• 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!

OMG... Is this creepy or what?

Lovebug said:
If a conservative agent is caught saying that he will do his best to prevent Hillary from winning, you have my blessing.
Click to expand...

Should the right wing media now apologize to the family of Seth rich who they insisted was part of the hacking of DNA emails???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Should the right wing media now apologize to the family of Seth rich who they insisted was part of the hacking of DNA emails???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If they are wrong, of course. I am not making excuses for one or the other.
 
Middleground said:
He did have to do something. We all have bias -- it's whether we act on that bias is what matters.



AS far as I have read, the above statement is not true. It's been noted that he was extremely vigilant in the Clinton investigation.



Did Strzok make Comey do what he did?

PS. You have still failed to show me actions that Strzok took against Trump in his investigations.
Click to expand...

Strzok dragged is feet on the Weiner issue once it became known. That is why Comey was coming out so close to the election. Weeks were lost while Strzok dawdled. Strzok was more interested in the Trump Russia investigation than the Weiner emails. The OIG report not only makes this point but states that it cannot conclude that this was not because of bias. The initial Hillary investigation was concluded and then the Weiner emails came to light so we are not talking about the first Hillary investigation.
 
veritas1 said:
Strzok dragged is feet on the Weiner issue once it became known. That is why Comey was coming out so close to the election. Weeks were lost while Strzok dawdled. Strzok was more interested in the Trump Russia investigation than the Weiner emails. The OIG report not only makes this point but states that it cannot conclude that this was not because of bias. The initial Hillary investigation was concluded and then the Weiner emails came to light so we are not talking about the first Hillary investigation.
Click to expand...

^ I don't want opinion. I want facts. I have yet to see any that supports your opinion.
 
Middleground said:
^ I don't want opinion. I want facts. I have yet to see any that supports your opinion.
Click to expand...

From the OIG report:

We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.
 
veritas1 said:
From the OIG report:

We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.
Click to expand...

“Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the investigative decisions we reviewed,” the IG report states.
 
Middleground said:
“Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the investigative decisions we reviewed,” the IG report states.
Click to expand...

Yet in regard to slow walking the Weiner email investigation, they could make no such finding. It is that to which I earlier referred.
 
Middleground said:
“Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the investigative decisions we reviewed,” the IG report states.
Click to expand...

Like so many on the left, you misinterpret that as a conclusion that political bias did not effect their decision making and that's not what it's saying at all. There are different levels of "evidence" in an investigation or trial. That statement was speaking to the most credible or damning type of evidence. The type that's difficult or almost impossible to refute, documentary or testimonial evidence.

What that statement says is, the IG didn't find a) a text message where Strzok said for example "I hate Trump, so I will make sure Hillary is exonerated so he doesn't win", or b) either Strzok admitting that bias drove his decisions, or someone testifying that Strzok said that he would base his investigative tactics and decisions to make sure Trump lost or Hillary won. Nobody from either side expected that the IG would find either of those types of evidence in this case, and of course they didn't... That's all that statement is saying.

Without that documentary or testimonial evidence the IG could not conclude that bias definitely DID effect the decision making, but that's not the same as concluding bias definitely DID NOT effect the decision making... Which explains the statement by the IG in the report, where he said that Strzok's actions "led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias." In layman's terms, the IG was saying that they had no smoking gun evidence that bias definitely played a role in his decision making, but based on Strzok's text messages and his handling of the emails on Weiner's laptop, it indicated to him a likelihood that political bias did in fact effect his decisions making. In other words, common sense told him that Strzok's bias is the reason he decided to sit on those emails and take no action.

.
 
DiAnna said:
I watched the entire hearing. This is nothing more than edited, photoshopped idiocy by partisan... or Russian... idiots. What the hell is wrong with you, putting this crap from Twitter out as some kind of actual truth??

Grim17 said:
I think an apology or retraction is in order for accusing me of posting a manipulated, "photoshopped" clip that wasn't real. Based on our past encounters, I'm not very hopeful you'll do the right thing here, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting?

.
 
DiAnna said:
In that case, stay hydrated and be sure to take potty breaks.
Click to expand...

Based on my past experiences with you, that reaction was expected.

The way I see it, a person who levels false accusations and doesn't have the honesty or integrity to retract or apologize for them, is simply a weak individual who's views can't be taken at face value.

Without honesty, a person is nothing.

.
 
Yeah he’s a creepy dude and a ****ing liar. Only the blind sheep liberals believe him, because to not believe him means that this investigation might be a sham. Just like the president says. And don’t give me any of your stupid logic about why you think he’s telling the truth. This guy is a low life creep who is still getting a pay check off of my dime. F$&#k him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom