The Several Take-aways of The Strjok Testimony That People Are Missing

[Penelope]

HA HA HA HA HA! The list you made is laughable.

Well to idiots and fools like you Truth often is hysterically funny as it contradicts all the lies you have bought into, lol.

Your opinion is Strjok was lying about something...because it "was obvious to anyone watching"....therefore he should be strung up by his thumbs?

1. That is not at all what I said. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course?
I said that the plain statements of bias he made are obvious to everyone, even CNN, and yet Strjzok denies that he has bias under oath and this makes him look like a liar and a fool.
2. I never said Strjzok should be hung by his thumbs. That is far too medieval. Just shoot the bastard and put him out of his misery.

It has been proven that Trump has lied about involvement with Russia to get elected in the first place.....but that's okay?

Trump is not an active investigator into a crime, is he numbnuts?

Pretty hard to take you seriously when THAT is the best you have. The only takeaway we get from the Strjok testimony is that right wingers love a good reality TV show.

Thank you for giving us yet another example of what complete fools leftists are and their incapacity for rational thought.

And welcome to my ignore list, troll.

Please answer the question, how did he hurt Trump's presidency, since he got voted in and nothing came out from the FBI except his pillow talk? What did he DO to harm TRUMP?

 

[Frank the Tank]

No I didn't think he was lying. Now are you saying the Supreme court judges should not have bias or any judge? ,
yet you wanted Trump and the GOP to put a conservative judge in place and that is why Garland never even had a hearing.

Do firemen and police have a choice who to save no matter what their biases are?? How about the nurse or Dr. taking care of an Aids gay patient who are anti gay.

Everyone has personal feelings but they are able to do their jobs, I guess you can't. The GOP showed their bias more, partisan little bitches.

What about the GOP congressman who cheat and talk behind close doors of how they hate Democrats, how about Trump???

Excellent post.....one that is analytical and utilizes common sense. Therefore, it will be completely lost on him/her.

 

[night_son]

He should've recused himself because he didn't like Trump?!?!? Why? So......if people support Trump, they should recuse themselves, as well? This is patently foolish.

How did Strjok's involvement hurt Trump specifically? I would assume you'd have a list?

Strjzok did not merely dislike Trump; he despised and loathed Trump according to these messages. That disqualifies him from investigating Trump according to DOJ policy.

If you dont like that or think it is stupid, contact the DOJ so they can laugh at you some as well.

If he was unable to do his job....which he was perfectly capable to doing. So no, he did NOT have to recuse himself sonny.

You're missing the starting line. Strzok's use of his government issued device to communicate in clearly biased bytes, while on duty, precludes any further disqualification following burden of proof of bias against the target(s) of his investigations. Burden of proof of bias is self-evident, as proven by actions of legal and judicial professionals who often recuse themselves from the mere scent of bias.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes only pro Trumpets should investigate Trump!! Then it would be unbias.

That is not what I said, penelope.

To say that people who hate Trump should not be involved in investigations of Trump is not to say that only pro-Trump people should be allowed to investigate him.

I know that there are people who are objective and impartial to be found but plainly Mueller is uninterested in looking for them as he fills his staff with Hillary supporters, Trump haters and Gestapo like Andrew Weissman.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing.

If we were to get all the texts and emails of those GOP Congressmen from Jan 2016 to Nov 2016, you would probably find JUST AS MANY disparaging things said about Trump as Strock and Page were saying in theirs.

If Hillary had won, those same Republicans would be denouncing Trump as a huge mistake and distancing themselves from his as much as they could.

So let's get real, here.

 

[JoeB131]

You're missing the starting line. Strzok's use of his government issued device to communicate in clearly biased bytes, while on duty, precludes any further disqualification following burden of proof of bias against the target(s) of his investigations. Burden of proof of bias is self-evident, as proven by actions of legal and judicial professionals who often recuse themselves from the mere scent of bias.

And Strzok was recused... so not seeing the problem here.

The problem is, every last professional in Washington thinks Trump is a disaster.... on both sides of the chamber.

It's just half of them are pledging allegience to the cult because they are scared of being primaried.

So let's do it. Let's look at all the private texts of GOP Congressmen from 2016, and how many of them thought Trump was an idiot.

 

[night_son]

HA HA HA HA HA! The list you made is laughable.

Well to idiots and fools like you Truth often is hysterically funny as it contradicts all the lies you have bought into, lol.

Your opinion is Strjok was lying about something...because it "was obvious to anyone watching"....therefore he should be strung up by his thumbs?

1. That is not at all what I said. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course?
I said that the plain statements of bias he made are obvious to everyone, even CNN, and yet Strjzok denies that he has bias under oath and this makes him look like a liar and a fool.
2. I never said Strjzok should be hung by his thumbs. That is far too medieval. Just shoot the bastard and put him out of his misery.

It has been proven that Trump has lied about involvement with Russia to get elected in the first place.....but that's okay?

Trump is not an active investigator into a crime, is he numbnuts?

Pretty hard to take you seriously when THAT is the best you have. The only takeaway we get from the Strjok testimony is that right wingers love a good reality TV show.

Thank you for giving us yet another example of what complete fools leftists are and their incapacity for rational thought.

And welcome to my ignore list, troll.

Please answer the question, how did he hurt Trump's presidency, since he got voted in and nothing came out from the FBI except his pillow talk? What did he DO to harm TRUMP?

You are missing the legal test of bias from the starting line. Whether or not bias affected later outcome, the mere existence of bias at the outset of an investigation does two things: it places doubt on fruits of investigatory outcomes and instills a legally recognizable predisposition to favor or deny impartial treatment of the target subject. Cases easily thrown out on this basis alone.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Yes only pro Trumpets should investigate Trump!! Then it would be unbias.

That is not what I said, penelope.

To say that people who hate Trump should not be involved in investigations of Trump is not to say that only pro-Trump people should be allowed to investigate him.

I know that there are people who are objective and impartial to be found but plainly Mueller is uninterested in looking for them as he fills his staff with Hillary supporters, Trump haters and Gestapo like Andrew Weissman.

For poops and giggles.....let's say Mueller's team was "filled with Hillary supporters" (even though Mueller himself is a Republican...but, whateves I guess?).....HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE INVESTIGATION? Are you suggesting that evidence against Trump is fabricated? What exactly are you saying? Even if your made up scenario is true?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Please answer the question, how did he hurt Trump's presidency, since he got voted in and nothing came out from the FBI except his pillow talk? What did he DO to harm TRUMP?

First of all, that question is irrelevant. The point of the DOJ recusal policy is to avoid such from happening.

Secondly, as I am not deep in the weeds of this investigation and most of it is still being shielded from Congressional oversight, One can only guess that the direction of the investigation and its broadening growth of scope, like a silent cancer on the Republic, is in part a result of not only Strzoks bias but the bias of the other members of the investigative body as well.

 

[sparky]

Analysis | 7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

All i see is a federal offical ,who was not subpoenaed, nor under oath before a room full of partisan hacks looking to either uphold or assinate his character

None were focused on the letter of constitutional law

Which is what they're elected and PAID to do

~S~

 

[Frank the Tank]

He should've recused himself because he didn't like Trump?!?!? Why? So......if people support Trump, they should recuse themselves, as well? This is patently foolish.

How did Strjok's involvement hurt Trump specifically? I would assume you'd have a list?

Strjzok did not merely dislike Trump; he despised and loathed Trump according to these messages. That disqualifies him from investigating Trump according to DOJ policy.

If you dont like that or think it is stupid, contact the DOJ so they can laugh at you some as well.

If he was unable to do his job....which he was perfectly capable to doing. So no, he did NOT have to recuse himself sonny.

You're missing the starting line. Strzok's use of his government issued device to communicate in clearly biased bytes, while on duty, precludes any further disqualification following burden of proof of bias against the target(s) of his investigations. Burden of proof of bias is self-evident, as proven by actions of legal and judicial professionals who often recuse themselves from the mere scent of bias.

Just so we're clear......you're saying that in any investigation, if an investigator thinks someone might be guilty of something (for the sake of argument).....that alone precludes them from moving forward with the investigation? That's utterly preposterous.........

If Trump isn't guilty of anything...the evidence will prove that to be the case, regardless of what what any investigator's perceived bias was.

 

[night_son]

Yes only pro Trumpets should investigate Trump!! Then it would be unbias.

That is not what I said, penelope.

To say that people who hate Trump should not be involved in investigations of Trump is not to say that only pro-Trump people should be allowed to investigate him.

I know that there are people who are objective and impartial to be found but plainly Mueller is uninterested in looking for them as he fills his staff with Hillary supporters, Trump haters and Gestapo like Andrew Weissman.

For poops and giggles.....let's say Mueller's team was "filled with Hillary supporters" (even though Mueller himself is a Republican...but, whateves I guess?).....HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE INVESTIGATION? Are you suggesting that evidence against Trump is fabricated? What exactly are you saying? Even if your made up scenario is true?

And lastly, again, demonstrable bias before the investigation's get go is enough in and of itself to place into question any later outcome. Thus, regardless of outcome, the fruit is poisoned.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Please answer the question, how did he hurt Trump's presidency, since he got voted in and nothing came out from the FBI except his pillow talk? What did he DO to harm TRUMP?

First of all, that question is irrelevant. The point of the DOJ recusal policy is to avoid such from happening.

Secondly, as I am not deep in the weeds of this investigation and most of it is still being shielded from Congressional oversight, One can only guess that the direction of the investigation and its broadening growth of scope, like a silent cancer on the Republic, is in part a result of not only Strzoks bias but the bias of the other members of the investigative body as well.

When did Republicans become authoritarians? I mean, my God, they somehow screamed "tyranny" when Barack Obama passed something through Congress with 60 votes? Now, all of a sudden, they only back the FBI if it agrees with the President in charge?!?!?

That's quite the 180 degree turnaround!

 

[Frank the Tank]

Yes only pro Trumpets should investigate Trump!! Then it would be unbias.

That is not what I said, penelope.

To say that people who hate Trump should not be involved in investigations of Trump is not to say that only pro-Trump people should be allowed to investigate him.

I know that there are people who are objective and impartial to be found but plainly Mueller is uninterested in looking for them as he fills his staff with Hillary supporters, Trump haters and Gestapo like Andrew Weissman.

For poops and giggles.....let's say Mueller's team was "filled with Hillary supporters" (even though Mueller himself is a Republican...but, whateves I guess?).....HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE INVESTIGATION? Are you suggesting that evidence against Trump is fabricated? What exactly are you saying? Even if your made up scenario is true?

And lastly, again, demonstrable bias before the investigation's get go is enough in and of itself to place into question any later outcome. Thus, regardless of outcome, the fruit is poisoned.

Your obvious bias is enough for us not to give a **** what you have to say.

I do like, however, how you folks have prepared yourself to back a crook....even if it is proven he is a crook. Drink the Kool-Aid goober......

 

[Frank the Tank]

I guess so much for Republicans being the party of "law and order"?!?!?!??!?!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Analysis | 7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

All i see is a federal offical ,who was not subpoenaed, nor under oath before a room full of partisan hacks looking to either uphold or assinate his character

None were focused on the letter of constitutional law

Which is what they're electred and PAID to do

~S~

From the article you cited.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) seized upon Strzok's contention that his texts didn't demonstrate personal “bias” and said that argument amounted to him lying.

Of course Strzoks was biased and lying about it. It is as plain as the nose on your face. We dont need lawyers to tell us if it is or is not. The FBI looks stupid defending this obvious liar.

It's worth noting that Goodlatte's justification — that the committee's investigation is ongoing — was the same one Strzok offered for not answering questions about the special counsel's Russia probe. In the latter case, apparently, Republicans don't think it applies.

Obviously an OVERSIGHT group has the right to see the evidence of an ongoing investigation or else it cannot execute its oversight.

Strzok should be sacked and the FBI and DOJ purged of their Marxist members as a result of this obstruction of Congressional oversight.

“Sir, was that not intelligible?” Strzok said. “You just want to hear — for me to repeat it.”

“Please,” Issa said.

“Okay, sir. Sure,” Strzok shot back snidely. “Happy to indulge you.”

Snide and snarky responses and a contemptuous attitude toward the representatives of the People of the United States says all that really needs to be said about the DOJ as they have the audacity to display their contempt for the American people on national television.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) went the furthest.

“Mr. Strzok, if I could give you a Purple Heart, I would,” Cohen said when he began his questioning.

To give this fool a Purple Heart for his contempt of the American people is the perfect epitome of the Dimocratic Party today.

That the Washington Post would focus on minute detail and ignore the broader picture shouldnt really shock anyone.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Yes only pro Trumpets should investigate Trump!! Then it would be unbias.

That is not what I said, penelope.

To say that people who hate Trump should not be involved in investigations of Trump is not to say that only pro-Trump people should be allowed to investigate him.

I know that there are people who are objective and impartial to be found but plainly Mueller is uninterested in looking for them as he fills his staff with Hillary supporters, Trump haters and Gestapo like Andrew Weissman.

For poops and giggles.....let's say Mueller's team was "filled with Hillary supporters" (even though Mueller himself is a Republican...but, whateves I guess?).....HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE INVESTIGATION? Are you suggesting that evidence against Trump is fabricated? What exactly are you saying? Even if your made up scenario is true?

And lastly, again, demonstrable bias before the investigation's get go is enough in and of itself to place into question any later outcome. Thus, regardless of outcome, the fruit is poisoned.

I'll take your refusal to answer, by the way, as indication you don't have the first damned clue what you're talking about.

 

[night_son]

Analysis | 7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

All i see is a federal offical ,who was not subpoenaed, nor under oath before a room full of partisan hacks looking to either uphold or assinate his character

None were focused on the letter of constitutional law

Which is what they're elected and PAID to do

~S~

Peter Strzok was both under oath and subpoenaed. He was sworn in under oath at the outset of the hearing, and the chairman Bob Goodlatte repeatedly informed him of the subpoena, although Strzok claimed he was unaware.

 

[sparky]

I don't believe that was fact , as they contested it for over 20 minutes Son


~S~

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't believe that was fact , as they contested it for over 20 minutes Son


~S~

The Dimocrats would contest that shit stinks if they thought it would gain them any votes, son.