• 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

Casca XV said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, you are right . :lol:
 
Casca XV said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only people that need to fear Strzok are those that collaborate with agencies of hostile foreign powers operating against the United States. Because if you're one of those people he's the type of guy that's going to find you.
 
SLC said:
Oh you are now in charge of the FBI. You sure do a inflated opinion of your self.:lamo
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself. Trump had everything to do the revocation of Strzok's security clearance. After all his son in law Jared needed one. So he probably just said; "Here you go. Take his.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The only people that need to fear Strzok are those that collaborate with agencies of hostile foreign powers operating against the United States. Because if you're one of those people he's the type of guy that's going to find you.
Click to expand...
So Hillary should be afraid of him. I guess she shouldn't have bought a fake dossier made by Russian agents.
 
SLC said:
So Hillary should be afraid of him. I guess she shouldn't have bought a fake dossier made by Russian agents.
Click to expand...

Strzok was one of those in the Midyear team that consistently advocated for the use of very aggressive investigative measures in the Hillary email case. He doesn't play favorites when comes to investigations. When he gets a case to investigate he's on it like a dog with a bone. And BTW if you had actually read the Lisa Page transcripts you would know that the FBI went to work right away on the 'dossier' as far as trying to prove or disprove the any of the reports contained in the dossier. As far as she was aware the FBI had not succeeded in disproving any of them.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The only people that need to fear Strzok are those that collaborate with agencies of hostile foreign powers operating against the United States. Because if you're one of those people he's the type of guy that's going to find you.
Click to expand...

Naw, the people who need to fear this guy the ones who don't want to end up in a concentration camp or mass grave after Obama or others like him finish turning the FBI into another KGB or Gestapo.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The only people that need to fear Strzok are those that collaborate with agencies of hostile foreign powers operating against the United States. Because if you're one of those people he's the type of guy that's going to find you.
Click to expand...

Naw, the people who need to fear this guy are the ones who don't want to end up in a concentration camp or mass grave after Obama or others like him finish turning the FBI into another KGB or Gestapo.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Strzok was one of those in the Midyear team that consistently advocated for the use of very aggressive investigative measures in the Hillary email case. He doesn't play favorites when comes to investigations. When he gets a case to investigate he's on it like a dog with a bone. And BTW if you had actually read the Lisa Page transcripts you would know that the FBI went to work right away on the 'dossier' as far as trying to prove or disprove the any of the reports contained in the dossier. As far as she was aware the FBI had not succeeded in disproving any of them.
Click to expand...
They should have asked Cohen if he ever went to Prague. :lol: We don't prosecute people on evidence that we cannot prove.

Also it was Strzok that changed "grossly negligent" in the first draft to "extremely careless" in the final draft. The law says grossly negligent so it would have been hard not to indict if grossly negligent has stayed in the document.
 
SLC said:
They should have asked Cohen if he ever went to Prague. :lol: We don't prosecute people on evidence that we cannot prove.

Also it was Strzok that changed "grossly negligent" in the first draft to "extremely careless" in the final draft. The law says grossly negligent so it would have been hard not to indict if grossly negligent has stayed in the document.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been fully resolved. Cohen is adamant that he has never been to Prague and maybe it may very well be that he hasn't. Yet his phone was identified has being one that had 'pinged' off a cell phone tower in that vicinity. Usually these 'pings' can be as uniquely identified by intelligence gathering units or devices as IP addresses are with computers. So there has to be some kind of explanation for how this could have happened assuming that the report of the ping is genuine.

And you're absolutely wrong about the change in the draft of the term "grossly negligent" or "gross negligence" to "extremely careless". Extremely careless was already present in the draft along with gross negligence. The lawyers simply recommended that for the sake of clarity that "gross negligence", or "grossly negligent", be deleted. Because that is a term that has a very specific legal meaning and it was not supported by any of the evidence and the definition of it was constitutionally very vague. They then simply deleted "grossly negligent" and moved "extremely careless' further up into the paragraph of the draft. There was no direct substitution of one term for the other. Again this something you would have seen and known if you had actually read the transcript of Lisa Page's testimony . Why are you so hell bent on proving that you don't know what it is you're talking about because you just too damn intellectually lazy to actually put in the work?
 
Casca XV said:
Naw, the people who need to fear this guy the ones who don't want to end up in a concentration camp or mass grave after Obama or others like him finish turning the FBI into another KGB or Gestapo.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true right wing conspiracy nut with a big ass tin foil hat and a complete lack of scruples.
 
NWRatCon said:
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 then released if the release is not PROVEN to be contrary to national security interests (as opposed to "contrary to protecting the reputation of a member of the US government).
Click to expand...

With the indicated changes, I agree with you completely.
 
Casca XV said:
Naw, the people who need to fear this guy are the ones who don't want to end up in a concentration camp or mass grave after Obama or others like him finish turning the FBI into another KGB or Gestapo.
Click to expand...

Congratulations!

You have won the First Quarter "Massively Inflated Grossly Distorted Silly Hyperbole" Award for 2019.
 
SLC said:
They should have asked Cohen if he ever went to Prague. :lol: We don't prosecute people on evidence that we cannot prove.

Also it was Strzok that changed "grossly negligent" in the first draft to "extremely careless" in the final draft. The law says grossly negligent so it would have been hard not to indict if grossly negligent has stayed in the document.
Click to expand...

They could have asked Mr. Cohen what explanation he had for the fact that his cell phone went to Prague if he didn't.

Of course the answer might well be "I am not an electronics expert, so I do not know why a cell phone tower in Prague would seem to have recorded my cell phone as being in Prague.".

PS - You might want to notice three things about that answer [1] it is 100% factually correct, [2] it is 100% non-responsive to the question actually asked, and [3] it is 100% non-responsive to the intent of the question actually asked.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Spoken like a true right wing conspiracy nut with a big ass tin foil hat and a complete lack of scruples.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that "right-wing" bit?

After all, Mr. Trump has said that he has [1] the Army, [2] the Police, and [3] the street thugs on his side.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
PS - You might want to notice three things about that answer [1] it is 100% factually correct, [2] it is 100% non-responsive to the question actually asked, and [3] it is 100% non-responsive to the intent of the question actually asked.
Click to expand...
Two fellows are at the fair in a village in France. One of the rides is a tethered balloon that lets you see from 100 feet in the air, so they get tickets.

As they are in the balloon, the tether breaks and they ascend into the clouds, drifting in the wind. An hour later, the balloon starts to descend. They see a man walking down a road with his dog. As they get closer to the man, they shout down, "Sir! Where are we?"

Startled, the man looks into the sky, sees the balloon, and shouts back, "You're in a balloon! "

One fellow turns to the other and says, "wouldn't you know, we get lost in the countryside and the first Person we come upon is a lawyer?"

His friend asks, "What makes you say that?"

"Well," he replies, "what he has told us is precisely correct, and of no earthly value whatsoever. "
 
NWRatCon said:
Two fellows are at the fair in a village in France. One of the rides is a tethered balloon that lets you see from 100 feet in the air, so they get tickets.

As they are in the balloon, the tether breaks and they ascend into the clouds, drifting in the wind. An hour later, the balloon starts to descend. They see a man walking down a road with his dog. As they get closer to the man, they shout down, "Sir! Where are we?"

Startled, the man looks into the sky, sees the balloon, and shouts back, "You're in a balloon! "

One fellow turns to the other and says, "wouldn't you know, we get lost in the countryside and the first Person we come upon is a lawyer?"

His friend asks, "What makes you say that?"

"Well," he replies, "what he has told us is precisely correct, and of no earthly value whatsoever. "
Click to expand...

Bumper-Sticker-California-Septic.jpg​
 
My concern with the characterization of Mueller's efforts as either "criminal" or "counterintelligence" is due to the different reporting requirements. It is my understanding the FBI has to report on its counterintelligence investigations, but not on the criminal ones. This makes sense because the president would have to be kept current on "threats to national security". Trump would need to know what Mueller has discovered about the specific activities of alleged GRU agents posing as US citizens for the purchase of facebook advertising or in posting online messages, would have to be told what is known about that chef's ties to the Russian entity used as a cover for those GRU agents and his relationship to Putin. Trump would have to be informed about what has been verified in the dossier. Obviously he couldn't be informed of any of this if he is the suspect, but if Mueller is engaged in counterintelligence investigating, how does he report to the executive? Since the counterintelligence reporting requirement is due to national security and that would be jeopardized when the suspect is the US president, is this an exception to reporting requirement? I think this problem was resolved by characterizing Mueller's efforts as a "criminal investigation", that this way there was no reporting requirement and Mueller's progress could be concealed, as it would have to be since Trump was the suspect. The fact that Mueller's efforts have provided lots of criminal indictments and plenty of evidence of criminal activity, but nothing of this counterintelligence stuff, also makes it seem his effort is criminal and not counterintelligence focused.

On Strzok's status, I think he lost his security clearance and was reassigned to HR. This is routine in law enforcement, those who seriously mess up are typically assigned to "desk duty" until the dust settles. In my view Strzok intolerably messed up and should be fired, but the FBI looks after its own, they have their procedures.
 
Excon said:
No. The public only needs to see information as to whether a crime was committed. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

No, because of allegations against Strzok, the entire transcript should be revealed out of fairness to Strzok. Also, that of Page and Orr, as well.
 
SLC said:
And yet Mueller kicked Strzok off his team and he was demoted and fired from the FBI.
Click to expand...



And yet, because of Strzok, in total ignorance of the action by Mueller, the right, especially Trump, continues to assert that the entire investigation is invalid because of Strzok & Page.
 
SLC said:
They should have asked Cohen if he ever went to Prague. :lol: We don't prosecute people on evidence that we cannot prove.
Click to expand...
Cohen was not indicted for going ( or not ) to Prague.
 
OscarLevant said:
And yet, because of Strzok, in total ignorance of the action by Mueller, the right, especially Trump, continues to assert that the entire investigation is invalid because of Strzok & Page.
Click to expand...
That isn't true he assert the investigation is invalid because there was no collusion not because of Strzok and Page.
 
Plus Ultra said:
My concern with the characterization of Mueller's efforts as either "criminal" or "counterintelligence" is due to the different reporting requirements. It is my understanding the FBI has to report on its counterintelligence investigations, but not on the criminal ones. This makes sense because the president would have to be kept current on "threats to national security". Trump would need to know what Mueller has discovered about the specific activities of alleged GRU agents posing as US citizens for the purchase of facebook advertising or in posting online messages, would have to be told what is known about that chef's ties to the Russian entity used as a cover for those GRU agents and his relationship to Putin. Trump would have to be informed about what has been verified in the dossier. Obviously he couldn't be informed of any of this if he is the suspect, but if Mueller is engaged in counterintelligence investigating, how does he report to the executive? Since the counterintelligence reporting requirement is due to national security and that would be jeopardized when the suspect is the US president, is this an exception to reporting requirement? I think this problem was resolved by characterizing Mueller's efforts as a "criminal investigation", that this way there was no reporting requirement and Mueller's progress could be concealed, as it would have to be since Trump was the suspect. The fact that Mueller's efforts have provided lots of criminal indictments and plenty of evidence of criminal activity, but nothing of this counterintelligence stuff, also makes it seem his effort is criminal and not counterintelligence focused.

On Strzok's status, I think he lost his security clearance and was reassigned to HR. This is routine in law enforcement, those who seriously mess up are typically assigned to "desk duty" until the dust settles. In my view Strzok intolerably messed up and should be fired, but the FBI looks after its own, they have their procedures.
Click to expand...
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 intended 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]
Click to expand...
Strzok was fired the FBI Deputy Director and later reinstated by the FBI office of Professional Responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom