• 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!

The is More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
28,002
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok wrote: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in*[Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there’s no way he gets electedbut I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …”
FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."

Peter Strzok, the second-highest ranking counterintelligence agent at the FBI, was involved at key junctures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe.

Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
 
Last edited:
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

benghazi.jpg


Sorry, wore out from all the wolf crying.
 
Thank you both for more examples of typically fallacious diversionary responses. :coffeepap:

Thank you for once again bringing up the Clintons to distract from what is going down in the White House, and who is going with it.

I mean - please. Do continually bring them up. We certainly don't see enough threads about them around here.
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

.....
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

Trump thought it would make his life easier to just fire Comey...as he confided to the Russian diplomats/agents a few days later. He is responsible for the appointment of a special prosecutor who is charged with investigating suspected wrong doing. He asked Comey to drop an investigation....obstruction of justice, which is a crime...and then
he fired Comey when Comey would not. So the basis for starting the investigation is not a pack of lies, but rather the actions of Mr. Trump.
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

Except the Comey memo/speech didn't really help Clinton win now did it? In fact, I always thought, and Clinton would agree with me here, that it was the final nail in her proverbial coffin. I think Peter's emails/text messages are just that. A liberal freaking out about the possibility of Trump getting elected and being taken seriously as a candidate. You guys really need to stop masturbating to them because your guy is not very popular.
There is no indication that Comey (a republican) shared that view (even with the changes).

There is one thing I would like conservatives to answer that they haven't before. Why does bias matter? If Trump is guilty, he is guilty.
 
This whole thing just smacks of desperation.
 
Man, Captain Adverse has really become non-stop stooge for Trump. Strange that a "left libertarian" would spend every waking moment he has on DP feverishly defending someone contrary to everything he pretends to believe.
 
Thank you for once again bringing up the Clintons to distract from what is going down in the White House, and who is going with it.

The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.

The simple fact that this same individual, who all evidence shows was a Hillary supporter, states he has an insurance policy to impede Trump if despite all predictions he does win.

The email issue was brought up to show a pattern. Whether you accept it or not, it is a normal part of considering a possible criminal investigation.

Trump thought it would make his life easier to just fire Comey...as he confided to the Russian diplomats/agents a few days later. He is responsible for the appointment of a special prosecutor who is charged with investigating suspected wrong doing. He asked Comey to drop an investigation....obstruction of justice, which is a crime...and then
he fired Comey when Comey would not. So the basis for starting the investigation is not a pack of lies, but rather the actions of Mr. Trump.

You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.

Except the Comey memo/speech didn't really help Clinton win now did it? In fact, I always thought, and Clinton would agree with me here, that it was the final nail in her proverbial coffin. I think Peter's emails/text messages are just that. A liberal freaking out about the possibility of Trump getting elected and being taken seriously as a candidate. You guys really need to stop masturbating to them because your guy is not very popular.
There is no indication that Comey (a republican) shared that view (even with the changes).

There is one thing I would like conservatives to answer that they haven't before. Why does bias matter? If Trump is guilty, he is guilty.

IMO the Comey speech was a cover his own a** tactic. That is after current evidence seems to indicate that the fix was already in, and both Obama, and his boss Loretta Lynch did not want the FBI to pursue something that would affect Hillary getting elected. Why would he balk, when all indicators pointed to her becoming his future boss? :shrug:

This whole thing just smacks of desperation.

Hmmm....just like all that "desperation" voiced by the losing side after the shock of his election; which is reflected in Mr. Strzok's own emails btw?

My point is, hypocrisy shows in all the "this is a nothing burger" from the same people who tut tutted Trump supporter's use of that term after seeing "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" turn out to be blanks.

All I am saying is the same as your side...if there is nothing to hide, why not investigate. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
You want to talk about double standards? If Obama had fired Comey because he was investigating Clinton, and then admitted to it on national television, the right-wing would not only have been talking about impeachment, they would have been locating rope and trees.

Give it up, CA. This clown you keep defending has been exposed as the corrupt liar many of us on the left warned you he would be. From day one he has sold the public a pack of lies about how involved Russian actors were in his campaign, as well how financial entangled he and his inner circle are to Russian interests.

We've gone from "no outreach" to so much outreach and so many conflicts of interest with foreign actors, it's just become impossible to keep track of them all.
 
The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.

The simple fact that this same individual, who all evidence shows was a Hillary supporter, states he has an insurance policy to impede Trump if despite all predictions he does win.

The email issue was brought up to show a pattern. Whether you accept it or not, it is a normal part of considering a possible criminal investigation.



You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.



IMO the Comey speech was a cover his own a** tactic. That is after current evidence seems to indicate that the fix was already in, and both Obama, and his boss Loretta Lynch did not want the FBI to pursue something that would affect Hillary getting elected. Why would he balk, when all indicators pointed to her becoming his future boss? :shrug:



Hmmm....just like all that "desperation" voiced by the losing side after the shock of his election; which is reflected in Mr. Strzok's own emails btw?

My point is, hypocrisy shows in all the "this is a nothing burger" from the same people who tut tutted Trump supporter's use of that term after seeing "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" turn out to be blanks.

All I am saying is the same as your side...if there is nothing to hide, why not investigate. :coffeepap:

I don't have a side and after the Democratic primary, I'm firmly convinced that the Democrats are wholly corrupted by big money and power. But, I haven't seen any evidence that the FBI is a Democrat owned bureau.

The Democrats are mainly beholden to big money interests, of which HRC was the Queen of. Trump does not disrupt the money party, so the Democrats have no spear at their backs, pushing them to unseat Trump. because, Trump serves the corporate overlords, even better than the Democrats would, as Democrats make small concessions to the people, whereas Republicans are transparently for donors only and screw anyone who isn't well off.

The fact that someone inside the FBI hates Trump is not a big deal, because they are allowed to have political opinions and separate that from their work. You'll have to find some law they broke, or some code of conduct they violated, and then chip away at everyone within the FBI who hates Trump, which is probably the entire FBI, as Trump has made enemies of damn near everyone by disparaging the FBI and wrongfully terminating a highly regarded FBI director.
 
Last edited:
You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.
You clearly are no champion of liberty, or you wouldn't have made such a gross endorsement of authoritarian ideals.

The idea of a president threatening people with their jobs if they don't shut down investigations involving their circle is so Nixonian, it makes me vomit to see a person that calls themselves a libertarian actually defend such an abuse of power.
 
The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.

How could it have been a "sham." It was in the news literally every f'ing day for over a year, they uncovered all those classified emails on her private server, and it likely cost her the election. The decision to pursue criminal charges was made at the highest levels and we watched that play out. You can disagree with that decision, but that doesn't mean the INVESTIGATION was a sham. That's self evidence nonsense.

If there is something else - say with the foundation - then as you should know, Trump is POTUS now, and it's his people not pursuing those fantasies of yours.

The simple fact that this same individual, who all evidence shows was a Hillary supporter, states he has an insurance policy to impede Trump if despite all predictions he does win.

The email issue was brought up to show a pattern. Whether you accept it or not, it is a normal part of considering a possible criminal investigation.

Great, what was this insurance policy? Sorry but it's hard to take emails out of context as evidence of a conspiracy that would need to include likely dozens of agents, the FISC, Comey, now Rosenstein, not to mention Mueller and a whole bunch of guys with huge reputations who don't need to take on BS investigations into nothing at this point in their professional lives.

You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.

See, that's nonsense and just illustrates a complete lack of objectivity here. If the boss tells an underling, "stop investigating me" and the reason for that is to hide crimes committed by boss or by others on his behalf, of course that's obstruction of justice. There is some question whether POTUS can be criminally prosecuted, but if it touches Trump, that simply isn't the primary consideration here because the proper remedy if Trump is heavily involved, or tried to stop an investigation into his team and they were involved in crimes, is IMPEACHMENT.

What you're suggesting is the POTUS can commit a crime, or have underlings commit the crimes on his behalf, and then just fire anyone in the Federal government investigating that crime and be untouchable. Surely you can't believe that is the proper way for our government to work, right? That's a dictatorship.

IMO the Comey speech was a cover his own a** tactic. That is after current evidence seems to indicate that the fix was already in, and both Obama, and his boss Loretta Lynch did not want the FBI to pursue something that would affect Hillary getting elected. Why would he balk, when all indicators pointed to her becoming his future boss? :shrug:

Hmmm....just like all that "desperation" voiced by the losing side after the shock of his election; which is reflected in Mr. Strzok's own emails btw?

My point is, hypocrisy shows in all the "this is a nothing burger" from the same people who tut tutted Trump supporter's use of that term after seeing "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" turn out to be blanks.

All I am saying is the same as your side...if there is nothing to hide, why not investigate. :coffeepap:

Whatever. Trump is POTUS, the GOP has the House and Senate, so it's not like Democrats can stop it. The morons investigated BENGHAZI for years on far, far, far less, so I guess that set a precedent of sorts. I will note, however, that Hillary LOST so this is an example when POTUS can hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner up without any shame at all. Accept VICTORY! How hard is that?
 
Captain Adverse said:
The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.

Did Strzok start the Trump investigation? The article later says he was "involved," but that doesn't mean he started it.

The text quoted in the article (about the insurance policy) is presented without context (no pun intended), so it could be about basically anything. I would agree it could be about the Russia investigation. But it could be about something that never saw the light of day. It could even be a plan for Strzok to leave the country if Trump is elected, or a ten-dollar bet between him and another agent. We'd just need to see the full conversation to understand it.

Now that said, if your point is simply that it should be investigated: absolutely. You bet it should. It would be bald partisanship to say anything else (just as it is bald partisanship to claim that Mueller has uncovered "nothing" or etc.).
 
Last edited:
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.
There are few arguments stronger than expressing your assumptions about a hypothetical situation that never occurred.Count me as compelled.
If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.
What exactly is the "something"?Are you making the case that this one guy didn't like Trump and single-handedly by way of this text created the entire Russian fiasco?'Cause that sounds far-fetched.I"m willing to believe, but you're really gonna have to walk me through the process of how this single text creates the reporting from around the world and creates Manafort's conspiracy against the US stuff out of whole cloth.
Don't forget part two of this accusation where you demonstrate that this action was wrong on his part.I'll come back for that episode when it premiers.I'm not saying the guy was right, just that your case is lacking a seeming crucial element.ymmv
I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.
An accusation of criminal activity!Please share it with Sessions.Sessions has really been falling the **** down on the job when it comes to investigating and prosecuting all of these "obvious" crimes.I think it's time you considered the possibility that Sessions and Trump are in on this conspiracy.Surely you have some evidence which implicates this FBI texting guy in this matter. You're not just trying to tie him to that based on your personal feelings are you?'Cause I'm pretty sure law enforcement works based on evidence w/o regard to personal feelings.Most cops are biased against the folks they're investigating, but somehow we get by.
Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."
Don't forget part two of this accusation where you demonstrate that this action was wrong on his part.I'll come back for that episode when it premiers.I'm not saying the guy was right, just that your case is lacking a seeming crucial element.ymmv
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
To be fair, the "less evidence" involves confessions from the parties involved.So maybe we need to put an asterisk next to the word "less"?
Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
As has been noted, the USIC received reports from friendly foreign intel services letting us know tat Trumpco were palling around with Russian nogoodniks.And Manafort's Russian money laundering and conspiracy against the US did not happen in a vaccuum.Maybe the thing to to is for you to re-examine you assumption that the investigation into Russian interference in our election is based solely on innuendo.
I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
So you lack the context for this text.Awww, bummer.I asked you for the context above.But I guess that moot.Maybe we should just decide the context is w/e you assume it is.That'd make you argument work better wouldn't it?
But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
I thought someone had already talked the OIG into investigating?And Rosenstein offered to add a whole other Special Counsel just as soon as someone bring credible allegations that a crime has been committed.So what more do you want done exactly?:shrug:
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

There exactly?
ftr, all of my new lines were removed during the posting process.

Having difficulty reach DP and some of the formatting isn't making it through.

So, sorry for the walls of text
 
Thank you for once again bringing up the Clintons to distract from what is going down in the White House, and who is going with it.

I mean - please. Do continually bring them up. We certainly don't see enough threads about them around here.

Actually, this thread isn't about the Clintons. It's about Strzok and his fellow conspirators.
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

January is going to be interesting. McCabe is going in front of the Congressional committee this week. The Committee is issuing a subpoena to Strzok, Ohr, Ohr's wife and Page. The OIG for DOJ will wrap up their investigation. At that time they will release the rest of the 10,000 texts that pertain to their investigation. Meanwhile the people that insist on being in denial will scream bloody murder if the OIG report shows major legal flaws in the SC report. I don't think Mueller would damage the appearance of his investigation unless there is a situation that he just can't avoid, such as the actions of Strzok, Ohr and Page. He didn't release them just cuz. I think this is just the beginning of more to come.

As a side note, if the SC actually has anything we will probably start to see charges filed in the next couple of weeks. The SC is wrapping up their investigation.
 
Last edited:
Actually, this thread isn't about the Clintons. It's about Strzok and his fellow conspirators.

No. It's a pithy whine fest that the Mueller investigation goes on.
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Trump thought it would make his life easier to just fire Comey...as he confided to the Russian diplomats/agents a few days later. He is responsible for the appointment of a special prosecutor who is charged with investigating suspected wrong doing. He asked Comey to drop an investigation....obstruction of justice, which is a crime...and then
he fired Comey when Comey would not. So the basis for starting the investigation is not a pack of lies, but rather the actions of Mr. Trump.

Please show your evidence that President Trump asked anybody to drop an investigation. Comey himself, under oath at a congressional hearing, denied that neither the President nor anybody else in the Administration had ever asked that of him.

Would you have been equally offended if President Obama had fired Comey when the Democrats were demonizing him during the July 2016 investigation of Hillary's e-mails? Of course he became their knight in shining armor when he declared that nobody would have prosecuted her for what she did despite finding her guilty of all charges. There was 'no intent' remember? Then he was again condemned and demonized when he reopened the investigation because of the Huma's government e-mails on Weiner's computer.

And now he is again the knight in shining armor representing all the snowflakes, leftists, and Democrats when they gleefully declare he was fired because he was investigating Trump. Something they cannot verify with any reliable source.

Nor have I seen a single leftist, no Democrat in Congress, nobody left of center even mildly criticize Strzok. If he had done the same thing to President Obama, I would bet the farm that they would be demanding his head on a platter, would be loudly calling for a special prosecutor to investigate.

Politics does seem to bring out the worst kinds of hypocrisy among the intellectually dishonest or those who set aside all personal ethics for political expediency.
 
So FBI agents have political views that might have an effect on what they do professionally??? Shock! Humans! Need to dispose with them.

Strzok was removed from the case, I believe.

It would be harder to get rid of all FBI agents with political opinions than it would be to remove every "Mexican" judge that might preside of a lawsuit involving Trump.

There are certainly pro-Trumpers in the FBI.
 
Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

While I hope the guilty will be exposed in all this, what makes this most interesting to me is your "Business Insider" source. That publication is generally pretty far left, has been so anti GOP, pro Obama for the last eight years and has been so virtriolic against the Trump administration that for them to now take a hard line on Strzok and citing CNN as a source on this is rather amazing. And refreshing. You almost have to believe, given their and CNN's general slant, that they are telling it like it is?
 
Back
Top Bottom