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

[aaronleland]

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.

Comey waited until two weeks before the election to inform Congress that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails. If they were actively trying to torpedo Trump's campaign they had a funny way of showing it.

 

[busybee01]

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?

Republicans are desperately trying to throw up smoke screens to divert people's attention from Russia. A recent WP poll shows that 49% believe Trump colluded with Russia. Russian bots were using the Releasethememo hashtag.

 

[busybee01]

Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

Which they were. Take your un-American garbage and shut up TRASH.

 

[busybee01]

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.

They are allowed to participate in partisan politics. They did nothing wrong.

 

[westwall]

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?

Because they have obviously allowed their personal bias to corrupt the actions they are undertaking. That is illegal.

 

[Thinker101]

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'?

Ummm...the Trump Dossier.

You're getting your talking points confused again.

How about clarifying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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'?

Ummm...the Trump Dossier.

You're getting your talking points confused again.

How about clarifying.

No, I think I prefer using the "socratic method".

You tell me - what does "the dossier" have to do with Strzok and Page?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Because they have obviously allowed their personal bias to corrupt the actions they are undertaking. That is illegal.

How so?

 

[Thinker101]

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'?

Ummm...the Trump Dossier.

You're getting your talking points confused again.

How about clarifying.

No, I think I prefer using the "socratic method".

You tell me - what does "the dossier" have to do with Strzok and Page?

Great, you sit in the corner and when you're done playing with yourself get back to us.

 

[JGalt]

Law-enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Not covertly try to sabotage a political opponent's campaign.

Which they were. Take your un-American garbage and shut up TRASH.

How is it "un-American" to believe that the top law-enforcement agency in this country should not be taking sides in a Presidential election, and not covertly attempting to cheat the American voters out of a fair election?

What is "un-American" are the banana republic tactics the Obama administration used to ensure that Hillary would win the election. Thank God that this country hasn't allowed itself to sink to the level of so many other third-world shithole countries and that we still have some resemblance of law and order. Otherwise, you leftist cocksuckers would have accomplished the most sinister governmental takeover this country has ever seen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Ummm...the Trump Dossier.

You're getting your talking points confused again.

How about clarifying.

No, I think I prefer using the "socratic method".

You tell me - what does "the dossier" have to do with Strzok and Page?

Great, you sit in the corner and when you're done playing with yourself get back to us.

So you can't answer my question?

I'm shocked.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Comey waited until two weeks before the election to inform Congress that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails. If they were actively trying to torpedo Trump's campaign they had a funny way of showing it.

they've had a funny way of doing a lot of things, true?

 

[aaronleland]

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.

Comey waited until two weeks before the election to inform Congress that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails. If they were actively trying to torpedo Trump's campaign they had a funny way of showing it.

they've had a funny way of doing a lot of things, true?

Yeah. Like Trump's pick for Deputy Attorney General appointing Republican Robert Mueller special counsel. It all adds up. Trump is trying to sabotage Trump's presidency.

 

[westwall]

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?

Because they have obviously allowed their personal bias to corrupt the actions they are undertaking. That is illegal.

How so?

"Need an insurance policy in case Trump wins".

How plain do you need it to be?

 

[aaronleland]

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?

Because they have obviously allowed their personal bias to corrupt the actions they are undertaking. That is illegal.

How so?

"Need an insurance policy in case Trump wins".

How plain do you need it to be?

What was their insurance policy? Using their Jedi mind tricks to make Trump fire Comey, and appoint Rod Rosenstein Deputy Attorney General?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Comey waited until two weeks before the election to inform Congress that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails. If they were actively trying to torpedo Trump's campaign they had a funny way of showing it.

And what if those emails did contain something incriminating and it didn't come out until after Hillary won the election? Don't you think that Comey thought about that?

 

[iceberg]

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.

Comey waited until two weeks before the election to inform Congress that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails. If they were actively trying to torpedo Trump's campaign they had a funny way of showing it.

they've had a funny way of doing a lot of things, true?

Yeah. Like Trump's pick for Deputy Attorney General appointing Republican Robert Mueller special counsel. It all adds up. Trump is trying to sabotage Trump's presidency.

hell his tweets do that.

like i said - you can attack one side and defend the other or you can figure out what is right and wrong and see who's falling where. we all tend to do the first group vs. the 2nd, unfortunately.

 

[westwall]

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?

Because they have obviously allowed their personal bias to corrupt the actions they are undertaking. That is illegal.

How so?

"Need an insurance policy in case Trump wins".

How plain do you need it to be?

What was their insurance policy? Using their Jedi mind tricks to make Trump fire Comey, and appoint Rod Rosenstein Deputy Attorney General?

It seems it was trying to frame a duly elected president. So far, after all of the investigating done by mueller and co. the only verified collusion was that committed by the hilary campaign. And, yet again, collusion isn't illegal. So all of this faux investigating is doing nothing about the very real russian interference that we know occurred, but obummer told the FBI to stand down in that case. Why?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, but he was a main investigator of the email scandal. He was the one who interviewed those involved with Hillary. You don't have a problem with that?

 

[aaronleland]

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.

No, but he was a main investigator of the email scandal. He was the one who interviewed those involved with Hillary. You don't have a problem with that?

I don't even remember half the details of the email scandal. It was over a year ago, and I barely gave a shit then. I barely give a shit about the whole Russia collusion thing. But it's absurd to think that this special counsel that was Trump's doing is some elaborate plot to bring down Trump.