Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

a reply to: Sillyolme

I was referring to the Congressmen. They perform the function of a juror, by determining the facts of the case before them based on evidence presented. Goodlatte was the 'judge.' He was in control of the hearing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: vinifalou

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'd 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...

That's very selective reading.

There are two very important words used in those statements that create a very specific context of what is being said. And it does not say what you think it says.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, I take all of them seriously, in the sense that they are all elected officials who should be better than what we saw yesterday.

Why do you dismiss certain officials out of hand? That would be a better question. Are you of the opinion they should not be allowed to represent their electorate?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, I take all of them seriously, in the sense that they are all elected officials who should be better than what we saw yesterday.

Why do you dismiss certain officials out of hand? That would be a better question. Are you of the opinion they should not be allowed to represent their electorate?

TheRedneck

It's very difficult to take Gowdy seriously after his "divide that by ten" nonsense yesterday.

Gowdy is an obviously intelligent person, and he did not do himself any favors with that absolutely absurd argument he made yesterday.

Having watched this circus, once again the GOP is a major embarrassment. And the person they are trying to crucify shows up as the one with integrity and honesty. Goudy, Gomert and others are a laughing stock. Once a person gets over retching at their stupidity, the laughter comes along.

What a joke these clowns are. Of course, it is the job of clowns to be a joke.

a reply to: introvert

Link them instead of blabbing...

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

Link them instead of blabbing...

Why? I was referring to the statements you quoted/posted.

Are you not able to discern which words in your quotes that create a very specific context around those statements?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, I take all of them seriously, in the sense that they are all elected officials who should be better than what we saw yesterday.

Why do you dismiss certain officials out of hand? That would be a better question. Are you of the opinion they should not be allowed to represent their electorate?

TheRedneck

Surely you jest? Gowdy? The man who blew $6 million on Benghazi hearings that uncovered absolutely nothing??? If I recall correctly he's retiring in November with a rich history of having achieved (guess what?) absolutely nothing.
As for Gohmert are you kidding? This guy??? The man who invented Terror Babies and mumbled something about asparagus?
I dismiss them out of hand because they are either idiots (Gohmert) or love to go on witchhunts (Gowdy).

a reply to: introvert

So do you think Gowdy should not be allowed to speak?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I dismiss them out of hand because they are either idiots (Gohmert) or love to go on witchhunts (Gowdy).

Nice to know you dismiss democracy. Maybe you'd be happier somewhere with a dictator?

TheRedneck

Who was the gushing Democrat that wanted to give Strzok the Purple Heart?

He seemed smart.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

So do you think Gowdy should not be allowed to speak?

TheRedneck

I said he made a fool of himself. I did not say he should not be allowed to speak.

Why you would even ask that question is confusing and ridiculous.

a reply to: introvert

No, this context you're saying it's your biased opinion.

Again, link them.

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

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

No, this context you're saying it's your biased opinion.

Again, link them.

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

Sure. Here is the most important part of the quotes you provided:

potentially indicated or created the appearance

implies a willingness

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

That is very important to the context of the conversation and it appears you may not understand what it means.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I dismiss them out of hand because they are either idiots (Gohmert) or love to go on witchhunts (Gowdy).

Nice to know you dismiss democracy. Maybe you'd be happier somewhere with a dictator?

TheRedneck

The whole point of democracy is to be able to make fun of idiotic or immoral elected officials. Do you not understand the concept? I dislike kleptocracy. The amount of money sloshing around in Congress is insane and getting madder by the day.
And you should hear my thoughts on Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.

a reply to: introvert

No, the report said they did not find "evidence".
There is a big difference.

a reply to: introvert

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

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

TheRedneck

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

No, the report said they did not find "evidence".
There is a big difference.

So they did not find evidence that he let his bias affect his work.

Ok.

Glad we cleared that up.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The whole point of democracy is to be able to make fun of idiotic or immoral elected officials.

And here I thought it was about allowing all viewpoints of the people to be represented. Silly me...

TheRedneck

a reply to: introvert

This is the game of words every lawyer in town would use to gain some time in court.

It's advocacy 101.

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.

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.