Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kryties

Fella. We have seen the months of texts. Do yourself a service and stop trying to pretend Strzok didn't act with bias. It's pretty obvious.

The showed no bias was the reoccurring talking point with democrats during the hearing today. Well that and numerous points of order to derail the questioning.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kryties

Interesting... To bad you dont extend the same standard to Trump.

Dont look now but your bias is showing.

Clearly the words "it wouldn't matter who was President" stated very clearly in the very first sentence must mean something completely different to you. Not sure what, it's fairly obvious what that means, but if you want to continue the fantasy that it's something else then I can't really stop you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Did you not read the IG report. No bias was found in their work.

That's because they purposely hid that fact.

These are professionals.

Very obvious too.

🚬🔫

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Did you not read the IG report. No bias was found in their work.

That's because they purposely hid that fact.

These are professionals.

Very obvious too.

🚬🔫

Apparently she didnt read the IG report because she is mischaracterizing what it says and what it applies to.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kryties

It has everything to do with what you said and I never said you were her.

I pointed out the flaw in your claim the russia stuff was never leaked when in reality it was.

You're assuming, or insinuating, that Hillary got the information from the FBI when it could simply have come as a result of Trump publicly asking the Russians to hack her. Why make that assumption or insinuation?

Because her tweets have nothing to say about what you just suggested.

Any chance you could post said tweets then and then clearly point out how she could only have obtained that information from the FBI and no other source?

go to twitter, clintons twitter account page and then do a search.

I'm on my iPad and Twitter makes my browser go nuts, and I refuse to install the app as it slows down my old ipad2 too much, just like the FB app does. Not making excuses, just asking if you wouldn't mind posting them for me so we can get to the bottom of what she meant and if she was informed of it by anyone.

Given you seem know know all about them I just assume you must have them handy and can easily post them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They knew about the email hacks then and trumps pleas of "Russia if you're listening..."
The news was full of emails and servers and Russians already. I don't know why you don't remember this. Why wouldn't Hillary tweet about it. And why if it wasn't common knowledge would you think Hillary would give up the ghost by tweeting about something she shouldn't have known about.
Think...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kryties

Fella. We have seen the months of texts. Do yourself a service and stop trying to pretend Strzok didn't act with bias. It's pretty obvious.

The showed no bias was the reoccurring talking point with democrats during the hearing today. Well that and numerous points of order to derail the questioning.

Actually many of those points of order were because the Republican had asked a question and then as Strzok was responding, proceeded to talk over the top of him and not allow him to answer.

I'm fairly sure you know this, as we watched the same hearing. Why mischaracterise those Democrats?

a reply to: xuenchen

Exactly it’s not like they’re going to find a video confession or a bunch of texts that said we love Hillary Clinton and we’re taking out Donald Trump. Come one guys and gals it’s not gonna be that black and white and very obvious just from what they’re saying that it’s clear they didn’t want Trump.
Let’s be intellectually honest and see this for what it is: A FAILED COUP by way of circular “evidence” and corrupted/biased actors within our govt/agencies.

How in the hell are these people not labeled enemies of the state and in Gitmo already escapes a logical mind.

This isn’t a political right vs left thing. This is beyond that.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

They knew about the email hacks then and trumps pleas of "Russia if you're listening..."
The news was full of emails and servers and Russians already. I don't know why you don't remember this. Why wouldn't Hillary tweet about it. And why if it wasn't common knowledge would you think Hillary would give up the ghost by tweeting about something she shouldn't have known about.
Think...

They don't remember it because it is convenient for them to forget so they can lay the blame at the feet of the FBI in order to discredit the investigation. They are as complicit in this as those Republicans are in that hearing - and all at the bidding of their Master.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah if he was the only one on either of those investigations. But he was one of many. And he didn't even do the investigating. The agents reported to him.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Total conjecture.

Folks in glass houses........you know the rest.

Russian glass houses.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Because she had cable tv?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Total conjecture.

Folks in glass houses........you know the rest.

Russian glass houses.

Time to indicte you on charges Neo. You're a Russian actor. You used the word Russia. Oh no. I used it now too. TWICE!!

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, I did read the report, which you know, because I have quoted evidence from the report in several threads.
And NO the IG did NOT say that there was no bias.

There will be more coming in the IG review of the Russia investigation, which is not part of this report. The IG did hint at things to come.

In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views.

Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.

However, we also did not identify a consistent or persuasive explanation for the FBI’s failure to act for almost a month after learning of potential Midyear-related emails on the Weiner laptop.

The FBI’s inaction had potentially far-reaching consequences. Comey told the OIG that, had he known
about the laptop in the beginning of October and thought the email review could have been completed
before the election, it may have affected his decision to notify Congress. Comey told the OIG, “I don’t know [if]
it would have put us in a different place, but I would have wanted to have the opportunity.”

We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or
created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.
Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a
part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Until trump pulls us out.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Jonjonj

Because she had cable tv?

For someone who supposedly left this thread about 20 pages ago, you sure spend alot of time here.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Of course Mr Strzok was very vague and declined to answer most questions. However he do not deny the intent and meaning of his statements. He then stated that his statements had no bearing on his duties as an agent for the FBI.... of course not Mr Strzok of course not. He also didn’t seem to be able to properly defend the supposed reason for his being fired which was obvious to most of us which was that because he was showing much bias in his actions in the course of his duties as an agent of the FBI.

In my opinion Mr Strzok made himself look very foolish in his attempt to assert that his actions as an FBI agent were not separated and influenced at all by his admitted bias against Trump, and for Hillary.

I recollect = I'm lying to your face

It's obvious he's lying his ass off.

Love some of the committee members going after him without the political correctness. It's obvious they are getting to him and he's starting to crack. He's hiding something and I think it's the big O.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TheRedneck
Of course Mr Strzok was very vague and declined to answer most questions. However he do not deny the intent and meaning of his statements. He then stated that his statements had no bearing on his duties as an agent for the FBI.... of course not Mr Strzok of course not. He also didn’t seem to be able to properly defend the supposed reason for his being fired which was obvious to most of us which was that because he was showing much bias in his actions in the course of his duties as an agent of the FBI.

In my opinion Mr Strzok made himself look very foolish in his attempt to assert that his actions as an FBI agent were not separated and influenced at all by his admitted bias against Trump, and for Hillary.

I loved the HR remark. "You have alot to learn about HR".

a reply to: Kryties

The emails were hacked in June and leaked in July. The trump statement to Putin about the missing emails was in August. Russia was already being blamed for the hack. That whole summer it was emails and hackers and Russians. Her tweet in Oct was reacting to current events.
There is nothing mysterious or clandestine about it.