Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Lol, you really can't see the difference here?Right. He was fired for saying bad things about tRump.Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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?
Nope. Even the disciplinary committee argued against him being fired. This was purely political.
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.Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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?
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.
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.
Nothing to see here!
- "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” — about Trump becoming president (August 2016)
- “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with [the Clinton investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” (May 2017)
- "I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps….” — after Lisa Page said Strzok is "meant to protect the country from that menace.” (August 2016)
- “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40." (August 2016)
No reason to question whether or not his investigation was influenced from personal bias.
It’s not like he personally changed Comeys speech about HIllary’s emails from “gross negligence”to “extremely careless”
I’m sure we will be seeing Strzok’s civil rights violation case argued before the Supreme Court.
So, anyhow, Strzok helped Mueller fuck himself. Congrats Mueller.
Mueller violated Strzok’s civil rights? Is that what the argument is?
Again, LINK?Two problems.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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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?
Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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?
Trump should declassify the documents and let America see everything.
Trump should declassify the documents and let America see everything.
Honestly at this point I'm not sure that would change much since the majority of people would still rely on the media to interpret the documents. But if TRUMP does have plans to release the documents he needs to do it soon because the fake news media and the left are trying to change the narrative from collusion/conspiracy to obstruction. My guess would be if TRUMP is going to release the documents he'll do so after Kavanaugh is confirmed.
LolStrzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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 withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.
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.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.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.
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?
Rosenstein re-authorized the Page FISA 7/18/17 which is what gave Mueller legal authority to go after the records of everyone on the TRUMP campaign.
The OIG was conducting an investigations on internal leaks which lead to the discovery of the Strzok/L. Page texts. Mueller removes Strzok a short time after. The Page FISA warrant is never renewed and Page is not charged with anything. Keep in mind the FISA warrant claims Page is a Russian spy, and Mueller is investigating Russia.
The reason Rosenstein will not release the unreacted Page FISA is most likely because it was used in the charges against Flynn, Papadopoulos and Manafort.
Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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 withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Again, LINK?Two problems.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.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.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.
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.
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.
STILL WAITING...
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
I think I gained 5 pounds eating popcorn reading this thread. Kick ass Skylar.Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".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 withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.
The OIG found no evidence of bias by Strzok. The found that the FBI came to its conclusions and conducted its investigation based on the evidence and precedent.
Now why would I ignore the OIG and instead believe you, citing yourself?
And of course, the basis of the Mueller investigation per the Deputy AG that seated Mueller.......was the testimony given by Comey on March 20th, 2017 before the House Select Committee. Not the 'Steele Dossier'. Not the 'Page FISA warrant'. But Comey's testimony.
Says who? Says the order written by the Deputy AG seating the special counsel.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Debunking your conspiracy nonsense yet again.
