Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe you want to review some of the text messages, etc.
There is actually more here since last time I looked:
www.scribd.com...

There are many, many, many examples of bias and vitriol.

So? Name a single person in power who doesn't hold personal biases. Just one. The important thing is if they are able to separate that from their work, and nothing suggests or proves that Strzok didn't do that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

I see them drinking martinis and playing tetherball.

You lied Strzok. You are still lying. And damnit if you don't keep wanting to lie!

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kryties

I think they sound like they don't really care about the truth.

I love how you guys try to rationalize things. The Democrats think this hearing is a witch hunt with no basis, they have made that ABUNDANTLY clear. They do not believe there was bias. It is the Republicans who WANT to believe the FBI is biased and they have convened this hearing in order to try to prove that so they can use that to get access to and derail the Mueller investigation. OF COURSE the Democrats aren't going to participate in what they believe is a witch hunt.

One of the most significant investigations in the history of the US had a lead investigator who was biased.

Prove it. Yours and others "opinion" is irrelevant.

The situation surrounding the start of the investigation and Strzok's role clearly warrants a hearing. To suggest otherwise sounds like an effort for corruption not to come to light.

If it was about the law then I might agree, but it is a clear attempt at derailing the Mueller investigation and gain access to the files for the benefit of Trump.

What part of “We will stop him” isn’t biased?

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kryties

I think they sound like they don't really care about the truth.

I love how you guys try to rationalize things. The Democrats think this hearing is a witch hunt with no basis, they have made that ABUNDANTLY clear. They do not believe there was bias. It is the Republicans who WANT to believe the FBI is biased and they have convened this hearing in order to try to prove that so they can use that to get access to and derail the Mueller investigation. OF COURSE the Democrats aren't going to participate in what they believe is a witch hunt.

One of the most significant investigations in the history of the US had a lead investigator who was biased.

Prove it. Yours and others "opinion" is irrelevant.

The situation surrounding the start of the investigation and Strzok's role clearly warrants a hearing. To suggest otherwise sounds like an effort for corruption not to come to light.

If it was about the law then I might agree, but it is a clear attempt at derailing the Mueller investigation and gain access to the files for the benefit of Trump.

What part of “We will stop him” isn’t biased?

And did "they"? No. Did "they" try? No.

If Strzok (or the FBI) held bias and wanted to "stop" Trump they could have, and didn't. Even some Trump supporting posters have pointed this out.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Sneaky question. The crime is conspiracy against the United States. Collusion is the colloquial term for that crime. You're just setting up a gotcha moment.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Jonjonj

Sneaky question. The crime is conspiracy against the United States. Collusion is the colloquial term for that crime. You're just setting up a gotcha moment.

I responded strictly to the gotcha moment devised by your colleague. I am still waiting for a response to the challenge THAT USER MADE TO ME.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe you want to review some of the text messages, etc.
There is actually more here since last time I looked:
www.scribd.com...

There are many, many, many examples of bias and vitriol.

So? Name a single person in power who doesn't hold personal biases. Just one. The important thing is if they are able to separate that from their work, and nothing suggests or proves that Strzok didn't do that.

Strzok was talking about impeachment the day the special counsel was appointed, or in other words, was presuming guilt before innocence in an investigation he was working on.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe you want to review some of the text messages, etc.
There is actually more here since last time I looked:
www.scribd.com...

There are many, many, many examples of bias and vitriol.

So? Name a single person in power who doesn't hold personal biases. Just one. The important thing is if they are able to separate that from their work, and nothing suggests or proves that Strzok didn't do that.

You're argument is "So?". Jesus. You honestly can't make this stuff up.

www.scribd.com...

Read the texts from 2016-10-24. Starting about page 413 right now, but I have seen the page numbers change as they add content.

That exchange between Strzok and Page make it clear that they knew something was about to hit the Wall Street Journal. They bicker about if it will look bad if they send out links to it too quickly. And say that they should wait until it comes to them before sending it out to others.

And they say:
"I want people who worked this reading it online before people read it first and ask them about it."

These few pages make it SO clear that they were involved with a media leak.

WHY is Congress not asking them about SO many of these texts that are very revealing?

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

Then answer the f****** question I asked?

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

And some posters here are taking a play from the ostrich community. Head in sand.

a reply to: Kryties

You need to read them. ALL of them.
They are FULL of proof that Strzok was acting on his bias.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

Then answer the f****** question I asked?

I think he's Strzok... he has his phone under the desk and is texting the posts in...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

You need to read them. ALL of them.
They are FULL of proof that Strzok was acting on his bias.

I've heard the ones that have been read in the hearing, and none of them prove anything other than he has a personal opinion.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe you want to review some of the text messages, etc.
There is actually more here since last time I looked:
www.scribd.com...

There are many, many, many examples of bias and vitriol.

So? Name a single person in power who doesn't hold personal biases. Just one. The important thing is if they are able to separate that from their work, and nothing suggests or proves that Strzok didn't do that.

OH

MY

GOD.

Are you justifying his bias because, supposedly, everyone else in power, holds one too?

This is the most ignorant comment I've seen today. And geez we've seen some pretty darn stuff...

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

Then answer the f****** question I asked?

Not if you continue with that attitude, you can get stuffed.

You skirted around my question anyway and then tried a "Gotya" moment on me. I'm not playing your silly game, sorry.

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe you want to review some of the text messages, etc.
There is actually more here since last time I looked:
www.scribd.com...

There are many, many, many examples of bias and vitriol.

So? Name a single person in power who doesn't hold personal biases. Just one. The important thing is if they are able to separate that from their work, and nothing suggests or proves that Strzok didn't do that.

OH

MY

GOD.

Are you justifying his bias because, supposedly, everyone else in power, holds too?

This is the most ignorant comment I've seen today. And geez we've seen some pretty darn stuff...

Prove that he used that bias to "Stop Trump" or that it affected his work in any way. Also, please explain why he didn't leak FBI info on the Russia investigation when it started that would have affected Trumps election.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Sillyolme

The posters here seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the Republicans in the hearing today - being the use of cheap tricks.

Then answer the f****** question I asked?

Not if you continue with that attitude, you can get stuffed.

You skirted around my question anyway and then tried a "Gotya" moment on me. I'm not playing your silly game, sorry.

I think that the questions are clear and can be looked at.

You sir/madam are a liar and I will refuse to engage you again.