- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
No you can get your head out of your ass and realize what assholes the repukes have become. Imagine asking 5 deferment cadet bone spurs about looking into his wife's eyes and lying like a piece of **** which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The repukes including yourself would be outraged and rightly so.
Stay in Panama. Not like you are involved in the USA anymore.
I assumed Strzok would keep his head down and be humble, denying most things and saying a lot of “can’t remembers”. While he did say “can’t remember” a lot, he wasn’t humble at all. In fact he reminded me of an ornery troll. He sat there like a trapped ork, furiously staring at his questioners with real hatred. His contempt and arrogance was mighty obvious. He stained the FBI and is clearly proud about it.
It’s also revealing that Mueller didn’t question him at all about his texts, about why he sent them and how biased they were. It means Mueller is as bad as Strzok, as we assumed all along.
Have you noticed what a hostile brat Strzok was?
Strzok was impressive. I only wish Republicans were as patriotic.
Trey Gowdy was a total douche as usual.
I assumed Strzok would keep his head down and be humble, denying most things and saying a lot of “can’t remembers”. While he did say “can’t remember” a lot, he wasn’t humble at all. In fact he reminded me of an ornery troll. He sat there like a trapped ork, furiously staring at his questioners with real hatred. His contempt and arrogance was mighty obvious. He stained the FBI and is clearly proud about it.
It’s also revealing that Mueller didn’t question him at all about his texts, about why he sent them and how biased they were. It means Mueller is as bad as Strzok, as we assumed all along.
Anybody notice what a piece of **** Louie Gohmert was and is?
Strzok is dangerous smart and we all know people like him. He actually managed to make himself the victim.
Dunno about that.
If someone can lie about an affair to their wife, they can lie about many other things to many other people less close far more easily.
Speaks to the person's character, or lack there of, don't you think?
That was a great one, I almost dropped my saucepan when I heard it and Peter's reply.
Aside from the obvious partisan nonsense of all the House Republicans, hearing the less mentally quick ones, struggle to try and demonize him without asking questions he'd nail them on, was so sad.
Hearing them detail their resume to him, before making a fool of themselves, was arrogant and peculiar. I was a dentist! I was a former prosector! They all had to fluff themselves before then trying to make stupid analogies. If you were on a jury...I'd kick you off! Yuck yuck. No question chairman...in a "hearing" we're supposed to be getting questions in, we're too busy grand standing and demonizing him, to actually you know...hear his responses.
I'm sure Strzok is sharp, but if he was really that sharp, he wouldn't have been busted. His arrogance was on display. How could he not envision that those texts on a government phone might be of interest, most especially given his involvement in investigations leading up to the election, and after? I believe Strzok thought he was smart enough, connected enough, and important enough that he would be immune from such scrutiny.
Doesn't change the fact that Louie Gohmert is a piece of ****.
Yea, hoping to derail an election is quite patriotic. No wonder the left wanted to give him a purple heart. They believe in undoing elections as well.
"partisan nonsense of all the House Republicans" Granted, there was some of that, but none of which was topped "If I could give you a Purple Heart, I would," Cohen said to Strzok."What a ****ing joke! The idea and the congressman.
I beg to differ.
I believe the entire hearing's existence was the winner of partisan nonsense. There would have been no sympathetic Dem remarks, or absurd attacks on Peter for 11 hours, had they not decided to play political games and call yet another hearing, to discuss what they already got in 11 hours closed door, and far more than what they got when the IG conducted a formal investigation and found that while there was personal bias in some "private" texts (on work phone), there was no evidence it affected any decisions. It seemed to backfire on balance though, because Peter gave back harder than he got, and anyoen can see how shifty the Right was in not asking questions, grandstanding, cutting him off, the speaker saying "Brief, brief, brief"...during a hearing to get information from him? Funny.
Politicians do sometimes try to draw analogies to service men and women, on both sides, they should go to some training school to learn never to do that (or bring up race, etc.)
But the worst goes to Trump, take your pick..as POTUS on the national stage:
“I like people that weren’t captured.” - to McCain
Trump also said, "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me." - to a gold star family
Congressional hearings like this have turned into politicians (congressmen) grandstanding shows. There's no denying that, but that being said both Republican and Democrat congressmen do the grandstanding.
If a investigation starts with a crime and evidence, which leads to a criminal, it is, in fact, a proper criminal investigation.
If a investigation starts with a suspect and looks for evidence of a crime, then its a witch hunt.
If Strzok started with Trump and then investigated for evidence and a crime, that speaks for itself.
Boils down this this unanswered question: "What level of flawed evidence is acceptable, if the investigation subject is the correct one?"
As well as “You wrote about it! It’s now public! Who is Corn? Who is Simpson?” Jordan said.
If an obviously politically biased senior FBI director can start an investigation on someone looking for evidence and crimes (rather than the other way around) . . .
If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director uses 'evidence' from a highly suspect source that contains highly suspect information . . .
If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director uses this non-official intelligence information for this same subject driven investigation . . .
If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director can write a memo exonerating the subject before the subject is even interviewed . . . .
There's something in this picture that's very wrong.
Something that's very wrong with the FBI that such an obviously politically biased agent would reach such a high position in the FBI.
Something that's very wrong with the FBI that such a flawed investigation made it as far as it did, and wasn't stopped on management review.
Something that's very wrong with the FBI that such a flawed investigator was allowed to continue to hold the high ranking position that he did, especially when that same agent had such a huge blackmail potential and was handling classified information.
FBI agents have befallen of this before.
[h=3]former fbi agent found guilty of espionage for the soviet union[/h]https://www.nytimes.com/.../former-fbi-agent-found-guilty-of-espionage-for-the-soviet-...
Jun 20, 1986 - Richard W. Miller, the only Federal Bureau of Investigation agent ever charged with spying, was convicted today on six counts of espionage for ...
Doesn't change the fact that Louie Gohmert is a piece of ****.
Just because one has the guts to publicly call out a REAL " piece of ****" does not cause one to automatically take on the traits of that REAL " piece of ****".
YANO?
Louie Gohmert has been a piece of **** his entire political career.
Well...
That is about as genuinely persuasive as most of your regular posts. Do you ever do any actual debate...or just pontificate out your butt like this and every single other post I have witneesed here of yours?
Just asking, just saying, yano?
Do you limit your heavily laden intellectual posts always just chock full of logic and facts generally to what? 45 characters or less?Sounds like somebody got their feelings hurt because I called their kindred spirit a piece of ****.
Him and Comey...two peas in a pod.....these guys should have never been allowed to be lawmen given their unwillingness to do it right.
I figure there are a lot more where they came from.
Washington is full of second and third rate folks.
Yep.....the essence of the FBI is sanctimonious in nature.
Also.............The woid jiggery-pokery comes to mind. I heard Justice Scalia use it once............... If you’re not familiar with the term, Jiggery-pokery dates back to at least the late 1800s, a rhythmic English phrase describing dishonest manipulation or nonsense, akin to hocus pocus, humbug, bambosh, baloney, berley (among the Australians), bunkum, hogwash (also known as eyewash), flapdoodle, flim-flam, flumadiddle, rubbish, galbanum (coming from a French word for empty representations), hooey, hot air, motormouthing, poppycock or malarkey
Not even to mention the corruption....that house needs to be cleaned from top to bottom.
It shouldn't surprise you that Mueller didn't ask Strzok about those texts. Do you think it's just a coincidence that every single member of Mueller's team happen to be democrat supporters?
.
You have to be careful not to read the braying Fake News when looking at this. USA Today is a member of that group. They will steer you way off the road of reason and history, and into the wilderness of Leftist make believe.
Every single one ? Were is your cite for this lie ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?