Hello, Exactice.
No, it’s not weird. Investigators follow certain leads and it leads to where it leads regardless of how how one’s feels toward the person they are investigating. Including police investorgators investigating other police officers.
Also He ( Strzok ) was not a lead investigator.
Also specifically to your point about investigators following leads. When I said weird, how can you have bias and documented bias, and documented off the rails/out of protocol actions but yet say bias was NOT a contributing factor?
The issue I personally see her is, PEOPLE are LOOKING at results and using that as an excuse. What do I mean?
1) HRC lost, Trump was never supposed to win, So if he won he cheated somehow, He used Russia or made a deal with Russia, NEVER mind the legitimate electoral process that we have he cheated. So lets accuse him and drag him through the mud. Weird no?
2) Ok Now, HRC was NEVER charged, Strzok being on the investigation BUT because HRC LOST the presidential election (the outcome was not shown to be bias) I did NOT know that an outcome was the predicate for if something is illegal or NOT, I didnt know if you are NOT successful in robbing a bank you dont get charged for any other crime related to it.
2a) HRC Server, PERIOD a Server existed this is a crime regardless? It was NOT made up, It was NOT an accusation it ACTUALLY existed. Then confidential material was IN FACT Transferred over that server. An aide's husband whom is charged sex offender had email related to HRC accident or NOT its negligent. Which is Chargeable. AN ACTUAL CRIME Was committed. BUT because she lost the Presidency. She does not need to be held accountable?
2b) if SHE WON does that mean she would then be HELD accountable? NO she likely would have swept it under the rug and it would NEVER have been an issue. That is the DUAL bias system.
To the point..... the OUTCOME of an election does not indicate a crime.... a CRIME indicates a crime.
Trump won, beating all odds Does not mean you accuse him of cheating without proof. But thats what it seems like they did. They accused of meetings with Russians to obtain dirt, that they never got. Ok so if they met with Russians illegally charge them.
HRC/DNC paid for a dossier written by a ex MI6 British Agent, un verified and salacious (common strippers peeing on beds?) They actually financially transacted for information. If and when did trump actually pay someone for any information?
Weird,.... YES very weird and as a concerned Citizen I am very concerned
