The firing of corrupt Peter Strzok will quickly lead to the unraveling of the entire Muller probe

[easyt65]

Funny. I rely on FACTS - not NaziCon links.

While the IG report found that Strzok’s politics did not affect his handling of the Clinton email probe, it did not downplay the significance of the text. The message was “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 report concluded. Still, the IG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that Strzok acted on that bias, at least with regard to the Clinton email investigation. (The IG did not review the handling of the Russia investigation, which is ongoing.)

Peter Strzok, the IG Report, and Trump Allies' Spin - The Atlantic

Inspector General Report

The US IG comment about a lack of bias is laughable, as his attitude and actions are rife with bias...

He protected Hillary and her aides from indictment

He indicted Flynn when his fellow FBI agents, according to Comey, said Flynn never lied during his interview

He stated he was against Trump becoming President and vowed 'We will stop him...'

Bias aside, Strzok violated FBI procedures, broke FBI protocol, perpetrated Obstruction, committed text book sedition, exposed the Obama administration Conspiracy, and was personally involved / at the center of every big criminal event this entire process:

Interviewed Hillary yet refused to out her under oath or record the interview

Interviewed aides Abedin and Mills - the records / transcripts prilived they committed Perjury / lied to the FBI about not knowing about Hillary's server - Strzok refused to indict them

He was in the interview with Flynn and despite his fellow FBI agents saying Flynn never lied he indicted Flynn anyway

He personally altered the verbiage of the final report on Hillary's investigation. Comeychose to write 4 times Hillary was guilty of 'Gross Negligence' - straight out of the definition of the crime she violated, but Strzok changed the wording to 'careless', ensuring she would not be indicted.

Strzok was the no-between for Brennan and Comey (links / evidence posted several times today) and actually authored the ICA...

He was hand picked for Mueller's team! Mueller was not shocked by Strzok's bias or his exposed emails...he was just hoping no one ever found out and once they did he knew he had to fire Strzo.

Strzok was like the criminal 'Forrest Gump' - he was everywhere and involved in everything.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Funny. I rely on FACTS - not NaziCon links.

While the IG report found that Strzok’s politics did not affect his handling of the Clinton email probe, it did not downplay the significance of the text. The message was “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 report concluded. Still, the IG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that Strzok acted on that bias, at least with regard to the Clinton email investigation. (The IG did not review the handling of the Russia investigation, which is ongoing.)

Peter Strzok, the IG Report, and Trump Allies' Spin - The Atlantic

Inspector General Report

The US IG comment about a lack of bias is laughable, as his attitude and actions are rife with bias...

He protected Hillary and her aides from indictment

He indicted Flynn when his fellow FBI agents, according to Comey, said Flynn never lied during his interview

He stated he was against Trump becoming President and vowed 'We will stop him...'

Bias aside, Strzok violated FBI procedures, broke FBI protocol, perpetrated Obstruction, committed text book sedition, exposed the Obama administration Conspiracy, and was personally involved / at the center of every big criminal event this entire process:

Interviewed Hillary yet refused to out her under oath or record the interview

Interviewed aides Abedin and Mills - the records / transcripts prilived they committed Perjury / lied to the FBI about not knowing about Hillary's server - Strzok refused to indict them

He was in the interview with Flynn and despite his fellow FBI agents saying Flynn never lied he indicted Flynn anyway

He personally altered the verbiage of the final report on Hillary's investigation. Comeychose to write 4 times Hillary was guilty of 'Gross Negligence' - straight out of the definition of the crime she violated, but Strzok changed the wording to 'careless', ensuring she would not be indicted.

Strzok was the no-between for Brennan and Comey (links / evidence posted several times today) and actually authored the ICA...

He was hand picked for Mueller's team! Mueller was not shocked by Strzok's bias or his exposed emails...he was just hoping no one ever found out and once they did he knew he had to fire Strzo.

Strzok was like the criminal 'Forrest Gump' - he was everywhere and involved in everything.

Hillary couldn’t have lost legitimately...it was Putin!

Trump trolled DC hard.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary couldn’t have lost legitimately...it was Putin!

People who actually believe that are hilarious.

They find it hard to believe that Hillary Clinton lost after she:

- Spent decades slandering attacking and villainizing her sexual deviant husband's victims...

- Hired Al-Qaeda to protect Americans from Al-Qaeda in Benghazi and then abandoned those same Americans to die after every other country had pulled their people out and after she had denied requested additional security more than 50 times, going as far as laughing about that when she testified before Congress, saying she thought all those requests from the Ambassador was just part of his sense of humor, that he was joking...

- Broke so many laws with her illegal unauthorized unencrypted and unsecured server containing top-secret information which she allowed Russia and 5 other foreign entities to acquire, thereby compromising National Security...

- Was under multiple FBI investigations for crimes she did commit, to include obstruction of justice and espionage

- Was caught rigging primaries, cheating in debates, engaging in election fraud, violating election law, and breaking campaign Finance laws

- Was unable to win her own party's nomination and had to cheat and eventually be given the nomination

- Colluded with and paid foreign spies and Russians to help her attempt to alter the outcome of the elections

- Ran the worst presidential campaign in US history, arrogantly completely ignoring several states she was sure she would win only to have them be the difference makers in her loss

Only someone massively biased and party -first over their own country ... or a complete moronic sheep ... could possibly vote for this Criminal and traitor after all of this was exposed.

Yet snowflakes are surprised / shocked she lost despite all of this and more

Hillary was rejected by the United States when she attempted to run for president the first time for far less.

Hillary was rejected a second time, losing to Donald Trump, resulting in crying, gnashing of teeth, and people going absolutely bat-shit crazy....

In the aftermath of her loss, Hillary blamed anyone and literally everyone, to include her own fellow Democrats and the Democratic party which actually rigged primaries for her, helped her cheat in the debates, and kept her out of prison, all in an attempt to help her get elected as president...

Her whining and attacking everyone, to include Democrats, became so bad even Schumer and the Democrats publicly made remarks to the point where they wished she would just shut up and go away...

...yet they are shocked America rejected her.

BWUHAHAHAHAHA....



.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Libs tend to avoid fact based conversations.

Give Strzok more money...he may need it.

 

[Skylar]

Who can't back the absurd premise that the Steele Dossier was the sole basis of the Mueller investigation:

You.

Who can't back the absurd premise that Mueller hasn't found evidence of criminal activity as part of his investigation:

You.

Who is ignoring the fact that Strzok hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation for over a year.

You.

Good luck with that.

No evidence.
No crime.
The Dossier ...and OHR...has been proven to be the premise.
EVIDENCE shows Strzok is dirty as hell, has been at the heart of all the indictments, Obstruction. sedition, Conspiracy, and treason!

If the Dossier has been proven to be the sole premise of the Mueller investigation, then show us the proof.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

If the FBI had other evidence for the FISA on Page they would not have gone to so much trouble trying to justify the dossier as being a credible source. They used the dossier in all 4 FISA warrants on Page.

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

 

[Skylar]

Funny. I rely on FACTS - not NaziCon links.

While the IG report found that Strzok’s politics did not affect his handling of the Clinton email probe, it did not downplay the significance of the text. The message was “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 report concluded. Still, the IG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that Strzok acted on that bias, at least with regard to the Clinton email investigation. (The IG did not review the handling of the Russia investigation, which is ongoing.)

Peter Strzok, the IG Report, and Trump Allies' Spin - The Atlantic

Inspector General Report

The US IG comment about a lack of bias is laughable, as his attitude and actions are rife with bias...

Laughing....so you're literally citing and ignore the IG on the FBI investigations, huh?

When you have to ignore your own sources, clearly you're a Trump supporter.

I'm still waiting for the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Smiling....you know, the IG you're now ignoring? Its like watching a dog chase its own tail

 

[easyt65]

No evidence.
No crime.
The Dossier ...and OHR...has been proven to be the premise.
EVIDENCE shows Strzok is dirty as hell, has been at the heart of all the indictments, Obstruction. sedition, Conspiracy, and treason!

If the Dossier has been proven to be the sole premise of the Mueller investigation, then show us the proof.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

If the FBI had other evidence for the FISA on Page they would not have gone to so much trouble trying to justify the dossier as being a credible source. They used the dossier in all 4 FISA warrants on Page.

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

 

[Skylar]

If the Dossier has been proven to be the sole premise of the Mueller investigation, then show us the proof.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

If the FBI had other evidence for the FISA on Page they would not have gone to so much trouble trying to justify the dossier as being a credible source. They used the dossier in all 4 FISA warrants on Page.

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

 

[easyt65]

If the FBI had other evidence for the FISA on Page they would not have gone to so much trouble trying to justify the dossier as being a credible source. They used the dossier in all 4 FISA warrants on Page.

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

and you have still failed to disprove the evidence already posted.

 

[Skylar]

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

and you have still failed to disprove the evidence already posted.

Two problems.

One, you've presented nothing to back the claim that the sole basis of the Mueller investigation was the Steele Dossier. You've simply claimed it must be so, backed by nothing.

You fail.

Two. I've disproven your nonsense claim by citing the order from the Deputy Attorney General in seating the special counsel citing Comey's testimony before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis for the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Debunking your nonsense conspiracy yet again. A conspiracy you were never able to back with any evidence.

Smiling......but keep imagining. I'll keep quoting the Deputy AG.

 

[Crepitus]

Liberal response: “No! You are!”

Quality retorts. Thanks for playing.

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

 

[Skylar]

Liberal response: “No! You are!”

Quality retorts. Thanks for playing.

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Nope. Even the disciplinary committee argued against him being fired. This was purely political.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Liberal response: “No! You are!”

Quality retorts. Thanks for playing.

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

I don’t think you understand the first ammendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Strzok was fired for opining on an FBI handset about how he hated was going to make sure subject of his investigation did not stay in office.

Pretend he was texting exact same things, but replace “Donald Trump”with HIllary Clinton.

You would lose your mind and you know it.

The first ammendment has absolutely dick to do with anything.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Nope. Even the disciplinary committee argued against him being fired. This was purely political.

Right. He was fired for saying bad things about tRump.

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

I don’t think you understand the first ammendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Strzok was fired for opining on an FBI handset about how he hated was going to make sure subject of his investigation did not stay in office.

Pretend he was texting exact same things, but replace “Donald Trump”with HIllary Clinton.

You would lose your mind and you know it.

The first ammendment has absolutely dick to do with anything.

You are incorrect. He was texting in an unofficial capacity to personal not business relationships. Totally a first amendment thing when the government fires you for it.

 

[sartre play]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

 

[Skylar]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

Nope, nothing at all. Strzok hasn't been a part of the Mueller investigation for over a year. Making the OP yet another example of desperate, wishful thinking backed by nothing.

Most of the nonsense these poor souls post are exercises in creative writing and might as well begin with 'Once Upon a Time'

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Nope. Even the disciplinary committee argued against him being fired. This was purely political.

Right. He was fired for saying bad things about tRump.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

I don’t think you understand the first ammendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Strzok was fired for opining on an FBI handset about how he hated was going to make sure subject of his investigation did not stay in office.

Pretend he was texting exact same things, but replace “Donald Trump”with HIllary Clinton.

You would lose your mind and you know it.

The first ammendment has absolutely dick to do with anything.

You are incorrect. He was texting in an unofficial capacity to personal not business relationships. Totally a first amendment thing when the government fires you for it.

Nope. You are 100% wrong.

Even your left wing nut job pals in the media aren’t as ignorant as you are about the first ammendment.

If Congress passed a law banning “hate speech”, that would be a violation of the first ammendment.

If a public university prevented someone from speaking because they don’t agree with their political views, that would be violating their first ammendment rights.

If one gets on their employer paid for handset and disparages the head of their company, they can be fired, and should be, because it means they are fucking dipshit at best and a corrupt asshole most likely.

It’s called a conflict of interest. Any investigatior should not be opining on the subject of that investigation. They should be unbiased.

You know damn well had Strzok been critical of HIllary, you would want a lot more than his firing.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

 

[ColonelAngus]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

It came up because had Strzok said the exact same things about HIllary, these lefties would be apoplectic.

It’s called hypocrisy.

Like when it’s ok to assault Trump cabinet members in public, but not ok to chant “CNN sucks”. You know, the double standard the left lives by.

 

[ColonelAngus]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

Nope, nothing at all. Strzok hasn't been a part of the Mueller investigation for over a year. Making the OP yet another example of desperate, wishful thinking backed by nothing.

Most of the nonsense these poor souls post are exercises in creative writing and might as well begin with 'Once Upon a Time'

Everything Strzok touched should be reinvestigated for bias.

Just like a cop investigating a black suspect if the cop was texting that he hates black people.

 

[Skylar]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

It came up because had Strzok said the exact same things about HIllary, these lefties would be apoplectic.

Ah, imagination. The last refuge of a poorly crafted argument. When you can't back your claims with facts and reason, imagine evidence that doesn't exist!

You still run into the same exact problem you did before:

1) the Steele Dossier isn't the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. Making it irrelevant to the continuation of the Mueler investigation. Nixing your theory.

2) Mueller has found extensive evidence of criminal wrongdoing as part of his investigation with numerous guilty pleas and dozens of indictments. This justifies the continued existence of the Mueller investigation. Nixing your theory yet again.

3) Strzok hasn't worked on the Mueller investigation for over a year. Making his firing from the FBI essentially irrelevant to the Mueller investigation and highly unlikely to have any significant impact. Let alone 'unravel' it as you imagine.

It’s called hypocrisy.

I believe that's called 'imaginary hypocrisy'. As the reaction you're condemning is in your imagination.