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: 52
66
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I just checked my yard for 4-leaf clovers. Didn't find any. Can we say for a fact there are none?

TheRedneck




posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Well it's time to turn the Paige when the Strzok struck stupid.

And like the Sith Lord with the wave of his hand.

My bias doesn't mean what it means.

The weak minded are always easily fooled.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

What is the true context of my quotes? Please enlighten me.



This was your quote


“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,”


Let's try it with alternate bolding



“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,”


Let's also include conclusions from the IG


As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter.





we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.


And again from CONCLUSIONS on page 497 of IG Report

While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation


Being "troubled" about "appearances" and finding that no "improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions"..

can co-exist as truths for people with a normally functioning brain.

Full IG Report here:
www.vox.com...



edit on 13-7-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I ask because that is the impression I get from your post and I wanted to clarify.


I said nothing that would give any impression that I do not think he should be allowed to speak.

Again, that's completely ridiculous.



I prefer to clarify someone's meaning rather than just blindly accuse them, even though the latter seems to be the preferred method of debate lately.


What I said was very clear. Gowdy made a fool out of himself and did not do himself any favors.

Again, how you came to the conclusion that you needed to ask for a clarification about something I did not even imply is hilarious.



So exactly what about Gowdy's questioning did you find objectionable?


The illogical line of questioning/reasoning that led to him making the comments about "divide that by 10".

He did not refute what Strozk had said. He just used that as some laughable deflection and looked like an immature ass in doing so.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou



But you're right. These specific words do not indicate that. Instead, these words are saying that he had a biased opinion and that it probably affected his work.


Where does it say that is probably affected his work?

I think you are seeing things that are not actually there.



You and the left can enjoy the time you have left on the clock. And as things are moving right now, I'd rush if I were you. We'll soon see evidences that it did affected his work and the Russia-Trump investigation, as well as the Clinton-Weiner too. Great days are coming!! Stay tuned.


Sure. Deflect from your lack of comprehension skills.

Myself and the "Left" will be conserved when people such as yourself learn to read. Then, perhaps, we will "rush".



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

I just checked my yard for 4-leaf clovers. Didn't find any. Can we say for a fact there are none?

TheRedneck


Again, no one has claimed to have found evidence or proof his bias actually affected his work. That should be a reasonable statement we can all agree with.

Your line of reasoning, such as what you said above, is absolutely illogical.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations


It didn't impacted his work then?

I think you are not seeing things that are actually there.



See how it goes both ways?



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert


investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations


It didn't impacted his work then?

I think you are not seeing things that are actually there.



See how it goes both ways?


No. It does not go both ways. You left out very important words in that quote that give in much more context.


potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations


At this point it is fair to say that you are dishonest and cannot be taken seriously.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


I said nothing that would give any impression that I do not think he should be allowed to speak.

Again, that's completely ridiculous.

I didn't think so at the time, or I would not have asked for a clarification. It's OK, though; English is a difficult language to master.


The illogical line of questioning/reasoning that led to him making the comments about "divide that by 10".

He did not refute what Strozk had said. He just used that as some laughable deflection and looked like an immature ass in doing so.

I don't think questioning someone who had written such a statement as Strzok wrote, specifically that "Hillary should win 100 million to 0," as to their meaning behind it is 'laughable' in the least. The whole issue with Strzok is that he was, by his own text messages made while at work and while in performance of his duties, extremely biased against Donald Trump. How is it laughable to point out his errors, including the exaggeration of the American voting numbers, in those texts that implicate him in improper activities in the performance of his duties?

I thought "laughable" would include the myriad of Congressmen who, when given a chance to question Strzok, instead chose to ramble about how many other problems there were in the country instead of attempting to determine the truth behind this issue. They accomplished nothing, because they literally wasted the time they were bemoaning about.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Why did Mueller dump Strzok from the SC, again?
edit on 13-7-2018 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why did Mueller dump Strzok from the SC, again?


Strzok and Paige lost the 3-legged race at the annual FBI picnic and Mueller had 5 bucks on the race.

He's still pissed.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I didn't think so at the time, or I would not have asked for a clarification. It's OK, though; English is a difficult language to master.


Agreed. Apparently people like to just fabricate nonsense in their minds, even though what I said was there in simple English words, and have to ask for clarification when there is no need to do so.



I don't think questioning someone who had written such a statement as Strzok wrote, specifically that "Hillary should win 100 million to 0," as to their meaning behind it is 'laughable' in the least.


The way he did it, yes. It was laughable. After Strzok admitted it was hyperbole, which it obviously was/is, Gowdey went full retard with it.



The whole issue with Strzok is that he was, by his own text messages made while at work and while in performance of his duties, extremely biased against Donald Trump. How is it laughable to point out his errors, including the exaggeration of the American voting numbers, in those texts that implicate him in improper activities in the performance of his duties?


It's laughable because he acted like a teenage fool and because it served no purpose as to proving anything of value in regards to the topic at hand.

So Gowdy pointed out the errors in Strzok's hyperbolic statement.

Ok. Cool.

So what? How does that serve any purpose, other than to look confrontational over a minor, idiotic point for the people watching at home?



I thought "laughable" would include the myriad of Congressmen who, when given a chance to question Strzok, instead chose to ramble about how many other problems there were in the country instead of attempting to determine the truth behind this issue. They accomplished nothing, because they literally wasted the time they were bemoaning about.


The entire thing was a waste of time. As I said, it was soap opera for idiots.

Nothing substantive came from the hearing in the slightest.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert


investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations


It didn't impacted his work then?

I think you are not seeing things that are actually there.



See how it goes both ways?

You left out very important words in that quote that give in much more context


Just like when you quoted specific words and left out very important phrases that give in much more context?

Examples:


potentially indicated or created the appearance


implies a willingness



originally posted by: introvert

Do you notice how those specific words do not indicate that he actually did let his biased opinion affect his work?



It goes both ways.

And I don't need you to take me seriously. At all.
edit on 13/7/2018 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why did Mueller dump Strzok from the SC, again?


Strzok and Paige lost the 3-legged race at the annual FBI picnic and Mueller had 5 bucks on the race.

He's still pissed.


Thanks for the clarification...I thought it was the Sack Race.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Nothing substantive came from the hearing in the slightest.


Quoting for future references.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Meadow says ne docs arrived. Strzok dug a hole for himself yesterday.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   


these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”




It's right there. The report states in English (plain) that the I.G. has no confidence on his (Strzok's) work being free from bias.

You can't argue there was no Bias, the report argues they have no confidence in that statement.



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Agreed. Apparently people like to just fabricate nonsense in their minds, even though what I said was there in simple English words, and have to ask for clarification when there is no need to do so.

It would appear to me that the speaker bears some responsibility for the words chosen, just as the listener bears some responsibility for correctly interpreting the meaning. Feedback from the listener, in the form of a request for clarification, would seem to be indicative of a potential lack of clarity on the part of the speaker. You, however, seem to believe your word choice is infallible... and at this point I am somewhat hesitant to request clarification, so I'll have to go with the assumption that you are simply arrogant in your perceived infallibility.

Forgive me for daring to ask you to clarify your intent. I should have just made an assumption and ran with it.


How does that serve any purpose, other than to look confrontational over a minor, idiotic point for the people watching at home?

It serves the same purpose as when any attorney, during examination of a hostile witness, will do the exact same thing. It serves to catch the witness off guard and perhaps elicit a response that is telling in the details surrounding the issue in question.

No one with any sense of reality would believe that every witness is completely truthful, especially one who is the target of an investigation, and therefore should not be questioned thoroughly to indicate any change in the stated positions.

Of course, that means that I have to assume from your wording that you have no sense of reality, and I certainly cannot ask for a clarification on that.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

I just checked my yard for 4-leaf clovers. Didn't find any. Can we say for a fact there are none?

TheRedneck


Perhaps you should request taxpayer dollars, spend millions of dollars and enlist congress to hold hearings and get an Inspector General to conduct an in depth investigation and issue a 500 page plus report on the status of four leaf clovers in your yard?

Then if they find none, you can claim it is actually evidence that your yard is riddled with them.

Government time, resources and taxpayer dollars would actually be better spent on that nonsense than this failed right wing political propaganda campaign to deflect and obfuscate a legitimate and insanely justified investigation into Russian involvement with the Trump Campaign and the lies told to cover up the same.

Just in case you were wondering what a LEGITMATE investigation looks like:

22 Indictments, 5 Guilty Pleas, 4 cooperating witnesses (that we know of)
5 U.S. nationals, 14 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations
Trump's Campaign Chief, Deputy Campaign Chief, Chief National Security Advisor, a Foreign Policy Advisor etc.

And potentially Trump's Personal Attorney of the past couple decades.

and the Special Counsel hasn't even reached it's final conclusion yet!







edit on 13-7-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
See...I keep hearing how Mueller is the epitome of integrity...and how he fired Strzok from the SC because of his texts.



Mueller reportedly ousted an investigator on his team over possible anti-Trump texts

www.businessinsider.com...



Mueller reassigned top FBI agent in Russia probe over anti-Trump texts, reports say

www.nbcnews.com...



Some texts missing from Peter Strzok, FBI agent taken off Mueller team

www.washingtontimes.com...

So...CLEARLY Mueller, in his wisdom, felt Strzok couldn't be trusted to be fair and non-biased based upon his biased texts.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join