intent. Accordingly, we'll need to throw out half of our current criminal statutes and rewrite them.



What exact law did he break in saying what he said?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neo96
50,000 texts, and changing memos not enough EVIDENCE for you?

Strzok is BIASED.



And you're not?


This is the narrative you're pushing now?

Before this comedy testimony it was: "Strzok wasn't biased........"

Funny how you leftists keep changing your excuses to justify the CRIMES being committed.




posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: TomLawless

Those are just words.

Apparently, we now live in a time where clear expressions of intent don't actually show intent. Only a subsequent action proves a previous intent. Accordingly, we'll need to throw out half of our current criminal statutes and rewrite them.



What exact law did he break in saying what he said?


He didn't break one, just said he had the intention to.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ah.

The dossier LIE.

And Strzoks 'not' allowed to talk about it.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
"P.Q.G."?
Did anyone get the company's full name?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Who is this TROLL speaking?



Gutierrz!~
edit on 12-7-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam

Apparently, we now live in a time where clear expressions of intent don't actually show intent. Only an action proves a previous intent. Accordingly, we'll need to throw out half of our current criminal statutes.



The issue not brought up is if he used this official channel to express bias for the President what level is that in his over all communications/actions of bias.

We are most likely talking 1000s of other communications and actions of bias intent...it's not like anyone would do a couple and that is all there is...that is all there is in official channels. The reason why I say this is due his statement that a few late night messages do not suggest bias...

Its like saying my one speeding ticket is the only time I have ever exceeded the speed limit, when the fact is that I speed every time I drive and only got caught that one time. The level of his bias tells me he also speeds all the time if speeding was his bias...lol


edit on 12-7-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Ah.

The dossier LIE.

And Strzoks 'not' allowed to talk about it.



Which is why he hasn't been fired yet.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join