Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

a reply to: Phage

We call that "backpedaling." It's considered dishonest here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We call that "backpedaling." It's considered dishonest here.

Backpedaling. Damage control. The president certainly seems to engage in it often enough.

But a lot of stupid stuff was said during that hearing. No doubt.

a reply to: Phage

We were discussing Cohen. Having trouble keeping up?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Having trouble keeping up?

Not at all.

As I said:

But a lot of stupid stuff was said during that hearing. No doubt.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, I saw that. After the dose of whataboutism and deflection.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No whataboutism, just leveling the playing field.
Goose and gander. Right?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Apparently having the facts about an issue involving the POTUS means I worship a porn star?

WHAT?

a reply to: Phage

Not really. More like cook the goose and worship the gander.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Pyle

No, worshiping a porn star means you worship a porn star.

Not concerned about your skewed 'facts.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. I don't worship any man. Or woman, for that matter.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay I will bite your distraction? How exactly am I worshiping a porn star when it was YOU your brought it up like it was a big deal?

Congressman DeSantis wants to know why PETER STRZOK is still on the FBI Payroll.

insider.foxnews.com...

I guess when Strzok was marched out of FBI headquarters 2 weeks ago, he wasn't being terminated.

a reply to: Pyle

Well, you do seem to hold her is high esteem. Even after me pointing out that she is a porn star, you created a post about how wonderful a porn star she is.

Something about being able to seduce Trump, so being good enough for him? Then being greedy enough to demand a payoff, then violating her own agreement to not speak out that she extorted money for? Wow, what a woman!

Of course, you can always just get a swagger on and claim everything you said was hyperbole and contained no bias whatsoever... the thread is about Peter Strzok...

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Duh, that's easy. As long as he works for the FBI, he has access to FBI lawyers to tell him what to and not to say.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Never said you did. Unless your name is Pyle.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Pyle

Well, you do seem to hold her is high esteem. Even after me pointing out that she is a porn star, you created a post about how wonderful a porn star she is.

Something about being able to seduce Trump, so being good enough for him? Then being greedy enough to demand a payoff, then violating her own agreement to not speak out that she extorted money for? Wow, what a woman!

Of course, you can always just get a swagger on and claim everything you said was hyperbole and contained no bias whatsoever... the thread is about Peter Strzok...

TheRedneck

Hold her in high esteem? All I do is follow the god damn news. It has been all over the news for a while now. Besides YOU BROUGHT HER UP! Correcting you on the facts of the matter that have been reported on is not holding someone to high esteem. It is just being brought up to date on current information. Holy hell how are you a MOD?!

a reply to: TheRedneck

 and law (fortunately

What law will he be answering to ? What law did he break?

Oh yeah he hates trump.

As much as trump would like this to be a crime, since this is the emotion he elicites the most from people, it's still not against the law.
Most of the UK hates him. Around the world he is hated and as one lady said... He is a bit icky isn't he...
Yeah a bit...
So Strzok isn't going to face any law for his texts or his popular opinion of donald j trump.

a reply to: Pyle

I stated she had been arrested... true.

I stated that she was a porn star... true.

None of that is flattering to her.

You stated that she had been released... true.

You stated that she was "good enough for Trump"... subjective, your opinion.

Both of those were flattering to her.

Now, if you cannot see the difference, there is nothing more I can add. I can point you to the facts, but I cannot help you with any inner struggles you may or may not have on the Stormy Daniels situation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

What law will he be answering to ?

That will be up to the Congress and/or DoJ.

What law did he break?

Possibly Conspiracy to Interfere with an Election and Obstruction of Justice, IMO.

Hmmm... those sound familiar...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sillyolme
So Strzok isn't going to face any law for his texts or his popular opinion of donald j trump.

Obstruction of justice
Deprivation of rights while acting under color of law
Tampering with an official report (302's)
Perjury (lying to Congress as well as to a FISA court).