• 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

SLC

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
9,894
Reaction score
3,281
Location
Southlake, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
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.

I'm not so sure this releasing important investigative materials to the public idea is going to sound so appealing to Republicans in about 1-2 months :lamo
 
I'm not so sure this releasing important investigative materials to the public idea is going to sound so appealing to Republicans in about 1-2 months :lamo

Don't you think it's better for Congress to release testimony in its entirety than to only leak what is considered salacious or useful to influence the public toward a desired narrative?

Keep in mind that I said "Congress"...not "the DOJ". (I know where you are going with your comment.) The DOJ operates under different rules, regulations and laws than Congress.
 
I'm not so sure this releasing important investigative materials to the public idea is going to sound so appealing to Republicans in about 1-2 months :lamo
Hey I WANT the Mueller report released.
 
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.

I’m glad this got released. The public needs to see everything, including Mueller report, if it ever gets finished.
 
I’m glad this got released. The public needs to see everything, including Mueller report, if it ever gets finished.

No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.
 
Releasing the transcript doesn't make them look bad. The GOP, however ...
 
Why do you say that?
Because anything else is irrelevant to the nature of the investigation and none of the public's business.
 
Because anything else is irrelevant to the nature of the investigation and none of the public's business.

Is this a legal argument or simply your opinion?
 
Is this a legal argument or simply your opinion?
Really?
Legal opinion - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.
Factual - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.

See any difference?

So tell me, why would you want anything else not related to criminal activity released?


Barr has stated he will release the Report's conclusions. Be happy with that and move on.
 
Really?
Legal opinion - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.
Factual - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.

See any difference?

So tell me, why would you want anything else not related to criminal activity released?


Barr has stated he will release the Report's conclusions. Be happy with that and move on.

Since it is Barr’s choice, it is simply your opinion, then. Why is that so difficult for you to admit?
 
Since it is Barr’s choice, it is simply your opinion, then. Why is that so difficult for you to admit?

Admit? WTF?
What did you not understand about what was said?

Again.
Legal opinion - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.
Factual - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.

See any difference?

Do you really not understand that means you are not entitled to such information?
 
Admit? WTF?
What did you not understand about what was said?

Again.
Legal opinion - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.
Factual - Barr doesn't have to release it unless he wants to.

See any difference?

Do you really not understand that means you are not entitled to such information?

Whether or not I am entitled to the information doesn’t matter. Nor does your opinion matter on what information is released. The only thing that matters is what Barr chooses to release. Are you understanding yet?
 
Whether or not I am entitled to the information doesn’t matter. Nor does your opinion matter on what information is released. The only thing that matters is what Barr chooses to release. Are you understanding yet?
And again you show you do not understand.
Figures.

Again; From the beginning.
No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.

You asked why? I gave you your answer.
You are not entitled to it.
It was not just a factual statement but a legal one as well. Which is what you also asked.
Capice?
 
And again you show you do not understand.
Figures.

Again; From the beginning.
No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.

You asked why? I gave you your answer.
You are not entitled to it.
It was not just a factual statement but a legal one as well. Which is what you also asked.
Capice?

And, again, it’s just your opinion. Your logic is flawed in that you have no argument. What the public sees will be based upon what Barr decides—and he has wide discretion.

Here’s what you’ve done so far:

1) You’ve tried to attack my character, which proves nothing of your statement, and is an ad hominem logic flaw. Make sense?

2) You have no idea what Barr will decide, because you are not him. You are concluding that he will only release information to the public as to whether a crime was committed. But, you do not know that he will do this. It is possible that he will do that, but you cannot conclude that he will. Do you now understand the flaw in your logic? You have only stated an opinion, and not a fact.
 
No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.

Or one can adopt the Swedish position: that the public should only be given such information that their betters - ie the political, legal and media elites - think is good for them.
 
Or one can adopt the Swedish position: that the public should only be given such information that their betters - ie the political, legal and media elites - think is good for them.

Is that really the Swedish position? Ar du svenska? What do you know about the Swedish position?
 
And, again, it’s just your opinion. Your logic is flawed in that you have no argument. What the public sees will be based upon what Barr decides—and he has wide discretion.

Here’s what you’ve done so far:

1) You’ve tried to attack my character, which proves nothing of your statement, and is an ad hominem logic flaw. Make sense?

2) You have no idea what Barr will decide, because you are not him. You are concluding that he will only release information to the public as to whether a crime was committed. But, you do not know that he will do this. It is possible that he will do that, but you cannot conclude that he will. Do you now understand the flaw in your logic? You have only stated an opinion, and not a fact.
You are way off in the deep end here and again show you do not understand.
1. Legally - you are not entitled. Period.
2. Factually - you are not entitled. Period.

There is no difference between those two. What Mueller decides to do is irrelevant to that. Do you really not understand that?

To that which I have emboldened and colored in the quote. That is what I have been telling you and you still do not understand the significance of it. :doh

To your numbered items.
1. Attack your character? WTF? Get a grip and stop projecting. You are the only one damaging your character with your absurd posts.
2. I have not concluded anything. He said he would release the reports conclusions. Do you not understand the terminology of; "He said"?
The only one with flawed logic is you and it is causing you to be unable to understand exactly what has been said.
 
Is that really the Swedish position? Ar du svenska? What do you know about the Swedish position?

Ja, jag är svensk. (You are obviously not as 'svenska' is the plural adjective). And I live in Sweden (to revert to English before the mods are on to me for posting in a dreaded foreign language). So I am able to bore you are great length with all the reasons why I think the aim of Swedish MSM is to only let the public know what it deems good for them.. Btw are you aware that the Swedish state TV and radio broadcasters, STV and Sveriges Radio, are now funded directly from taxation?
 
Ja, jag är svensk. (You are obviously not as 'svenska' is the plural adjective). And I live in Sweden (to revert to English before the mods are on to me for posting in a dreaded foreign language). So I am able to bore you are great length with all the reasons why I think the aim of Swedish MSM is to only let the public know what it deems good for them.. Btw are you aware that the Swedish state TV and radio broadcasters, STV and Sveriges Radio, are now funded directly from taxation?

Yes, I am not Swedish. I have relatives on Öland and in Göteborg. You are right—my Swedish is very poor. BTW, your english is excellent.

I’m not surprised that Swedish state TV is funded by taxation. State socialism is characterized by state ownership of the means of production. Sweden is a socialist country, is it not?
 
Or one can adopt the Swedish position: that the public should only be given such information that their betters - ie the political, legal and media elites - think is good for them.

I cannot adopt that position. In a free country, with a free press, it is imperative that the people get factual, unbiased information.
 
A couple few quick points:

First, the House voted 420-0 to release the Mueller report. Non-binding, but only 3 votes of "present". McConnell will not take up the measure to avoid embarrassing himself and the President.

Second, I am against selective releases (like Collins') because he is deliberately skewing perceptions. It's the same thing he did after Whitaker's interview - he claimed something that even the Republican staff indicated was not true - because no one else was there, and there is no transcript.

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. Second, it is DoJ policy not to release information that does not rise to the level of indictment in criminal cases. DoJ Manual for Prosecutors. Most of Mueller's investigation is not criminal, but counterintelligence. I think we forget that. Also note that "rise to the level of" point. That does not mean "can't be prosecuted against a sitting President." Also, Impeachment is not a criminal matter.

It'll be interesting to see how AG Barr interprets these rules.
 
Yes, I am not Swedish. I have relatives on Öland and in Göteborg. You are right—my Swedish is very poor. BTW, your english is excellent.

I’m not surprised that Swedish state TV is funded by taxation. State socialism is characterized by state ownership of the means of production. Sweden is a socialist country, is it not?

I'm a Brit/Swede dual national.

Depends on one's definition of 'socialist'. I describe Sweden as semi-democratic welfare capitalist, as most industry is not state owned.

Another amazing fact for you: Approved Swedish newspapers receive government, that is tax-payers, subsidies. Just one of the great ways to ensure a tame press.
 
No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.

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.]
 
Back
Top Bottom