• 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!

Goodlatte to Democrats: ‘Replace Trump’s Name’ with Obama’s in Strzok’s Text Messages

Doc91478 said:
Goodlatte to Democrats: ‘Replace Trump’s Name’ with Obama’s in Strzok’s Text Messages​


By Melanie Arter
July 12, 2018


In an opening statement at a joint hearing by the House Judiciary and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committees, Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) on Thursday asked Democrats to imagine FBI agent Peter Strzok's text messages were about them, former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "For all those in this room who continue to disparage our investigation as mere conspiracy theory, and for all those who have chosen to ignore serious irregularities and potential crimes that we have uncovered, I say this: Imagine if you were under investigation and the investigator hated you, disparaged you in all manner of ways, and fraternized with another employee working on your case who also hated you, denigrated your supporters, and made crucial investigative decisions on how your case should be treated and eventually adjudicated,"� Goodlatte said. "Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is: fidelity, bravery, and integrity. I think not,"� he said. "To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please replace Trump's name with your own name in a small sample of things Mr. Strzok has said".
~Snip~
"I implore my friends not to continue their efforts to undermine this investigation, and as for their rights, I submit that the rights that should concern us are the rights of the American people, namely to know the facts, to trust that their law enforcement agencies are operating fairly and justly and to feel secure in the knowledge that no one is above the law,"� Goodlatte concluded.


Source:https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...t-strzoks-text

~~~~~~
But Democrats did not and could not do as Rep. Goodlatte asked. It would go against everything the DNC and the former administration had done to weaponize the agencies. Meanwhile it's plain to see that the Progressive Left were more than willing bury these investigations and allow this travesty to occur and are very willing to cover-up this scandal.
Both Strzok and Page used government equipment in communications that now expose what they were really up to.
At the end of the day, all these overblown legislators have are words. Where are the grand juries and indictments by the DoJ. It boggles the mind that someone would have to be an utterly ideology biased hack to not see the lawless behavior and abuse of power by Obama his administration and appointees on down.
Today the smoke was fanned into a fire, you have to open your eyes and accept that it might actually be there. A Hillary exoneration without a grand jury with mountains of evidence against her? Immunity for witnesses with no reason to give it? Where was the investigation regarding the Clinton Foundation, Clinton's personal millions and links between donations and access? An investigation by an intentional leak to initiate a special prosecutor and FISA warrants on fraudulent dossier that we now know has three variations.
We The People are tired of words. We need to see real actions taken by law enforcement against these criminals. we need to be able to respect and trust the federal law enforcement agencies. we need to know that no one is above the law. All we have so far is talk, parsing, deflection, obstruction. What we seek is results and justice not cheap talk.
Click to expand...

so, you hate the 1st Amendment; we get that ................
 
Howard the Duck said:
Of course the inspector general ruled that he didn't act in a biased way either.

But doesn't matter to you guys. Hillary was cleared by the AG and 9 Republican Congressional Committees and you still falsely accuse her, too.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
 
Geoist said:
Gohmert went personal in the hearing. Completely unprofessional. But I'm not surprised you enjoyed it despite the utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, Gohmert was the unprofessional one. Haha, that's a good one.
 
Shouldn't this be an issue of law, and not a partisan back and forth?
 
Redress said:
It does not matter whose name was on the text, people in the FBI are allowed to have political opinions. If there was evidence of, you know, actual wrongdoing, then it might matter. Since there is not, it does not. Goodlatte is a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...

This is what's comical about the whole thing. The question is do they have proof that bias led to questionable acts. In the real world people have biases of all sorts and can express them openly, but if they still carry out their orders/responsibilities in spite of that bias then it shouldn't present an issue. The premise is bias alone is a problem; if that's the case then we better start hiring robots to do everything.
 
Geoist said:
Strzok is no doubt smug and biased against Trump. With that said, Mueller has 20 indictments within a year while Gowdy and his Team got zilch over many years.
Click to expand...

More and more, we see proof that the investigation is a sham and an embarrassment. Strzock alone would be enough to end most clown courts like Mueller's. But no, got to keep this going, it's almost midterms!
 
To a certain degree, I agree with my senator. Are people in the FBI allowed to have a political stance? Absolutely. However, when it comes to investigations and handling law enforcement with individuals, the perception of impropriety can come into play. Having someone on the team talking like that about the person they're investigating would rightfully cause significant issues with actually executing the law and hamper any case being made against the person if it went to trial.

Which is precisely why it's a good thing it was discovered and he was removed from the investigation. That was the correct action to take in regards to that. Had he been the singular or one of a tiny amount of investigators, and had been part of the investigation through the majority of it's existence, then perhaps it would also mean that the investigation was also compromised. But in reality, he was one of a rather sizable team, and I believe he has been off the investigation longer than he was actually on it, or is nearing that point. Unless there's evidence that work he did actually CONTAINED bias, as opposed to simply having the reasonable perception of bias, there's no reason there should be any greater action with regards to the investigation OTHER than his removal...which has already happened.

So I agree with Goodlatte; this appearance of bias is a problem and one that, if the target was different, many democrats likely would also have issue with. Where I seem to part ways with him, or more with people who are supporting him and his notion, is that it means some kind of greater action or steps need to be taken with regards to the investigation than has already been done. It hasn't. There is a perception of bias, and in those cases you want to separate yourself from it as soon as possible for good of your case; but if there is no proof of actual bias causing wrongful action (illegally or unethically gained information, fraudulent information, etc), and the individual wasn't instrumental to the whole of the investigation, there's no reason that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater.
 
ElChupacabra said:
This is what's comical about the whole thing. The question is do they have proof that bias led to questionable acts. In the real world people have biases of all sorts and can express them openly, but if they still carry out their orders/responsibilities in spite of that bias then it shouldn't present an issue. The premise is bias alone is a problem; if that's the case then we better start hiring robots to do everything.
Click to expand...

I agree that whether it was personal bias, incompetence or just not liking to follow established FBI policy that 'led to questionable acts' the fact that questionable acts occurred was being questioned. Mueller saw problems (questionable acts?) with Strzok, as did the FBI (eventually), and decided not to keep him employed.
 
Anthony60 said:
Strzok was an absolute disgrace today. The FBI looks like crap, especially with the things this guy did and continued to work there. All this happened under Obama, and there is no way he didn't know what was going on. What a stain on our system of justice. Oh, and equally disgraceful were the Democrats defending this POS.

God, and to think the left was crying "obstruction of justice" when Trump fired Comey. He was 100% justified. Now, we know that keeping Comey would have been the real obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Let me let you in on something. Law enforcement routinely have poor opinions of the scumbags they investigate. That does not mean they are unprofessional or act improper in their investigation.
 
Doc91478 said:
~~~~~~
But Democrats did not and could not do as Rep. Goodlatte asked. It would go against everything the DNC and the former administration had done to weaponize the agencies. Meanwhile it's plain to see that the Progressive Left were more than willing bury these investigations and allow this travesty to occur and are very willing to cover-up this scandal.
Click to expand...

Oh please, you can replace everything that Trump has done and put Obama's name in his place and then ask yourself if Republicans wouldn't be going after Obama for it? You guys like to play this "replace the name" game except when it deals with Trump's actions. Spare us your hypocrisy.

The fact is, having an opinion doesn't disqualify or mean bias for the job you are doing. I was in the military during Bush Jr. term and while I despised his Iraq decisions, I did my job to the fullest and without bias.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that whether it was personal bias, incompetence or just not liking to follow established FBI policy that 'led to questionable acts' the fact that questionable acts occurred was being questioned. Mueller saw problems (questionable acts?) with Strzok, as did the FBI (eventually), and decided not to keep him employed.
Click to expand...

Mueller saw the APPEARANCE of bias, so he did the right thing to not tank an investigation. If APPEARANCE of bias means guilt, than due to Trump and Co. lies about meetings and contacts with Russians they have created the APPEARANCE of collusion and are guilty of it. I doubt you would agree to that.
 
Howard the Duck said:
He was cleared by the IG. Your bankrupt party's 9 hour assault/gauntlet was nothing less than obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tell me you are good with that guy doing investigations on Hillary and Trump, with his level of ethics. Let's see where you stand. Even Mueller got rid of him.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Let me let you in on something. Law enforcement routinely have poor opinions of the scumbags they investigate. That does not mean they are unprofessional or act improper in their investigation.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I'll let you in on something too. Just the appearance of bias is enough. He is required to avoid any appearance of bias. Did he do that? Do you think that a reasonable person could see that a bias exists with Mr. Strzock? Let alone this guy was highly involved in two major investigations.
 
Praxas said:
Mueller saw the APPEARANCE of bias, so he did the right thing to not tank an investigation. If APPEARANCE of bias means guilt, than due to Trump and Co. lies about meetings and contacts with Russians they have created the APPEARANCE of collusion and are guilty of it. I doubt you would agree to that.
Click to expand...

I never said that the appearance of bias means guilt, but agree with you that it means removing any that express such bias from allegedly impartial positions within the FBI.
 
Just a reminder: the FBI helped Trump win and Hillary lose. We voted in November 2016 not knowing the Trump campaign was under investigation for colluding with Russia. That’s how far down the rabbit hole of ridiculousness we have gone. Now, the GOP enablers are pouching the narrative that the FBI, a very conservative organization, was so anti-Trump that it fudged the investigation into his campaign's collusion. I guess the FBI just forgot to make it public before the election but didn't forget to right a memo about Hillary's emails that ended up being nothing.
 
ElChupacabra said:
This is what's comical about the whole thing. The question is do they have proof that bias led to questionable acts. In the real world people have biases of all sorts and can express them openly, but if they still carry out their orders/responsibilities in spite of that bias then it shouldn't present an issue. The premise is bias alone is a problem; if that's the case then we better start hiring robots to do everything.
Click to expand...

It's the appearance of bias, not proof that he carried out bias in the investigation. This is because people deserve a fair, unbiased investigation. Of course people are biased about things, that's just a given. But, you certainly can't do what Strzok did and say there is no appearance of bias.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I never said that the appearance of bias means guilt, but agree with you that it means removing any that express such bias from allegedly impartial positions within the FBI.
Click to expand...

shouldn't the same then also apply to the presidency? If we have a president or admin that have the appearance of Russain collusion, why shouldn't they be removed then? You are asking for action on appearance but not another, why?
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, and I'll let you in on something too. Just the appearance of bias is enough. He is required to avoid any appearance of bias. Did he do that? Do you think that a reasonable person could see that a bias exists with Mr. Strzock? Let alone this guy was highly involved in two major investigations.
Click to expand...
Mr. Strzock was definitely personally biased against Mr. Trump -- just as the majority of college educated Americans were personally biased against Mr. Trump. That doesn't mean that he took professional actions to use his official position to hurt Trump. Likewise, school teachers, who were personally biased against Mr. Trump, didn't tell their students to urge their parents to vote for Hillary.

I can just imagine if John Gotti used your logic when he was on trial. 'I can't get a fair trial because the prosecution is biased against contract killers, money launderers, and racketeers.'
 
Praxas said:
shouldn't the same then also apply to the presidency? If we have a president or admin that have the appearance of Russain collusion, why shouldn't they be removed then? You are asking for action on appearance but not another, why?
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you see political bias as a problem for a POTUS (it seems to be rather universal) but the impeachment process is clearly defined as the (only legal?) way to remove the POTUS.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I find it odd that you see political bias as a problem for a POTUS (it seems to be rather universal) but the impeachment process is clearly defined as the (only legal?) way to remove the POTUS.
Click to expand...

The Appearance of a president colluding with a foreign government to meddle with an election is far worse than what is going on here in this thread. But you want to ignore that bias and roast a guy who texted his opinion on something. This is truly what's wrong with America.

As I pointed out in another thread, replace EVERYTHING that Trump has done with Obama and there is not a Republican that wouldn't call for Obama to be impeached.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, and I'll let you in on something too. Just the appearance of bias is enough. He is required to avoid any appearance of bias. Did he do that? Do you think that a reasonable person could see that a bias exists with Mr. Strzock? Let alone this guy was highly involved in two major investigations.
Click to expand...

There was no bias against Trump. Everything the FBI did publicly in 2016 hurt the Hillary campaign. They never even publicly announced the Trump campaign was under investigation.

The fact is, Trump is a scumbag and just like any other low life the FBI investigates, its a given that those investigating him are going to have a poor opinion of him just like they have a poor opinion of every other lowlife scum they investigate.
 
Redress said:
It does not matter whose name was on the text, people in the FBI are allowed to have political opinions. If there was evidence of, you know, actual wrongdoing, then it might matter. Since there is not, it does not. Goodlatte is a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...

You people would be losing your **** if the same thing happened to Obama. No need to respond, because any disagreement is a lie.
 
Praxas said:
Mueller saw the APPEARANCE of bias, so he did the right thing to not tank an investigation. If APPEARANCE of bias means guilt, than due to Trump and Co. lies about meetings and contacts with Russians they have created the APPEARANCE of collusion and are guilty of it. I doubt you would agree to that.
Click to expand...

You picked up on Strzoks talking points fast. Huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom