• 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!

House Judiciary Republican releases transcript of ex-FBI agent Strzok's testimony

So, since the various investigations into Ms. Clinton's activities concluded that no crime was committed, you are 100% satisfied that that is all that should be released and the various matters should be allowed to fade into insignificance, are you?

[We pause in our broadcast to allow the huge wave of raucous laughter to die down.]
Why do you always respond with irrelevancy? Get your malfunction checked out.
What you are quoting is about the public seeing information that is up to William Barr to decided if it is released.
Do you see me asking, let alone clamoring, for info about what Clinton has done to be released? Huh? No you don't.
So stop with your irrational irrelevant absurdity.
 
So, since the various investigations into Ms. Clinton's activities concluded that no crime was committed, you are 100% satisfied that that is all that should be released and the various matters should be allowed to fade into insignificance, are you?

[We pause in our broadcast to allow the huge wave of raucous laughter to die down.]
This is the very violation of DoJ rules that Comey committed.
 
Why do you always respond with irrelevancy? Get your malfunction checked out.
What you are quoting is about the public seeing information that is up to William Barr to decided if it is released.
Do you see me asking, let alone clamoring, for info about what Clinton has done to be released? Huh? No you don't.
So stop with your irrational irrelevant absurdity.

Excon, it is not an irrational irrelevant absurdity, it is a rational relevant absurdity. There are DoJ rules. If you want them to be abided by, there has to be some consistency. I am not accusing you of clamoring, but I am curious about your rejection of Curmudgeon's point. It is directly related - as it is exactly the same set of rules that govern disclosure. IT's a "goose/gander" kinda thing.
 
Excon, it is not an irrational irrelevant absurdity, it is a rational relevant absurdity. There are DoJ rules. If you want them to be abided by, there has to be some consistency. I am not accusing you of clamoring, but I am curious about your rejection of Curmudgeon's point. It is directly related - as it is exactly the same set of rules that govern disclosure. IT's a "goose/gander" kinda thing.

Then your thoughts are absurd as his are.
I pointed out that Barr decides what will be released. The public is not entitled to anything else. Period.
Clinton has not a damn thing to do with that and has not a damn thing to do with me.
 
I guess that makes you a goose. ;)
 
McConnell will not take up the measure [non-binding unanimous resolution to release Mueller's report] to avoid embarrassing himself and the President.
We won't know this until Mueller submits his report, if Barr opts not to deliver it to Congress, or provides an excessively redacted version. Without knowing what the report contains it is hard to say McConnell would not want it released to avoid embarrassing Trump. There are very different views on what Mueller will report, some are certain it will contain abundant evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary and documented proof of his efforts to obstruct, influence and mislead the investigation, others expect Mueller's report will deliver the opposite, offer no evidence of collusion and lots of speculation on the motivation behind Trump's reaction to this witch hunt.
I am against selective releases.
Then you should be glad for the the complete and unredacted release of Mueller's report once his witch hunt is done. Mueller's report will be a comprehensive accounting of all his investigating, it will include detailed reference to everything sustaining each charge against everyone he has indicted for the crimes uncovered in the course of this witch hunt. The only material that Barr should redact and Congress should not make public, is anything revealing specific sources and methods applied to any individuals who have been indicted, not pled guilty and have not been convicted, unless that material has been disclosed in discovery.
Third, there are prudential and legal reasons not to release unredacted transcripts. As noted, there are ongoing investigations, some of which are touched on by Strzok.
Strzok was not the subject of Mueller's witch hunt, he may be or should become the subject of other investigations. Just because Strzok (and so many others) contaminated the witch hunt is no reason to barr disclosure of the evidence showing how they did this. I don't expect this will be revealed in Mueller's report, likely that sort of material will be carefully withheld by Mueller (like those FISA warrant renewals that didn't mention Hillary was paying for the dossier).
Most of Mueller's investigation is not criminal, but counterintelligence. I think we forget that.
I believe you're mistaken on this, early on it was discussed how Lynch summoned the top figures at DoJ and FBI to set up the witch hunt, this had to be a criminal "investigation" because that way there was no obligation to keep Trump informed (which is mandatory for counterintelligence investigations). Evidently the witch hunt has proceeded as an actual counterintelligence investigation; even foreign intelligence assets were applied, individuals who allegedly are agents of the Russian government have been indicted. The investigation had to withhold information from Trump because he would destroy evidence and alert co-conspirators if he found out how things were proceeding, the leads developed and evidence gathered. Thus Mueller's effort was in the guise of a criminal investigation which does not require disclosure to the president.
 
Last edited:
Interesting mix of logic, illogic, and ideology, Plus. I don't have a particular dog in the fight, so calling something that you admit you know nothing about a "witch hunt" kinda tips your hand. Your belief that it is "not a counterintelligence" investigation is based on what? Genuinely curious, since that is inconsistent with Rosenstein's letter. While prosecution is authorized, it is not the primary focus of the appointment.
 
I am in favor of a largely complete disclosure of Mueller findings consistent with national security interests, and only that.
 
Plus Ultra said:
We won't know this until Mueller submits his report, if Barr opts not to deliver it to Congress, or provides an excessively redacted version. Without knowing what the report contains it is hard to say McConnell would not want it released to avoid embarrassing Trump.
Actually, we already know that, since he said he wasn't going to take up the House resolution. I attributed motivation to that based upon revenge experience. McConnell does not have control of his caucus (as demonstrated by the emergency declaration resolution), so he has shut down any action he can to prevent public expressing of positions.
 
House Judiciary Republican releases transcript of ex-FBI agent Strzok's testimony | TheHill

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday released a transcript of former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s closed-door testimony from last year.

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said he released the transcript so the American people could read through his testimony themselves, with minimal redactions.

The interview focuses largely on Strzok’s decisionmaking during the 2016 election while he served at the FBI.

He became a flashpoint among Republicans after text messages surfaced in which he made derogatory comments about President Trump and other political figures. GOP lawmakers said it calls into question his role on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, as well as his short-lived time working with special counsel Robert Mueller. He was removed from Mueller’s team shortly after news of the text messages surfaced.

He had sent the text messages to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair at the time. Collins released Page’s testimony before the committee earlier this week.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kudos for Rep. Collins he released Lisa Page's testimony and now he has released Peter Strzoh's testimony. The article has a hot link to Strzoh's testimony transcript. Strzoh is certainly an arrogant little Pr***. Lets get it all out in the open. The American people should see it all.

What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. That entire questioning boiled down to Graham and Jordan putting on displays of angry tantrums to get a reaction out of Strzok. And what did we get? He admits he was unfaithful, he made dumb comments he couldn't control the outcome of, and he ultimately did his job despite not liking the substance of the situation personally. Andrew McCabe said he told the Gang of 8 (McConnell, Cornyn, Ryan, McCarthy on the right, their opposites on the left) all about Trump/Russia and the investigation almost immediately after it started and long before Robert Mueller was appointed as head of special counsel for the Russia investigation. There is no 'Deep State', there was no 'coup', it was all manufactured to attack the investigators that were investigating Trump. The transcript furthered our knowledge of the true depth of Trey Gowdy's idiocy.

Notice how conservatives and Congressional Republicans haven't said a word about Lisa Page after her testimony was released? The 'blockbuster' Lisa page testimony landed with a thud for the conservatives again. After two years of hysterical shrieking about 'deep state conspiracies' and all they have found to date is one FBI agent texting his personal opinions about the president on a work phone.



Gang of 8 = Mcconnell, Cornyn, Ryan, Mccarthy on the right, their opposites on the left.
 
Why do you always respond with irrelevancy? Get your malfunction checked out.
What you are quoting is about the public seeing information that is up to William Barr to decided if it is released.
Do you see me asking, let alone clamoring, for info about what Clinton has done to be released? Huh? No you don't.
So stop with your irrational irrelevant absurdity.

Did you know that "irrelevant" does NOT mean "something that I don't want to hear about because it is almost identical to what I am saying and if I admit it exists it makes me look REALLY silly"?
 
I am in favor of a largely complete disclosure of Mueller findings consistent with national security interests, and only that.

And you are so content to allow "The Government" to have unfettered discretion as to what it redacts for "national security interests" that you would be quite content if the government redacted everything but the report's title and page numbers for "national security interests" - right?
 
Did you know that "irrelevant" does NOT mean "something that I don't want to hear about because it is almost identical to what I am saying and if I admit it exists it makes me look REALLY silly"?
Oh lok. More absurd irrelevancy from you.
Go figure.
Clinton has nothing to do with anything I said.
Not only can you not focus but you do not understand when something is irrelevant.
 
What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. That entire questioning boiled down to Graham and Jordan putting on displays of angry tantrums to get a reaction out of Strzok. And what did we get? He admits he was unfaithful, he made dumb comments he couldn't control the outcome of, and he ultimately did his job despite not liking the substance of the situation personally. Andrew McCabe said he told the Gang of 8 (McConnell, Cornyn, Ryan, McCarthy on the right, their opposites on the left) all about Trump/Russia and the investigation almost immediately after it started and long before Robert Mueller was appointed as head of special counsel for the Russia investigation. There is no 'Deep State', there was no 'coup', it was all manufactured to attack the investigators that were investigating Trump. The transcript furthered our knowledge of the true depth of Trey Gowdy's idiocy.

Notice how conservatives and Congressional Republicans haven't said a word about Lisa Page after her testimony was released? The 'blockbuster' Lisa page testimony landed with a thud for the conservatives again. After two years of hysterical shrieking about 'deep state conspiracies' and all they have found to date is one FBI agent texting his personal opinions about the president on a work phone.



Gang of 8 = Mcconnell, Cornyn, Ryan, Mccarthy on the right, their opposites on the left.
And yet Mueller kicked Strzok off his team and he was demoted and fired from the FBI.
 
And you are so content to allow "The Government" to have unfettered discretion as to what it redacts for "national security interests" that you would be quite content if the government redacted everything but the report's title and page numbers for "national security interests" - right?
Actually, no I'm not. From a legal and logical point, I was simply stating my position. The problem, of course, is that "the government" is currently under the control of a partisan, corrupt, and morally bankrupt cabal. I don't trust them to have the interests of the people or the nation in their consideration. Barr, after all, encouraged Bush senior to pardon the Iran Contra conspirators to avoid the investigating reaching the White House. I firmly believe that is why he was selected to be AG.

That belief, however, does not change my legal view. My PREFERENCE would be that any such materials be reviewed in camera by a qualified and neutral authority.
 
And yet Mueller kicked Strzok off his team and he was demoted and fired from the FBI.

Strzok was not fired. He is still employed as an agent with the FBI. If you could actually read or bothered to read any of this stuff you would know that.
 
What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. That entire questioning boiled down to Graham and Jordan putting on displays of angry tantrums to get a reaction out of Strzok. And what did we get? He admits he was unfaithful, he made dumb comments he couldn't control the outcome of, and he ultimately did his job despite not liking the substance of the situation personally. Andrew McCabe said he told the Gang of 8 (McConnell, Cornyn, Ryan, McCarthy on the right, their opposites on the left) all about Trump/Russia and the investigation almost immediately after it started and long before Robert Mueller was appointed as head of special counsel for the Russia investigation. There is no 'Deep State', there was no 'coup', it was all manufactured to attack the investigators that were investigating Trump. The transcript furthered our knowledge of the true depth of Trey Gowdy's idiocy.

Notice how conservatives and Congressional Republicans haven't said a word about Lisa Page after her testimony was released? The 'blockbuster' Lisa page testimony landed with a thud for the conservatives again. After two years of hysterical shrieking about 'deep state conspiracies' and all they have found to date is one FBI agent texting his personal opinions about the president on a work phone.



Gang of 8 = Mcconnell, Cornyn, Ryan, Mccarthy on the right, their opposites on the left.

After reading some of these transcripts what really amazes me is how many ways some of these repubs like Gowdy and Ratcliffe can think of to rephrase the same dumb questions over and over again expecting to somehow get a different answers than the one they already just received. It's simply and insanely incredible
 
Strzok was not fired. He is still employed as an agent with the FBI. If you could actually read or bothered to read any of this stuff you would know that.

On June 15, 2018, the day after this IG report was published, Strzok was escorted from FBI headquarters as part of the bureau's internal conduct investigations.[45] The move put Strzok on notice that the bureau intends to fire him, though he had appeal rights that could delay such action.[46] On June 21, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Strzok had lost his security clearance.[47]
FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich fired Strzok on August 10, 2018. His decision overruled the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, whose head, Candice Will, had decided that Strzok should be demoted and suspended for 60 days.[48]
Peter Strzok - Wikipedia



Strzok was fired then later reinstated but no longer has a security clearance making him useless as an agent. So yes he was fired.
 
Your belief that it is "not a counterintelligence" investigation is based on what? Genuinely curious, since that is inconsistent with Rosenstein's letter.
Criminal investigations are undertaken when investigators have a good-faith basis to believe one or more penal laws may have been violated. They target a particular person (or persons in the case of concerted criminal activity). Once investigators are convinced that a crime has been committed by the suspect, the objective of the investigation is to build a case fit for prosecution in a court of law (to amass sufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of the statutory offense beyond a reasonable doubt). The investigators fully anticipate making a formal public charge against the suspect (an indictment), which will be followed by a public trial -the presentation of witness testimony and evidence in a judicial proceeding open to the public.

Obviously aspects of criminal investigations are secret; warrants and wiretaps would not be very useful if police had to notify the suspect in advance of their raids and surveillances. It would be very difficult to get the cooperation of witnesses or compel the production of relevant documents if grand jury proceedings were conducted in public. Most significantly, the suspect is presumed innocent. To publicize investigative information before a person has an opportunity to test its credibility under due-process rules would undermine the presumption and brand the person a criminal.

This is day-and-night different from foreign-intelligence investigations. The objective of the latter is not to target a particular person for public prosecution. It is to protect the security and interests of the entire nation of American people by acquiring information about the actions and intentions of foreign powers.

Virtually everything involved in a foreign-intelligence investigation (its existence, any attendant court process, the information gathered, the analysis of its meaning, the methods and sources of its acquisition is classified). When the information is collected, the presumption is that it is only for the eyes of government agents responsible for protecting national security and other American interests. In fact, even within that “community” of intelligence operatives, the information is closely held.

Citizens who are caught up in foreign intelligence investigations are generally not suspected of criminal wrongdoing. If they were, they would be subjects of criminal investigations. The government is not supposed to use its foreign-intelligence collection authority as a pretext to build criminal cases. Consequently, there is an emphasis in intelligence investigations on maintaining the confidentiality of citizens whose identities or activities cross the government’s radar screen. Generally, their identities are concealed (or “masked”) even from intelligence agents working on the investigation. The investigative relevance of these citizens lies not in their own conduct, for the sake of proving them guilty; it lies in what their conduct (whether knowing or inadvertent) can tell our agencies about the plans of foreign powers that could imperil our country.

Therefore, the presumption is that foreign-intelligence investigations do not and should not become public -the opposite of our presumption for criminal investigations. Indeed, before FBI director James Comey’s startling public revelation (in congressional testimony) of an active investigation of possible ties between Trump associates and the Putin regime, what we knew about the investigation came from the leaking of classified information —a felony.

Mueller's witch hunt features elements of a criminal investigation; public indictments, plea bargains disclosure of evidence and highly publicized judicial sentencing (not features of counterintelligence investigations). Nonetheless, there are also plenty of sealed indictments and other proceedings secretly held (more appropriate for a counterintelligence investigation). None of the publicly available material (except reference to 13 Russian purported GRU agents and 3 presumably also Russian "front" business entities (involved in an apparently insignificant social media disinformation campaign) has any nexus with any foreign power.


From what is available to the public Mueller is engaged in a criminal investigation (or witch hunt).
 
From what is available to the public Mueller is engaged in a criminal investigation (or witch hunt).
Sorry, my friend. Even though I don't disagree with much of your last post, which does a good job of laying out many of the differences, this is still simply wrong. Mueller Appointment Letter Of particular import are paragraphs (b) and (c).

I would agree that much of the hyperventilation in the press is based upon the outward signs of criminal activity, and public prosecutions. But, the underlying basis, as you just noted, is based upon the existing counterintelligence investigation (again, as explicitly stated in the appointment). That's why I don't think we'll see a lot of what Mueller knows.

“If this is a witch hunt,” said Neal Katyal on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Mueller’s found a coven at this point.”
 
Peter Strzok - Wikipedia



Strzok was fired then later reinstated but no longer has a security clearance making him useless as an agent. So yes he was fired.

Only until such time time as we dispose of our Orange wannabe King once and for all. Then he will have his security clearance back again, I'm sure. Meanwhile Strzok appears to to have retained nearly the same rank and pay grade as he had before.
 
House Judiciary Republican releases transcript of ex-FBI agent Strzok's testimony | TheHill

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday released a transcript of former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s closed-door testimony from last year.

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said he released the transcript so the American people could read through his testimony themselves, with minimal redactions.

The interview focuses largely on Strzok’s decisionmaking during the 2016 election while he served at the FBI.

He became a flashpoint among Republicans after text messages surfaced in which he made derogatory comments about President Trump and other political figures. GOP lawmakers said it calls into question his role on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, as well as his short-lived time working with special counsel Robert Mueller. He was removed from Mueller’s team shortly after news of the text messages surfaced.

He had sent the text messages to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair at the time. Collins released Page’s testimony before the committee earlier this week.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kudos for Rep. Collins he released Lisa Page's testimony and now he has released Peter Strzoh's testimony. The article has a hot link to Strzoh's testimony transcript. Strzoh is certainly an arrogant little Pr***. Lets get it all out in the open. The American people should see it all.

Anyone ever see that movie "7" with Brad Pit and Morgan Freeman? The only movie to ever freak me out and that guy Strzok reminded me of the Kevin Spacey character.
 
Only until such time time as we dispose of our Orange wannabe King once and for all. Then he will have his security clearance back again, I'm sure. Meanwhile Strzok appears to to have retained nearly the same rank and pay grade as he had before.
Oh you are now in charge of the FBI. You sure do have an inflated opinion of yourself.:lamo
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom