FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

[Mithros]

Not the point of the original question or reply. Please don't try to make this another of your unending DP challenges. They have never ended well for you.

How it started ...

The reply ...


To answer you anyway, there may be but as you've seen it's frowned upon when uncovered.

You didn't provide an answer other than you think political views Strozk expressed in private communication with a woman he was having an affair with is over the line.

So where is the line? If someone says something bad about Trump to a friend, does that mean they can't be part of the investigation? What if they sent it over text or email? Does putting in electronic format suddenly make it the exact same sentiment over the line? Or does it need to be sent on a government phone?

 

[bubbabgone]

You said it. Here, let me refresh your memory:

Mithros: "FBI agents must have no political views?"

bubbabgone: "Already addressed ... none that're so obvious as Strozk's."

So again: how do you know this? That's not a challenge, it's just a question of how you claim to know something like that.

Again ... there may be but as you've seen it's frowned upon when uncovered.

 

[Cardinal]

Again ... there may be but as you've seen it's frowned upon when uncovered.

So, unable to support your own claim you've retreated into incoherence. That was to be expected.

 

[bubbabgone]

You didn't provide an answer other than you think political views Strozk expressed in private communication with a woman he was having an affair with is over the line.

So where is the line? If someone says something bad about Trump to a friend, does that mean they can't be part of the investigation? What if they sent it over text or email? Does putting in electronic format suddenly make it the exact same sentiment over the line? Or does it need to be sent on a government phone?

Your argument is with the IG so find his email account and ask him.
Tell ya what, if you can't get that and if still you're in a trolling mood explore it with the other guy. Looks like he is too.

 

[Mithros]

Your argument is with the IG so find his email account and ask him.
Tell ya what, if you can't get that and if still you're in a trolling mood explore it with the other guy. Looks like he is too.

So you're entire argument is now to accuse me of being a troll? Um, at least try to stay on topic.. I'd also recommend actually reading the IG report.

You've made a pretty serious accusation against an American citizen. You have said that the political views that Strozk expressed in private constitute a reason why he should not be allowed to be part of an investigation. So what is your litmus test? Anyone who doesn't give Trump a free pass?

The list of people who have stated publicly that Trump is an idiot or harmful to this country is extensive. Expanding that list to anyone who has expressed those same views privately covers the vast majority of US citizens. So who is left to investigate Trumps potentially criminally behavior? Or is it your view that a President can achieve complete immunity by being so boorish that only unthinking sycophants can be allowed to investigate?

 

[OscarLevant]

Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:

Behave like sniveling dweebs like jackals on a Feeding Frenzy interested only in red meat for their base and not after the truth. Many times he offered to put it things in context and he was cut off and it got into Petty bickering with Mike Dowdy and others and the moderator had to jump in and set things straight and counsel the stupid Republicans on points of order. A number of decent Republicans have weighed in and we're embarrassed by the performance of doubting and those of his ilk they are the worst kind and giving the GOP a bad name.

I've never seen a more petty partisan Putin puppets bent on destroying the Integrity of American hero who for 26 years is responsible for counter-intelligence and putting bad guys, traitors and agents of espionage behind bars.

Everyone is entitled to political opinions and everyone votes and a good portion of Republicans hated Trump as much as 67% of the electorate but they don't bring their contempt for the president into their daily work, they do their jobs as they were elected to do or appointed to do by the elected and Dowdy Doody and all his sanctimonious sickos are a stain on America and Putin is popping corks.

I realize the above statements are emotional but after watching this circus led Dowdy who's far more biased then the man he is accusing who is wholly unable to separate his bias from his work I just can't help myself on this one. This was a total waste of taxpayers money and time. As noted the IG report concluded there was no bias in the product of the FBI. The IG interviewed far more people and spent far more time than this kool aid colored kangaroo court.

 

[Erod]

Strzok is one creepy dude.

Girlfriend over wife, politics over country, ego over integrity....

And those disturbing video memes will live in infamy.

 

[nota bene]

Gingrich was banging his secretary on the Speaker’s desk while his wife was dying, and while he was investigating WJC. Now she’s our Ambassador to the Vatican.

No.

From FactCheck.org:

For almost three decades, Newt Gingrich has been dogged by a story that he served his first wife divorce papers while she lay in a hospital bed battling — or in some versions dying from — cancer. It didn’t happen that way.

In fact, Gingrich, the presidential candidate and former House speaker, and his first wife, Jackie Battley, had already separated before she was hospitalized. He had filed for divorce, and she was seeking alimony and custody of their two children. And while Battley had earlier undergone cancer surgery, this time she was in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor that — according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign. Battley isn’t talking to reporters, but she’s still very much alive. https://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

From Wiki:

Callista Bisek met Newt Gingrich in 1993 when he was House Minority Whip and she was working in the office of Congressman Steve Gunderson. Callista testified in 1999 as part of Gingrich's divorce proceedings that the couple began a six-year affair in 1993 while Newt was married to his second wife, Marianne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callista_Gingrich

 

[year2late]

No.

From FactCheck.org:

For almost three decades, Newt Gingrich has been dogged by a story that he served his first wife divorce papers while she lay in a hospital bed battling — or in some versions dying from — cancer. It didn’t happen that way.

In fact, Gingrich, the presidential candidate and former House speaker, and his first wife, Jackie Battley, had already separated before she was hospitalized. He had filed for divorce, and she was seeking alimony and custody of their two children. And while Battley had earlier undergone cancer surgery, this time she was in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor that — according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign. Battley isn’t talking to reporters, but she’s still very much alive. https://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

From Wiki:

Callista Bisek met Newt Gingrich in 1993 when he was House Minority Whip and she was working in the office of Congressman Steve Gunderson. Callista testified in 1999 as part of Gingrich's divorce proceedings that the couple began a six-year affair in 1993 while Newt was married to his second wife, Marianne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callista_Gingrich

I agree the story was erroneously reported. He was just a garden variety cheater like our POTUS.:lamo

Yeah! Family values!

 

[nota bene]

I agree the story was erroneously reported. He was just a garden variety cheater like our POTUS.:lamo

Yeah! Family values!

I'd like to think (forlornly, sigh) that people can change. Not a Newt fan; I just hate that this rumor persists all these years later.

 

[year2late]

I'd like to think (forlornly, sigh) that people can change. Not a Newt fan; I just hate that this rumor persists all these years later.

I actually never heard of the "battling" or "dying".

I had heard the receiving divorce papers in the hospital after cancer treatment version. I had also heard that the divorce was no surprise, it was in progress at the time.

But obviously embellishing the story was awful.

But seriously, I believe in the capacity for change....but cheating during two separate marriages? It is in their blood. If not cheating, they either have too much to lose if caught or too old to give it a go.

 

[Fenton]

https://www.apnews.com/5cd36c766cf1...t-clashes-with-GOP-at-hearing-on-Russia-probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias launched a vigorous defense Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of the texts last year. He said the communications with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election reflected purely personal opinions that he never once acted on, though he did acknowledge being dismayed during the campaign by the Republican candidate’s behavior.
==========================================
As expected, Strzok made fools out of his partisan inquisitioners. He answered all questions clearly & confidently, even when the Republicans tried their best to shout him down & drag him into the mud. Good for him.

Sztrok made fools of the GOP ? He did no such thing. He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

When asked about the changes made to Comey's draft statement, he claimed someone from the FBIs counsels office made them, but couldn't remember who. Convenient.
That's obvious bull ****, meta data proved the edits were made on his PC.

Removing language with legal ramifications and removing the reference to Obama from a draft memo that exonerated Hillary Clinton weeks prior to her and her aides being interviewed shows not only bias, but motivation to act on that bias.

 

[Fenton]

IG Horowitz found no evidence at all that any decision on the Clinton case was made due to anyone's personal opinions. This was the report republicans were chomping at the bit to get.

Sztrok made alterations to Comey's draft memo, and then lied under oath about it

I would say that shows he's motivated by his anti-Trump bias

 

[nota bene]

I actually never heard of the "battling" or "dying".

I had heard the receiving divorce papers in the hospital after cancer treatment version. I had also heard that the divorce was no surprise, it was in progress at the time.

But obviously embellishing the story was awful.

But seriously, I believe in the capacity for change....but cheating during two separate marriages? It is in their blood. If not cheating, they either have too much to lose if caught or too old to give it a go.

Maybe so. I certainly lean toward "Once a cheater, always a cheater"...but there is always, always the possibility of reformation. People can change.

 

[trouble13]

Sztrok made fools of the GOP ? He did no such thing. He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

When asked about the changes made to Comey's draft statement, he claimed someone from the FBIs counsels office made them, but couldn't remember who. Convenient.
That's obvious bull ****, meta data proved the edits were made on his PC.

Removing language with legal ramifications and removing the reference to Obama from a draft memo that exonerated Hillary Clinton weeks prior to her and her aides being interviewed shows not only bias, but motivation to act on that bias.

The bolded part is the problem that his testimony did nothing to dispute. I'm very curious what Lisa page has to say. Those texts give the appearence that they and others were considering avenues to pursue to keep trump out of office.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Lesh]

Sztrok made fools of the GOP ? He did no such thing. He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

When asked about the changes made to Comey's draft statement, he claimed someone from the FBIs counsels office made them, but couldn't remember who. Convenient.
That's obvious bull ****, meta data proved the edits were made on his PC.

Removing language with legal ramifications and removing the reference to Obama from a draft memo that exonerated Hillary Clinton weeks prior to her and her aides being interviewed shows not only bias, but motivation to act on that bias.

He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

Only to you and other Trumpers

 

[Lesh]

Sztrok made fools of the GOP ? He did no such thing. He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

When asked about the changes made to Comey's draft statement, he claimed someone from the FBIs counsels office made them, but couldn't remember who. Convenient.
That's obvious bull ****, meta data proved the edits were made on his PC.

Removing language with legal ramifications and removing the reference to Obama from a draft memo that exonerated Hillary Clinton weeks prior to her and her aides being interviewed shows not only bias, but motivation to act on that bias.

From wiki

He led a team of a dozen investigators during the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server and assisted in the drafting of public statements for then-FBI Director James Comey.[26] He changed the description of Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent", which could be a criminal offense, to "extremely careless".[4] The draft was reviewed and corrected by several people and its creation was a team process. In his statement to Congress, Comey said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges based on available evidence.[4] Later, when additional emails were discovered a few days before the election, Strzok supported reopening the Clinton investigation.[27] He then co-wrote the letter[28] that Comey used to inform Congress, which "reignited the email controversy in the final days" and "played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton's campaign

He was part of a team that changed language in the interest of ACCURACY. How stupid would it to have been to announce that they were closing an investigation because there were no laws broken and then use language that would suggest that laws WERE broken?

And then he supported the reopening of the investigation just days before the election.

Yea...in the bag for Clinton...sure

 

[j-mac]

Where’s the proof he did such a thing? You don’t have any. There is no crime. Keep dreaming. The dude was careless and sent some texts. They became public. But twist the narrative how you see fit. We all know what trump surrogates and supporters are trying to do, and that is to taint the entire FBI so that Mueller’s final report is all nonsense to you. It has worked very well so far for the trump cultists but it’s not going to work on everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right now it's circumstantial. But, smoke and fire Right? I mean that's all you seem to be running on Trump with, and it's good enough for you in that regard. So, why so hard to apply it in this case? Unless of course you think it shouldn't apply to anything that upsets your own pre conceived notions on how this all played out.

And, no it is not to "taint the entire FBI", that is nothing but a dirty little lie, and smear. There were a limited group at the head of FBI and Justice involved here. That's enough to see doubt in this whole thing.

And I'd be careful using such loaded descriptors as " cultists" when acting in that way yourself.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[vesper]

It’s great that Strzok cleared everything up. It was not only appropriate for him to send the messages that he did, it was downright “patriotic.” It sure looks like a major injustice was committed in taking him off the job.
Just ask him.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ed-from-peter-strzoks-congressional-testimony

There was a lot to be gleaned from the public hearing of Strzok but if you only focused on the theatrics you most likely missed them.

 

[Fenton]

From wiki

He led a team of a dozen investigators during the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server and assisted in the drafting of public statements for then-FBI Director James Comey.[26] He changed the description of Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent", which could be a criminal offense, to "extremely careless".[4] The draft was reviewed and corrected by several people and its creation was a team process. In his statement to Congress, Comey said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges based on available evidence.[4] Later, when additional emails were discovered a few days before the election, Strzok supported reopening the Clinton investigation.[27] He then co-wrote the letter[28] that Comey used to inform Congress, which "reignited the email controversy in the final days" and "played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton's campaign

He was part of a team that changed language in the interest of ACCURACY. How stupid would it to have been to announce that they were closing an investigation because there were no laws broken and then use language that would suggest that laws WERE broken?

And then he supported the reopening of the investigation just days before the election.

Yea...in the bag for Clinton...sure

HE MADE the changes and then blamed them on someone from the FBIs counsel's office. Lying under oath is a crime

That " team " you mentioned ? Most have either been fired, demoted or forced to resign

 

[Fenton]

He came off as arrogant, maniacal and unhinged and dishonest

Only to you and other Trumpers

Yea I get Sztrok is the Lefts new hero. You people actually believe he was demoted from heading up the FBIs counter intelligence division to human resources and then eventually escorted out of the J Edgar Hoover building for having a personal political opinion

How about you people stop project your naivete and gullibility onto the rest of us.

 

[jmotivator]

Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:

I swear, I think Strzok was auditioning to replace Kevin Spacey in HOUSE OF CARDS...

 

[Lesh]

Yea I get Sztrok is the Lefts new hero. You people actually believe he was demoted from heading up the FBIs counter intelligence division to human resources and then eventually escorted out of the J Edgar Hoover building for having a personal political opinion

How about you people stop project your naivete and gullibility onto the rest of us.

You people actually believe he was demoted from heading up the FBIs counter intelligence division to human resources and then eventually escorted out of the J Edgar Hoover building for having a personal political opinion

You mean like the IG Report stated?

Like that?

 

[PoliSciXtina]

Right now it's circumstantial. But, smoke and fire Right? I mean that's all you seem to be running on Trump with, and it's good enough for you in that regard. So, why so hard to apply it in this case? Unless of course you think it shouldn't apply to anything that upsets your own pre conceived notions on how this all played out.

And, no it is not to "taint the entire FBI", that is nothing but a dirty little lie, and smear. There were a limited group at the head of FBI and Justice involved here. That's enough to see doubt in this whole thing.

And I'd be careful using such loaded descriptors as " cultists" when acting in that way yourself.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

I’m a cultist? How so? This ought to be good. You’re almost as pathetic as your cult leader


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What political views must an FBI agent have to properly investigate Trump?

Well how about not making derogatory statements about Americans who voted for him and expressing a desire to stop him from taking office, is that asking too much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk