Why is Strzok and Page's anti-Trump bias a big deal?

aaronleland

Diamond Member
May 19, 2012
33,897
11,331
1,430
Aren't they American voters? Is there a rule stating that FBI officials aren't allowed to share the same opinions as other Americans? Would picking only Trump supporters for the special counsel investigation be more fair?
 
um...called letting your emotions do your job and when the FBI can actively work to dictate the outcome of an election - yes. it's a big deal.

if the txt was "i hate that mother fker but i gotta do my job just the same" great.
but if the txt is "i hate ath mother fker and we've got 'insurance' in case he wins" you're well beyond expressing viewpoints.
 
Aren't they American voters? Is there a rule stating that FBI officials aren't allowed to share the same opinions as other Americans? Would picking only Trump supporters for the special counsel investigation be more fair?
Smh
 
um...called letting your emotions do your job and when the FBI can actively work to dictate the outcome of an election - yes. it's a big deal.

if the txt was "i hate that mother fker but i gotta do my job just the same" great.
but if the txt is "i hate ath mother fker and we've got 'insurance' in case he wins" you're well beyond expressing viewpoints.

Trump's pick for Deputy Attorney General created the special counsel. Not these two.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

Since when has law enforcement ever been neutral? It may not be right, but law enforcement goes after people they don't like all the time. If they are innocent then they are innocent.
 
Aren't they American voters? Is there a rule stating that FBI officials aren't allowed to share the same opinions as other Americans? Would picking only Trump supporters for the special counsel investigation be more fair?

Everyone knows that Ken Starr voted for Clinton.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

And where did they 'covertly try and sabotage a political opponents campaign'?
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

And where did they 'covertly try and sabotage a political opponents campaign'?

It's already a fact that the FBI simply glossed over Hillary's investigation. Sit tight. You'll be hearing all the details any day now. Tick tock.
 
Aren't they American voters? Is there a rule stating that FBI officials aren't allowed to share the same opinions as other Americans? Would picking only Trump supporters for the special counsel investigation be more fair?

The FBI and Justice Dept should be above this kind of partisan b.s. Imagine if Hillary had been charged with a felony and hundreds of text messages had come out from Comey and Loretta Lynch calling her an idiot and trashing her for months and talking about insurance policies, secret meetings and all the rest.

Her supporters would be screaming bloody murder and rightly so.

Aaron...this really isn't hard to understand, and yeah, it looks bad.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.
Good thing all our country's LEOs are totally neutral regarding support for the police. :cuckoo:
 
Aren't they American voters? Is there a rule stating that FBI officials aren't allowed to share the same opinions as other Americans? Would picking only Trump supporters for the special counsel investigation be more fair?

The FBI and Justice Dept should be above this kind of partisan b.s. Imagine if Hillary had been charged with felony and hundreds of txt messages had come out from the two lead investigations trashing her for months and talking about insurance policies

They were private text messages. It's not as if Strzok is the most powerful man in the world attacking his political opponents on Twitter every day.
 
It's a big deal because everyone knows that Trump can only be honestly investigated by people who are currently in the midst of sucking his dick.
It's only fair.

That's some really disgusting (and offensive) language. Even for this forum.

:lol:

Well, I'm sorry that you're offended, but tough shit.

Your snowflaky-ness is not my concern.
 
um...called letting your emotions do your job and when the FBI can actively work to dictate the outcome of an election - yes. it's a big deal.

if the txt was "i hate that mother fker but i gotta do my job just the same" great.
but if the txt is "i hate ath mother fker and we've got 'insurance' in case he wins" you're well beyond expressing viewpoints.

Trump's pick for Deputy Attorney General created the special counsel. Not these two.
But they were still having very questionable conversations.

Hell Trump is accused of talking to Russians and no one knows what was even said. But he's guilty.

We know these two said some stupid shit n yet it's defended.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

Since when has law enforcement ever been neutral? It may not be right, but law enforcement goes after people they don't like all the time. If they are innocent then they are innocent.
So you will be ok if the FBI works against a candidate you want to win. Actively.
 
Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

Since when has law enforcement ever been neutral? It may not be right, but law enforcement goes after people they don't like all the time. If they are innocent then they are innocent.
So you will be ok if the FBI works against a candidate you want to win. Actively.

:lol:

Did you forget that Hillary Clinton was publically "under investigation" for nearly the whole year leading up to the election?

I'm sure that was "different", though.
 

Forum List

Back
Top