Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

a reply to: angeldoll

I thought Gowdy did the best he could in the face of a witness who was obviously smugly distracting from the questions, and a group of jurors who were more concerned with the sound of their own voice and complaining about the hearing than conducting the hearing. Not happy about Strzok not being allowed to consult with the FBI attorney (he was told he could consult with his attorney; you are wrong on that) but I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with the rules they were referencing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Did you forget that Mr. Strzok also went to London to acquire intelligence from the Austrialian Ambassador?

Which resulted apparently in the Russia-Trump Campaign Investigation?

In what context did Simpson say that "Fusion GPS did not speak to the FBI"?

Not to put too fine an edge on it, I've noticed on many occasions that you tend to relay information in the way that best suits your narrative.

A. From Fusion, did anyone from Fusion
communicate with the FBI?
A. No, no one from Fusion
ever spoke with the FBI, to the best of my
knowledge.
Q. Did you ever exchange any e-mails with
them?
A. We did not communicate with them by e-mail
either.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
U.S. SENATE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF: GLENN SIMPSON

TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2017
WASHINGTON, D.C.

The interview in this matter was held at the
Hart Senate Office Building, commencing at 9:34 a.m.

Transcript

You might want to read the sections of the transcript about trips to London, including Steele meeting someone in London.
Interesting.

a reply to: angeldoll

No, he said that he COULD consult with his personal attorney.
He was told that he could not consult with the FBI attorney. I think the reasons are obvious. This whole issue is because the FBI is controlling the information for their own protection.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vinifalou

That's not hard for anyone to believe. What's so hard to believe that the IG determined that bias didn't enter his work. Also don't forget he was not working alone on this. He had people above him and below him to verify and keep him honest. Or was the whole department in on it?

Since you and Gyph use the same arguments, I'll drop this for ya too.

“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,”

Wait there's more.

“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,” the IG said.

One more in case you're still confuse...

"Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

No bias, you say?

Prove it.

originally posted by: RetsuUnohana
a reply to: carewemust

Did you see the part where he said "I could smell the Trump supporters" . Than says i'm not bias. Hahahaha okay...

It is the height of ignorance, for a seemingly educated man, to believe he can simply "turn of" his biases when doing his job.

Around here, many people associate Walmart with Mexicans, and choose Target. YES.. it is prejudice, bias.

a reply to: angeldoll

I did listen to his testimony in full. Some parts I listened to a couple of times.
You did not seriously believe his lame attempts to spin circles to protect himself?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Jurors?

I must have missed the jury box in that room. Where was the judge?

a reply to: vinifalou

Did anyone ask Strzok what he would think if he were investigating someone who said what he did in text and email?

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vinifalou

That's not hard for anyone to believe. What's so hard to believe that the IG determined that bias didn't enter his work. Also don't forget he was not working alone on this. He had people above him and below him to verify and keep him honest. Or was the whole department in on it?

Since you and Gyph use the same arguments, I'll drop this for ya too.

“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,”

Wait there's more.

“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,” the IG said.

One more in case you're still confuse...

"Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

No bias, you say?

Prove it.

deeply troubled. Aw shucks.
No I didn't say no bias Ajah I said the IG report determined that he didn't let it effect his work.
Big difference!

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm, sorry, I'm confused. Are you really taking Trey Gowdy seriously? The man's not as stupid as Gohmert (Gohmert's chair is smarter than that man) but Gowdy has always struck me as being a joke.

I know this statement won't make anyone happy, but I'm going to say it any way.

It's all bullcrap.


It's all theatre.

Congress STILL has not released the names or have stopped the Hush Fund used to silence victims of sexual abuse/harassment in CONGRESS!


So one side can SAY they have the moral high ground and they are nothing but hypocritical liars, or the other side can SAY they hold the moral high ground, but they are also hypocritical liars.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Beliefs again. No facts just beliefs.

a reply to: carewemust

With all the nonsense garbage the Democrats were asking him I lost interest and stopped watching the hearing, so I wouldn't know.

They most probably asked him how was his family doing, what's he doing on the weekend, etc.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You have my name in your reply, but were not replying to me?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Beliefs again. No facts just beliefs.

Indictments incoming!
mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: carewemust

With all the nonsense garbage the Democrats were asking him I lost interest and stopped watching the hearing, so I wouldn't know.

They most probably asked him how was his family doing, what's he doing on the weekend, etc.

It was worth watching the entire thing. I missed bits and pieces, but I was able to witness Gowdy make a complete ass out of himself.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Beliefs again. No facts just beliefs.

Silly, you obviously personify Left wing bias on ATS...and Strzok has expressed some very similar beliefs to yours.

BE HONEST,...given you were put in charge of two investigations before/during/after the election...One on Hillary/email; One on Trump/Russia collusion...

Would YOU be able to check your bias/beliefs at the door?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Hah.
I will ignore that, since posting history shows that I provide quotes and sources to support statements in my posts about 1000/1 compared to your posts.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Sillyolme

Hah.
I will ignore that, since posting history shows that I provide quotes and sources to support statements in my posts about 1000/1 compared to your posts.

The problem is not that you do not provide quotes or sources for your statements.

The problem is that you do not seem to understand what is being said much of the time, and/or takes things out-of-context to fit the narrative you are trying to push.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vinifalou

That's not hard for anyone to believe. What's so hard to believe that the IG determined that bias didn't enter his work. Also don't forget he was not working alone on this. He had people above him and below him to verify and keep him honest. Or was the whole department in on it?

Since you and Gyph use the same arguments, I'll drop this for ya too.

“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,”

Wait there's more.

“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,” the IG said.

One more in case you're still confuse...

"Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

No bias, you say?

Prove it.

deeply troubled. Aw shucks.
No I didn't say no bias Ajah I said the IG report determined that he didn't let it effect his work.
Big difference!

Since you seem to have a hard time on reading and interpretation, I'll highlight for you.

“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,”

“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,” the IG said.

Pretty sure you'll vanish from this thread now...