• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI agent clashes with GOP at hearing on Russia probe

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.apnews.com/5cd36c766cf1...t-clashes-with-GOP-at-hearing-on-Russia-probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias launched a vigorous defense Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of the texts last year. He said the communications with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election reflected purely personal opinions that he never once acted on, though he did acknowledge being dismayed during the campaign by the Republican candidate’s behavior.
==========================================
As expected, Strzok made fools out of his partisan inquisitioners. He answered all questions clearly & confidently, even when the Republicans tried their best to shout him down & drag him into the mud. Good for him.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.apnews.com/5cd36c766cf1...t-clashes-with-GOP-at-hearing-on-Russia-probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias launched a vigorous defense Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of the texts last year. He said the communications with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election reflected purely personal opinions that he never once acted on, though he did acknowledge being dismayed during the campaign by the Republican candidate’s behavior.
==========================================
As expected, Strzok made fools out of his partisan inquisitioners. He answered all questions clearly & confidently, even when the Republicans tried their best to shout him down & drag him into the mud. Good for him.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
https://www.apnews.com/5cd36c766cf1...t-clashes-with-GOP-at-hearing-on-Russia-probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias launched a vigorous defense Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of the texts last year. He said the communications with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election reflected purely personal opinions that he never once acted on, though he did acknowledge being dismayed during the campaign by the Republican candidate’s behavior.
==========================================
As expected, Strzok made fools out of his partisan inquisitioners. He answered all questions clearly & confidently, even when the Republicans tried their best to shout him down & drag him into the mud. Good for him.
Click to expand...

Why, I must've been watching something completely different from what you saw. Are you absolutely certain you weren't watching a soap opera? I'm just checking.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, not believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Looks like you and I saw the same thing. Imagine that. I don't know what the OP was watching.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Good thing his dastardly plan was foiled by the noble trumpians!

Oh wait.

He didn't DO anything.

You just think he wanted to, or intended to? What exactly?
 
Strzok was impressive in a couple of ways.
He managed to get the final word many times by claiming he wanted to answer a question after the questioners time expired. Then he made an unchallenged speech.
And until later he managed to gobble up questioner's time with long meandering "answers". Much too late the questioners began cut him off.
Clever dude in that regard.
And he managed to take a breather while the Democrats made speeches not relevant to the topic of the hearing and launch into distractions when things got uncomfortable for Pete.

But he told some preposterous lies.
One was that he never heard that Obama told Medvedev that ol' Vlad would have more flexibility after his election.
Good grief.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

And if there are any Republican FBI agents we can be assure they would do all they can to cover up any charges at Trump.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."
Click to expand...

The Inspector General, whom Republicans relied on to hang the FBI, determined that Struck's personal opinions did not impact his judgment on the job.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.apnews.com/5cd36c766cf1...t-clashes-with-GOP-at-hearing-on-Russia-probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — An embattled FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages exposed the Justice Department to claims of institutional bias launched a vigorous defense Thursday at an extraordinary congressional hearing that devolved into shouting matches, finger-pointing and veiled references to personal transgressions.

Peter Strzok testified publicly for the first time since being removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of the texts last year. He said the communications with an FBI lawyer in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election reflected purely personal opinions that he never once acted on, though he did acknowledge being dismayed during the campaign by the Republican candidate’s behavior.
==========================================
As expected, Strzok made fools out of his partisan inquisitioners. He answered all questions clearly & confidently, even when the Republicans tried their best to shout him down & drag him into the mud. Good for him.
Click to expand...
You must have watched a different spectacle than I did....but, I guess in progressive world smirks, lies, and disdain, are par for the course with today's frightened demos....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
When the doucehbag Louie Gohmert asked his question about the wife and looking innocently into her eyes, I would have given him a simple two word reply consisting of seven letters.

That would merit a standing ovation.
 
I heard parts of it on the drive home. Struck me as just the usual political theater.
 
Cardinal said:
The Inspector General, whom Republicans relied on to hang the FBI, determined that Struck's personal opinions did not impact his judgment on the job.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no. Not quite. :no:

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.
Click to expand...
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

All they said was that there was no "documentary or testimonial" evidence showing the bias directly affected the Clinton email investigative decisions.

While Strzok and Page were foolish in their social media comments, they are also both experienced lawyers, well-aware and trained to be waryof the "paper trails" legal investigations entail.

Much like there was no "documentary or testimonial" evidence that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked about anything other than "the weather" during that meeting at the airport. Yet, (if I recall correctly) even Mr. Comey complained that Lynch had given him certain odd instructions about the Clinton email issue after that airport meeting.

The IG also stated they did not investigate the FBI Russian collusion investigation, focusing only on the Clinton email issue. (See very first paragraph in "Background" on page "i" of the citation I provided.)
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...no. Not quite. :no:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

All they said was that there was no "documentary or testimonial" evidence showing the bias directly affected the Clinton email investigative decisions.

While Strzok and Page were foolish in their social media comments, they are also both experienced lawyers, well-aware and trained to be waryof the "paper trails" legal investigations entail.

Much like there was no "documentary or testimonial" evidence that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked about anything other than "the weather" during that meeting at the airport. Yet, (if I recall correctly) even Mr. Comey complained that Lynch had given him certain odd instructions about the Clinton email issue after that airport meeting.

The IG also stated they did not investigate the FBI Russian collusion investigation, focusing only on the Clinton email issue. (See very first paragraph in "Background" on page "i" of the citation I provided.)
Click to expand...

I see no tangible difference between my summary of the IG's conclusion and his actual words. Republicans hung their hat on the IG's report, and the IG's report didn't give them what they wanted. Deal with it.
 
haymarket said:
When the doucehbag Louie Gohmert asked his question about the wife and looking innocently into her eyes, I would have given him a simple two word reply consisting of seven letters.

That would merit a standing ovation.
Click to expand...

He cheated on his wife. That is a fact.
 
If Strzok was so inclined he could have easily revealed the investigation into the Russian meddling in 45's campaign. The Right should have thanked him.
 
Bucky said:
He cheated on his wife. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

Trump cheated on his multiple wives, and at least once with a porn star while his wife was pregnant. That is a fact.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump
Click to expand...

Didn't know FBI agents weren't allowed to have political opinions.
 
Geoist said:
Didn't know FBI agents weren't allowed to have political opinions.
Click to expand...

Indeed and they all appeared to be oblivious to the fact that biased is exactly what they were throughout the course of the hearing. Good for Strzok for knocking them down a few pegs.
 
Parrish said:
If Strzok was so inclined he could have easily revealed the investigation into the Russian meddling in 45's campaign. The Right should have thanked him.
Click to expand...

The absurd fact at the core of the "biased FBI" brouhaha. They publicly handicapped Hillary during the campaign for email hygiene while letting the Manchurian Candidate and his band of Russian moles off scot free by keeping their treason investigation tightly under wraps. And now the GOP is arguing that somehow they were undermining Trump!
 
Greenbeard said:
The absurd fact at the core of the "biased FBI" brouhaha. They publicly handicapped Hillary during the campaign for email hygiene while letting the Manchurian Candidate and his band of Russian moles off scot free by keeping their treason investigation tightly under wraps. And now the GOP is arguing that somehow they were undermining Trump!
Click to expand...

Yup..
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I watched some of that "live stream" too, and it appeared to me that Mr. Strzok was trying to assert that all his clearly biased, malignantly partisan tweets had no effect on his "professional work."

That it was all in good fun, and would never affect his decision making process vis-à-vis investigating either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump

Of course we all know this must be true, as we have so many shining examples of such hateful, negative, over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric posted day-in and day-out here in the Forum.

Clearly such of our members who engage in this constant anti-Trump rhetoric really don't hate Mr. Trump at all, nor do they wish him any actual ill.

Nope, it's all just hyperbole and posted in good fun, so we should rest assured that they neither wish him impeached, nor believe he is anything but a duly elected President.

Yeah, Riiight… and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Yah know I hate trump, have since the eighties,never seen a more egotistical narcissist loser in my life.

However if I had to investigate him I could easily separate myself from my feelings. Would I share my opinion of him on a text or behind closed doors?
Of course I would but it would not effect my job, and I am nowhere near as professional as the people the Republicans are accusing of being bias...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom