Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

No one wants to bring up how he just admitted that the FBI got the dossier from Bruce Ohr & the look on his "teams" face after?????

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An 'active investigation' where no american citizen has been indicted to or plead guilty to Russian Collusion.

The ones they got are for white collar crimes UNRELATED to the premise of this snip show.

RUSSIAN STOLE the election from the left.

You conveniently forget that the investigation is ongoing and collusion may yet be shown - DESPITE what Trump says about "No collusion". Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. - something you seem to need reminding of.

Collusion isn't a crime, did you not hear Strzok say that today?

"Collusion" covers a variety of areas, one being that it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals, another being that if the Russians hacked emails that then can be proven to have been used by Trumps team then that is also illegal. That's just two of many ways "collusion" can happen.

You can feel free to check these things yourself then come back and explain why you ignored them? Also, can the other poster who replied to you explain why they ignore these facts also?

I know all this, why do you feel the need to enlighten me about it?

The facts are that "collusion" as stated doesn't actually exist, so feel free to check that out and explain why you ignored that.

So you know for certain that Trump or his team didn't accept donations from foreign nationals do you? You know for certain that Trump or his team never directly used any information Russia may have provided to them after having hacked it? You know these things FOR CERTAIN do you?

How? Did Mueller tell you or are you just listening to Trump and blindly believing it because "Trump said so"?

Yeah we know this factually, because if it weren't true, we wouldn't be "accusing" 18 months later, we'd be charging, and we're not. So *IF* it did happen, not even the people who THINK it happened can prove it happened, and since you can't prove a negative, that means after 18 months of high level investigation, there is still no evidence to suggest he did so.

Don't need Mueller to tell us, just have to look at the progress Mueller hasn't made. Because he's made 0% progress trying to prove this happened.

originally posted by: SRPrime
A liar will tell the truth in private but will deny and deflect in public. Don't be so naive.

But we are supposed to take Trump on his word when he says he did nothing illegal and "no collusion"?

Don't be so naieve.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An 'active investigation' where no american citizen has been indicted to or plead guilty to Russian Collusion.

The ones they got are for white collar crimes UNRELATED to the premise of this snip show.

RUSSIAN STOLE the election from the left.

You conveniently forget that the investigation is ongoing and collusion may yet be shown - DESPITE what Trump says about "No collusion". Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. - something you seem to need reminding of.

Collusion isn't a crime, did you not hear Strzok say that today?

"Collusion" covers a variety of areas, one being that it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals, another being that if the Russians hacked emails that then can be proven to have been used by Trumps team then that is also illegal. That's just two of many ways "collusion" can happen.

You can feel free to check these things yourself then come back and explain why you ignored them? Also, can the other poster who replied to you explain why they ignore these facts also?

I know all this, why do you feel the need to enlighten me about it?

The facts are that "collusion" as stated doesn't actually exist, so feel free to check that out and explain why you ignored that.

So you know for certain that Trump or his team didn't accept donations from foreign nationals do you? You know for certain that Trump or his team never directly used any information Russia may have provided to them after having hacked it? You know these things FOR CERTAIN do you?

How? Did Mueller tell you or are you just listening to Trump and blindly believing it because "Trump said so"?

I know none of these things. I also don't know that that constitutes collusion, can you specifically frame your argument to enlighten me? Remember now, we are talking about collusion as a crime.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: proximo
Nobody is scared of Mueller finding anything related to Russia - because there is nothing to find. Only seriously ignorant brainwashed dummies still believe there is any real Russian collusion. All Mueller is doing now is fishing for something - anything to get Trump. He will fail.

Nothing to find? You know this for sure do you? You must have seen Muellers files - do tell us all what they say.....

You are desperate. Trump says "No collusion" and you lot jump into line like good little soldiers - because no guilty person has EVER said "I didn't do it" have they?

Do you believe Strzok when he said "I'm concerned there's no there there"?

I take the use of the word "concerned" to be the operative word in that sentence. "Concerned" DOES NOT EQUAL "absolute proof" no matter how much you want it to.

Why would he have concerns? He's just doing a job, a supposedly unbiased job. Investigate and submit your findings - done and on to the next job. Concern implies some sort of investment in the outcome, no?

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An 'active investigation' where no american citizen has been indicted to or plead guilty to Russian Collusion.

The ones they got are for white collar crimes UNRELATED to the premise of this snip show.

RUSSIAN STOLE the election from the left.

You conveniently forget that the investigation is ongoing and collusion may yet be shown - DESPITE what Trump says about "No collusion". Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. - something you seem to need reminding of.

Collusion isn't a crime, did you not hear Strzok say that today?

"Collusion" covers a variety of areas, one being that it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals, another being that if the Russians hacked emails that then can be proven to have been used by Trumps team then that is also illegal. That's just two of many ways "collusion" can happen.

You can feel free to check these things yourself then come back and explain why you ignored them? Also, can the other poster who replied to you explain why they ignore these facts also?

I know all this, why do you feel the need to enlighten me about it?

The facts are that "collusion" as stated doesn't actually exist, so feel free to check that out and explain why you ignored that.

So you know for certain that Trump or his team didn't accept donations from foreign nationals do you? You know for certain that Trump or his team never directly used any information Russia may have provided to them after having hacked it? You know these things FOR CERTAIN do you?

How? Did Mueller tell you or are you just listening to Trump and blindly believing it because "Trump said so"?

Yeah we know this factually, because if it weren't true, we wouldn't be "accusing" 18 months later, we'd be charging, and we're not. So *IF* it did happen, not even the people who THINK it happened can prove it happened, and since you can't prove a negative, that means after 18 months of high level investigation, there is still no evidence to suggest he did so.

Don't need Mueller to tell us, just have to look at the progress Mueller hasn't made. Because he's made 0% progress trying to prove this happened.

LOLOLOLOL

Thanks for proving the desperation of Trump supporters. You're conveniently ignoring that Mueller is still investigating and charges may still follow. How very convenient that you'd "forget" that.

In your desperate mind the fact that Mueller hasn't done it yet MUST mean Trump is innocent. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Thanks for the good laugh.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An 'active investigation' where no american citizen has been indicted to or plead guilty to Russian Collusion.

The ones they got are for white collar crimes UNRELATED to the premise of this snip show.

RUSSIAN STOLE the election from the left.

You conveniently forget that the investigation is ongoing and collusion may yet be shown - DESPITE what Trump says about "No collusion". Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. - something you seem to need reminding of.

Collusion isn't a crime, did you not hear Strzok say that today?

"Collusion" covers a variety of areas, one being that it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals, another being that if the Russians hacked emails that then can be proven to have been used by Trumps team then that is also illegal. That's just two of many ways "collusion" can happen.

You can feel free to check these things yourself then come back and explain why you ignored them? Also, can the other poster who replied to you explain why they ignore these facts also?

Wrong. If Trump accepted money from foreign nationals, they wouldn't call it collusion, they'd call it accepting money from foreign nationals, and if they could prove it, they would have already charged him and started impeachment proceedings.

Wrong again, it's never illegal to use public domain information. It doesn't matter the source if it's public. It only matters the source when the information is private. Being as WE ALL have access to those emails and can read them our selves, it's absolutely not illegal in anyway. That's not collusion, that's just not willfully ignoring public domain information.

As you can see, you've actually listed 0 information that has any illegal implication against the president. Mind you again, I didn't even vote -- because I don't like Trump or Hillary, but so far; it's a complete witch hunt on Trump. I'd also like to point out, that I read in September here on ATS, a topic from a Democratic leaker that said if Hillary lost, the game plan would be to blame russian hackers and to tie up Trumps presidency with a phony investigation into collusion. This was the September BEFORE the election, and this is EXACTLY what happened.

Well, Strzok has confirmed one thing - he is a passive aggressive snarky little bitch boy. Based on today's performance, the notion that he wouldn't let his personal bias influence his professional decision making is absurd.

Richmond is trolling.

Classic left..

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: proximo
Nobody is scared of Mueller finding anything related to Russia - because there is nothing to find. Only seriously ignorant brainwashed dummies still believe there is any real Russian collusion. All Mueller is doing now is fishing for something - anything to get Trump. He will fail.

Nothing to find? You know this for sure do you? You must have seen Muellers files - do tell us all what they say.....

You are desperate. Trump says "No collusion" and you lot jump into line like good little soldiers - because no guilty person has EVER said "I didn't do it" have they?

Do you believe Strzok when he said "I'm concerned there's no there there"?

I take the use of the word "concerned" to be the operative word in that sentence. "Concerned" DOES NOT EQUAL "absolute proof" no matter how much you want it to.

Why would he have concerns? He's just doing a job, a supposedly unbiased job. Investigate and submit your findings - done and on to the next job. Concern implies some sort of investment in the outcome, no?

It reflects his own personal opinion sure, one he's entitled to. Doesn't mean he's biased as Republicans seem desperate to try and prove.

A good point I heard someone make in those hearings today was how many FBI agents are there that supported Trump and had personal biases against Democrats and Hillary and yet aren't being grilled by Congress for apparent "bias". That alone proves this is a witch hunt by Republicans in those hearings.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Who is this future "Guam is tipping over" idiot? I think Congress needs moderators like ATS to force these imbeciles to STAY ON TOPIC?

originally posted by: UKTruth
Well, Strzok has confirmed one thing - he is a passive aggressive snarky little bitch boy. Based on today's performance, the notion that he wouldn't let his personal bias influence his professional decision making is absurd.

If I had to sit there and be abused, insulted and talked over the top of when trying to answer questions then I'd be a little "snarky" too.

here we go again talking about things that do not relate and make up a speech

As a Black Man.

You shouldn't be defending the FBI.

FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[5] including the Communist Party USA,[6] anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), feminist organizations,[7] independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left.

Recently, documents show that the FBI still engages in COINTELPRO behavior by surveilling Black Lives Matter.[27][28

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: SRPrime

Mate, unless you have access to Muellers files and investigation YOU CANNOT KNOW ANY OF THAT. You are merely guessing.

Stop the nonsense, you're convincing nobody.

originally posted by: neo96
Richmond is trolling.

Classic left..

I don't know why these certain dems are even there. They clearly can't and won't stick to the subject. They also appear to think its a waste of time. Why are they even there? They're not asking valid questions, they just keep talking about kids and immigration.

What a damn disgrace these people are.

Richmond is a dummy in a suit.

No wonder the left is in serious despair. He along with every other dem today have been talking about nothing of relevance.

Thanks for yielding the rest of your precious time sir... and then continuing to talk about rubbish.

originally posted by: Wookiep
Anyone know how long this recess will be?

When congress is in recess, I always picture them outside playing kickball or jumping rope.

a reply to: neo96

DING! DING!! DING!!!

This glaringly HUGE reason (among many others) is why the Democrats are totally Fd. Being a former Democrat myself (Sanders voter in Primary) I can attest that having a double standard SO BLATANT as this is, is why there is no “there” there in regards to collusion.

Obama himself (who I voted for) stated that it was preposterous for our election to be rigged (throwing dirt at Trump who said he thought it would be rigged)

But once HRC lost he had to side step his OWN words in way that wouldn’t be throwing too much shade at Russia (rigged for Trump but yet his own admin was cool with until after election) or HRC (her fault). Obama was very cool with Russia, he made fun of Romney in 2012 about Russia being a threat!

Can’t wait to find out what happens next on this soap opera lol

Guilty people don't plead guilty too often.

Clinton agrees.