Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So...CLEARLY Mueller, in his wisdom, felt Strzok couldn't be trusted to be fair and non-biased based upon his biased texts.

Or Mueller could have fired him for using a government issued device for an illicit personal affair?

Agents cheating on their wives are blackmail risks.

They are required to report any relationships illicit or not for that reason.

Or he could have fired him for the same reason the IG criticized Strzok, which is the most likely conclusion, risking the PERCEPTION of bias in a high profile investigation.

None of that is the same as Mueller believing Strzok's bias actually effected any professional decision.

I know a single guy that works for US government overseas, nothing too senior. His Security Chief advises him that he needs to report any woman he "dates" more than twice.

Someone senior in the FBI having an ongoing affair with a colleague? That was enough to bench Strzok by itself.

--Agents cheating on their wives are blackmail risks.


They are also the opposite of "Honesty & Integrity".

a reply to: soberbacchus

If Mueller was just worried about "PERCEPTION" of bias...why didn't he fire all the OTHER Clinton donors on his team?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: soberbacchus

If Mueller was just worried about "PERCEPTION" of bias...why didn't he fire all the OTHER Clinton donors on his team?

Because he wasn't the least bit worried about "perception". He was well aware the media's sexual relationships with his department, the leaking & promises of quid pro qo, and ingeneral bias against the sitting president would engender the media to NOT cover this perception. Or to not have that perception...

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations

It didn't impacted his work then?

I think you are not seeing things that are actually there.



See how it goes both ways?

You left out very important words in that quote that give in much more context

Just like when you quoted specific words and left out very important phrases that give in much more context?

Examples:

potentially indicated or created the appearance

implies a willingness

originally posted by: introvert

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

It goes both ways.

And I don't need you to take me seriously. At all.

I don't. Obviously you are dishonest and have issues with comprehension.

Not my problem or burden to bear.

That's your's.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why did Mueller dump Strzok from the SC, again?

Strzok and Paige lost the 3-legged race at the annual FBI picnic and Mueller had 5 bucks on the race.

He's still pissed.

DB, you're the ATS version of SAL classic; if ATS ever decides to do a sitcom, I hope they hire you as lead writer!

a reply to: soberbacchus

But. But. Peter said that would've never happened!

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So...CLEARLY Mueller, in his wisdom, felt Strzok couldn't be trusted to be fair and non-biased based upon his biased texts.

Or Mueller could have fired him for using a government issued device for an illicit personal affair?

Agents cheating on their wives are blackmail risks.

TBH...I haven't seen any evidence of an inter-office affair.
The texts...while clearly biased...appear to be exchanged on a government issued device with another office colleague.

As far as the potential for blackmail goes...Strzok could very well have already been blackmailed during his work on the investigations...absolutely already throwing 'reasonable doubt' into the integrity of everything he had worked on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

I said nothing that would give any impression that I do not think he should be allowed to speak.

Again, that's completely ridiculous.

I didn't think so at the time, or I would not have asked for a clarification. It's OK, though; English is a difficult language to master.

The illogical line of questioning/reasoning that led to him making the comments about "divide that by 10".

He did not refute what Strozk had said. He just used that as some laughable deflection and looked like an immature ass in doing so.

I don't think questioning someone who had written such a statement as Strzok wrote, specifically that "Hillary should win 100 million to 0," as to their meaning behind it is 'laughable' in the least.

Unless Gowdy is Autistic (unable to understand expressions of speech, metaphors and hyperbole etc.)

He has no excuse for how idiotic he appeared.

GOWDY: YOU COULDN'T THINK OF A SINGLE PERSON THAT WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT? 100 MILLION TO ZERO?

STRZOK:
CLEARLY THAT WAS HYPERBOLE

GOWDY:
LET'S DIVIDE IT BY TEN. 100 MILLION DIVIDED BY TEN, I'M PRETTY SURE, IS 10 MILLION. PRETTY SURE ZERO DIVIDED BY TEN IS STILL ZERO. YOU COULDN'T THINK OF A SINGLE, SOLITARY PERSON NOT TO VOTE FOR HER FOR PRESIDENT WHILE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HER.

STRZOK:
CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CLEARLY NOT THE TRUTH. I COULD ENVISION MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO THEN AND LIKELY DID --

GOWDY:
YOU WROTE IT.

STRZOK
MY POINT, SIR.

GOWDY:
DID YOU WRITE THAT? DID YOU WRITE THAT TEXT?

STRZOK:
I DID WRITE IT, SIR.

GOWDY:
WERE YOU UNDER DURESS. WERE YOU UNDER DURESS?

STRZOK:
I THINK YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE SPEAK IN CONVERSATION, YOU WILL SAY THINGS THAT ARE HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATIONS, THEY ARE NOT LITERAL.

..GOWDY then continues On and On and On about the math

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: soberbacchus

If Mueller was just worried about "PERCEPTION" of bias...why didn't he fire all the OTHER Clinton donors on his team?

Because donating to a charitable foundation does not make for disqualifying bias.

Trump and family have donated to the Clinton Foundation, does that mean they support Hillary Clinton and shall express that Hillary Clinton 'favoritism" in their professional functions in government?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Forgive me for daring to ask you to clarify your intent. I should have just made an assumption and ran with it.

I did not make a statement that required clarified intent or an assumption to be made. My words are there in plain English and I posted exactly what I meant, as I always do.

How you are pulling this nonsense out of your ass is beyond me.

It's rather silly, actually, and embarrassing.

It serves the same purpose as when any attorney, during examination of a hostile witness, will do the exact same thing. It serves to catch the witness off guard and perhaps elicit a response that is telling in the details surrounding the issue in question.

Perhaps you did not see the exchange in question. If it was meant to do as you described, then Gowdy is a bigger idiot than I thought. How is the "divide that by 10" argument supposed to elicit a response other than what he received?

No one with any sense of reality would believe that every witness is completely truthful, especially one who is the target of an investigation, and therefore should not be questioned thoroughly to indicate any change in the stated positions.

That is a logical fallacy. Imagine that.

Of course, that means that I have to assume from your wording that you have no sense of reality, and I certainly cannot ask for a clarification on that.

At this point I'm not sure if you are trolling again or playing dumb.

a reply to: IAMTAT

He was wearing an engagement ring on the interview.

Cheating his wife? I don't think so.

They said it was an inter-office affair so he could use this excuse of texting Paige with these information.

"It was just an affair."

a reply to: soberbacchus

Ridiculous exchange between the two men.

For someone to say that such an approach serves the same purpose as a lawyer examining a witness is absolutely ridiculous.

This has gone beyond stupid.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: soberbacchus

Ridiculous exchange between the two men.

For someone to say that such an approach serves the same purpose as a lawyer examining a witness is absolutely ridiculous.

This has gone beyond stupid.

Agreed.

Honestly the GOP in that hearing severely damaged their credibility.

The came across as angry and frustrated, troubled children.

GOHMERT:
"I can't help but wonder, when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page?"

a reply to: soberbacchus

Strzok was dead wrong about Hilary winning, much like most of the press and those that parrot them. This and Strzok's texts are evidence that most of the information he got about Trump was from the press, which explains why he was speaking about impeachment on the very day he became a part of the Mueller investigation. He had assumed guilt even before the investigation started.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why did Mueller dump Strzok from the SC, again?

Strzok and Paige lost the 3-legged race at the annual FBI picnic and Mueller had 5 bucks on the race.

He's still pissed.

DB, you're the ATS version of SAL classic; if ATS ever decides to do a sitcom, I hope they hire you as lead writer!

Can we name it Desperate political parties?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: TheRedneck

Boy, Trey Gowdy sure made a fool out of himself yesterday, huh?

And how about that Chairman telling Strzok he couldn't consult with this attorney?

Downright chilling.

Flat out lie. He said he could consult his personal attorney and said he should not be able to consult the fbi attorney. It is all over you tube for your enjoyment in case you would like to characterize it they way it was said instead of from a biased view.

Actually I am thinking of Goodlatte telling him he could consult his personal att. and not the fbi's att. sitting behind him , yet they relented and allowed it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: soberbacchus

Strzok was dead wrong about Hilary winning, much like most of the press and

And most of the GOP and honestly even Trump himself as he spent a good chunk of the latter campaign days saying how the election process was rigged against him preparing his excuses.

This and Strzok's texts are evidence that most of the information he got about Trump was from the press

Right and the text was at the same time Trump was attacking the parents of Deceased Gold Star recipient.

Do you think there was anyone in the USA, FBI or otherwise that DIDN'T have an opinion on Trump?

It is willful stupidity to automatically consider anyone with a political opinion disqualified from performing their professional duties.

The FBI does not demand that people not have personal political opinions.
The FBI DOES demand that those personal opinions never affect the objectivity of their work.

The IG concluded that Strzok had personal opinions that never affected any decision in any of his investigations.

His fault was in using a work device to share those opinions and having an affair with a colleague.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Government time, resources and taxpayer dollars would actually be better spent on that nonsense as it was on this failed right wing political propaganda campaign to deflect and obfuscate a legitimate and insanely justified investigation into Russian involvement with the Trump Campaign and the lies told to cover up the same.

You do realize you are rapidly losing credibility on this whole issue. Please show me one instance where the Mueller investigation has been interfered with. Until you do that, everything I just quoted above is pure poppycock born out of some fantasy persecution complex.

Personally, I think evidenced questioning into the FBI tampering or at least attempting to tamper with an election is far more serious than 22 indictments against Russians who were expected to never be prosecuted until they showed up in court and we all discovered Mueller didn't even have charges ready, guilty pleas for things like lying to the FBI about things not connected with the Russian probe (and allegations of improper threats to obtain those guilty pleas), and no, absolutely zero, charges or indications of wrongdoing about the actual target... one President Donald J. Trump.

The whole special counsel is a fiasco that pales in significance beside the FBI issues, which have led to the firing and subsequent verification of firing for cause, of former Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the removal of Strzok and Page from the Special Counsel investigations, the revocation of Strzok's security clearance, several investigations from Congress, questions of impropriety surrounding the previous DoJ, and more on the way.

Please, point your partisan hack talking points at someone who cares. You just blew any credibility you had left.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations

It didn't impacted his work then?

I think you are not seeing things that are actually there.



See how it goes both ways?

You left out very important words in that quote that give in much more context

Just like when you quoted specific words and left out very important phrases that give in much more context?

Examples:

potentially indicated or created the appearance

implies a willingness

originally posted by: introvert

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

It goes both ways.

And I don't need you to take me seriously. At all.

I don't. Obviously you are dishonest and have issues with comprehension.

Not my problem or burden to bear.

That's your's.

There is no apostrophe in yours.