Trey Gowdy vs. Peter Strzok At House Hearing...More Drama Between Dems And Republicans

Man, what a joke of a hearing...anyone else watching? Trey Gowdy asks a simple question, then a melee breaks out, with ranking Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler interfering and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte threatening to hold Strzok in contempt, for not answering a simple question. Afterwards, Trey Gowdy continues to ask questions, which Strzok refuses to answer, by continually stating, "I've been directed by council to the FBI, not to answer that question" and that there's, "no evidence of bias in my professional actions." What's the point of this circus, if a person under subpoena, refuses to answer questions and lies to save their arz? Best comment I've read concerning this debacle, "The fact that Democrats have no desire to learn the truth and would rather interfere with the testimony tells you everything you need to know about how biased their side actually is." Yep, that about says it all.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I don't like it either, I'd like to get the facts so I can make up my own mind; however, let's get the facts straight.

You state he is under subpoena, he states himself he is there voluntarily. He is still an employee of the FBI. The FBI, at the instruction of the Special Council instructed him not to answer any questions about any ongoing investigations.

This guy wants to be there, he volunteered -- but you have to understand that if he gets fired he is giving up pension, any retirement benefits, and will most likely go to jail. I think the congressmen pushing him understand that, very well, but they are making this scene for political gain.

I think we will hear this man's story in the end, he wants to tell it, but badgering him and pointing fingers at the guy who appears to want to help isn't going to make things any easier for him, nor is it going to get us the info we want any faster.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Trump’s own IG said “there was no evidence that political bias played a direct TIL in the investigation “. Right before TRUMps OWN IG said “hillary Clinton should never have been charged.”


lol..

They literally tell you they are lying to you every time they publish ANYTHING officially. And the gop owns the ENTIRE federal government and Supreme Court right now..


How many gop led committees on Benghazi, the irs scandal, white water, planned parenthood, acorn , hillary emails, exc have found criminal wrong doing??


None of them ever..

They fabricate some ridiculous conspiracy theory to energize their base.. then quietly find no wrong doing in every subsequent investigation and the yokels never , ever catch on they are getting played..


I have no idea how some people can operate a smart phone.. or a coke can for that matter..

Lol watch the contrast between any of the “journalists” on Fox News and the commentators..



They are literally tell omg you they are lying to you.. lol

a reply to: Kharron

Lol this guy is so dirty they couldn’t eve find cause to fire him lol...

Hillary and him are SOOO dirty that even trump’s own IG ‘s report said “bias played no role in the investigation” and “ Hilary Clinton should never have been charged”

It is propaganda for stupid people..

They literally tell them they are lying to people and people lap it up like candy..

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Mr. Go-Nads is a leftist...like watching a lawyer protecting a obviously guilty party.

LOL!!! "You're not recognized for that purpose"

That statement was f#ing GOLD lmfao

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does anyone else hear the Benny Hill Theme playing during this exchange?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How many gop led committees on Benghazi, the irs scandal, white water, planned parenthood, acorn , hillary emails, exc have found criminal wrong doing??

How many committees have found any (punishable) criminal wrong doings on either side of the isle?

Yet both sides agree we've seen it happen again and again in politics. Both parties break the rules so hard neither will truly demand either gets punished, it would set precedent for the rules to actually be enforced.

Do you really think all the examples you listed were truly innocent? Because as an independent I'll say absolutely not, and the right has their sins as well. They're all above the law though.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Strzok praised the “Russian interference investigation” now being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. “This investigation is not politically motivated,” he said. “It is not a witch hunt. It is not a hoax.”

www.breitbart.com...

Riiiiight...the Mueller investigation isn't politcally motivated, says this smug guy who texted this to his "lover";

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right?” asked a top F.B.I. lawyer, Lisa Page, in one text. “Right?!” Peter Strzok, the agent overseeing the F.B.I.’s investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, answered, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The exchange, in August 2016, came shortly after the investigation into Russian tampering with the election began.

I mean really, does this guy look trustworthy to you?

Maybe Hillary shouldn't be charged for using a personal email but she lied to congress when she said she didn't delete 33,000 emails. "you mean with a cloth". The IG report doesn't conver that aspect of her obvious crime.

Hillary is a criminal. If she doesn't get convicted it's the biggest abuse of the justice system and slap in the face to law enforcement in the history of the US.

The IG report says their was no bias durring the investigation. The IG report doesn't discuss the Dossier which is where the bias shows itself. It is possible that bias didn't play a role in the investigation but it is clear bias played a role in the lead up to the investigation.

If you can't see this or understand these things your confirmation bias has made you incapable of comprehending the situation.

a reply to: Kharron

“Making a scene for political gain...” So you mean like how everyone everywhere clamped onto the russia collusion story like a newborn to a teat?

a reply to: shawmanfromny



I think that image is an excellent example of a rorschach test of what happened in that hearing so far.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

You do get this man volunteered to be there and answer any questions that he legally can? You understand people on ATS were cheering his decision to testify and were saying it would be the end of FBI, just a week or two ago?

And now you're ripping into him and think his face looks untrustworthy?

It's almost as if you didn't understand he was there of his own will, and you thought he was subpoenaed and is trying to avoid questions. Almost.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: shawmanfromny

You do get this man volunteered to be there and answer any questions that he legally can? You understand people on ATS were cheering his decision to testify and were saying it would be the end of FBI, just a week or two ago?

And now you're ripping into him and think his face looks untrustworthy?

It's almost as if you didn't understand he was there of his own will, and you thought he was subpoenaed and is trying to avoid questions. Almost.

You do get he had 2 choices, volunteer or be subpoenaed? I am not going to credit the guy with trying to "look" good. Until he actually answers questions Strzok and Rosenstien look like swamp creatures to me.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

No he didn't. Trumps IG was clear that he believed Strzok had and showed bias.

The IG said there was no bias in prosecution. You can't prosecute what is never presented for prosecution...bias by investigators can prevent litigators from ever needing to have bias of their own.

a reply to: Kharron

He showed up because its an admission of guilt if he didn't and can deny or not answer any question based on an open investigation. Plus he knows the the leftists congressmen will protect him if he doesnt wanna answer.

The guy was biased and shouldn't have been on the investigation. He's harmed us from getting the "truth" about Russia and Hillary. Both him and comey are an embrassiment to the integrity of the FBI and being neutral

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: shawmanfromny

You do get this man volunteered to be there and answer any questions that he legally can? You understand people on ATS were cheering his decision to testify and were saying it would be the end of FBI, just a week or two ago?

And now you're ripping into him and think his face looks untrustworthy?

It's almost as if you didn't understand he was there of his own will, and you thought he was subpoenaed and is trying to avoid questions. Almost.

You do get he had 2 choices, volunteer or be subpoenaed? I am not going to credit the guy with trying to "look" good. Until he actually answers questions Strzok and Rosenstien look like swamp creatures to me.

And you understand that battering a witness who volunteered is a good way to never get anything out of him again? If they do subpoena him to come back, the FBI, as his employer, will now refuse, citing illegal probes into an ongoing investigation or something of the sort.

I don't think those schmucks even realize the damage they did yet.

Are you guys enjoying the show?

Meanwhile new petrol chemicals are being added to the food and water supply

Seems every Democrat on that Committee looks dumber and dumber as each one talks 😃

Strzok can't even get the lies right either 😎

Massive exposure outside the comfort zones today 👁

Watched a bit of it. Why did Stroke not answer a direct question about his text? He wasn't asked about the investigation of "Russian collusion".

It is amazing. That guy needs some time in jail to have a bit to think.