• 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!

5 takeaways from an FBI agent's explosive, marathon congressional hearing

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,797
Reaction score
18,974
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the CBC

5 takeaways from an FBI agent's explosive, marathon congressional hearing


In an explosive, hours-long congressional hearing Thursday, FBI agent Peter Strzok was defiant as Republicans unleashed blistering attacks, saying his anti-Trump sentiment — captured in personal text messages — is evidence of bias at the Justice Department.






Democrats threw their support behind Strzok with gusto. At one point, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California chimed in, saying, "This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing."


But despite the partisan hubbub, the stakes were high.


Strzok is in the hot seat because he helped steer two politically charged investigations, into Hillary Clinton's email use and possible co-ordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. He was removed from the Russia investigation last year after the texts were discovered.


An internal FBI report released last month found no evidence of political bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

But House Republicans remain unconvinced.


Here are some takeaways from the all-day hearing:

COMMENT:-

If five isn't enough for the media junkies, there is also


From CNN
 
Republicans KNOW the **** is about to hit the fan with Trump & they are gonna get caught supporting a traitor

that is why they are all getting so ****ing amped up & nutty

this nation is being divided into tribes & Putin is laughing his ass off

The GOP was stupid enuff to fall for this **** .......... Trump ...........
 
From the CBC

5 takeaways from an FBI agent's explosive, marathon congressional hearing


In an explosive, hours-long congressional hearing Thursday, FBI agent Peter Strzok was defiant as Republicans unleashed blistering attacks, saying his anti-Trump sentiment — captured in personal text messages — is evidence of bias at the Justice Department.






Democrats threw their support behind Strzok with gusto. At one point, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California chimed in, saying, "This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing."


But despite the partisan hubbub, the stakes were high.


Strzok is in the hot seat because he helped steer two politically charged investigations, into Hillary Clinton's email use and possible co-ordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. He was removed from the Russia investigation last year after the texts were discovered.


An internal FBI report released last month found no evidence of political bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

But House Republicans remain unconvinced.


Here are some takeaways from the all-day hearing:

COMMENT:-

If five isn't enough for the media junkies, there is also


From CNN

One question: Why did Mueller kick Peter Strzok off his investigation. Strzok said Mueller never brought up his texts. But Strzok was fired by Mueller, why?
 
The real takeaway... partisanship was on full display, as expected, by everyone involved.
 
One question: Why did Mueller kick Peter Strzok off his investigation. Strzok said Mueller never brought up his texts. But Strzok was fired by Mueller, why?

Because of what happened yesterday. Duh.

Imagine the ****storm if Mueller hadn't let Stzok go.
 
The real takeaway... partisanship was on full display, as expected, by everyone involved.

Correction: Party over country was on full display
 
One question: Why did Mueller kick Peter Strzok off his investigation. Strzok said Mueller never brought up his texts. But Strzok was fired by Mueller, why?

Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made.

It didn't work.

Now, of course, the Republicans are claiming that attempting to ensure that an investigation wouldn't be tainted by claims of bias (even if the steps taken were out of proportion to those actually needed) **P*R*O*V*E*S** that the investigation was biased.
 
As long as you equate "My personal reelection chances" with "party", I'm in full agreement with you.
Sure. And, the key to that is winning your own party's primary.
 
Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made.

It didn't work.

Now, of course, the Republicans are claiming that attempting to ensure that an investigation wouldn't be tainted by claims of bias (even if the steps taken were out of proportion to those actually needed) **P*R*O*V*E*S** that the investigation was biased.

I don't recall Mueller saying a word, thus making your statement a lie. Of course you libs would believe anything Strzok said.
 
I don't recall Mueller saying a word, thus making your statement a lie. Of course you libs would believe anything Strzok said.

He didn't have to say it.

People in the law are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

One of the things I haven't seen anyone mention is that it looks a lot like privacy is dying. That's Orwellian.
 
Last edited:
He didn't have to say it.

People in the law are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

One of the things I haven't seen anyone mention is that it looks a lot like privacy is dying. That's Orwellian.

I understand but he was quoted as he did say it. Take your bitch to TU Curmudgeon who quoted Mueller.

"Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made".

Which Mueller did not say a word why he fired Strzok. TU was taking scumbag Strzok at his word. I want to hear Mueller say it.
 
Last edited:
I understand but he was quoted as he did say it. Take your bitch to TU Curmudgeon who quoted Mueller.

"Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made".

When I quote someone I put their words in quotation marks. I realize that the use of quotation marks is an optional subject in American schools, so you are forgiven for not knowing what quotation marks are and what they are for.

Which Mueller did not say a word why he fired Strzok.

Since you were personally privy to every conversation that Mr. Mueller has had, I defer to your vastly superior knowledge.

TU was taking scumbag Strzok at his word.

Since I don't automatically assume that anyone who says something that I don't want to hear is lying, I don't see any reason to change.

I want to hear Mueller say it.

Just because you - personally - did not hear Mr. Mueller say it, that **P*R*O*V*E*S** that he never did.

Yeah, right sure.
 
One question: Why did Mueller kick Peter Strzok off his investigation. Strzok said Mueller never brought up his texts. But Strzok was fired by Mueller, why?

Because Mueller does not want any taint on the investigation be it real or imagined. That's Why.
 
Because Mueller does not want any taint on the investigation be it real or imagined. That's Why.

Your response has been submitted to The Real Patriotic True Patriotic American Patriotic Patriot's Patriotic Institute of Patriotic Historical Patriotism for grading and has, after lengthy discussion of whether it justified the creation of an even lower grads, received an "F-".

The truly patriotic correct patriotic answer is "Because Mueller (actually "bin Muellersteinovitch") is a lying corrupt tool of the Vast Secret Huge Hidden Covert Massive Concealed International Un-American Islamo-Communist Left-wing Liberal Pinko Socialist Red Commie Conspiracy that wants to destroy America and force all the Cheerleaders to wear Burke Hats.".
 
When I quote someone I put their words in quotation marks. I realize that the use of quotation marks is an optional subject in American schools, so you are forgiven for not knowing what quotation marks are and what they are for.



Since you were personally privy to every conversation that Mr. Mueller has had, I defer to your vastly superior knowledge.



Since I don't automatically assume that anyone who says something that I don't want to hear is lying, I don't see any reason to change.



Just because you - personally - did not hear Mr. Mueller say it, that **P*R*O*V*E*S** that he never did.

Yeah, right sure.

"Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made".

I'm asking "Mueller said" where did you get that from. Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias Now prove he said that????
 
Because Mueller does not want any taint on the investigation be it real or imagined. That's Why.

"Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made".

"Mr. Mueller Said" Prove to me he said that???? simple question
 
"Mr. Muller said that he removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation in order to prevent even the appearance of bias - no matter how idiotic the basis for the claim of bias that would be made".

"Mr. Mueller Said" Prove to me he said that???? simple question

Never saw the statement my reply was I believed Mueller would remove him, glad to see I was correct.
FYI, I never Mueller said a thing, you must be confused, again.
 
Last edited:
Never saw the statement my reply was I believed Mueller would remove him, glad to see I was correct.
FYI, I never Mueller said a thing, you must be confused, again.

Yes I am confused, but worse your more confused as you have no idea what your saying.
 
The only takeaway that matters is that the House is not a functioning part of our government.
 
From the CBC

5 takeaways from an FBI agent's explosive, marathon congressional hearing


In an explosive, hours-long congressional hearing Thursday, FBI agent Peter Strzok was defiant as Republicans unleashed blistering attacks, saying his anti-Trump sentiment — captured in personal text messages — is evidence of bias at the Justice Department.






Democrats threw their support behind Strzok with gusto. At one point, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California chimed in, saying, "This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing."


But despite the partisan hubbub, the stakes were high.


Strzok is in the hot seat because he helped steer two politically charged investigations, into Hillary Clinton's email use and possible co-ordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. He was removed from the Russia investigation last year after the texts were discovered.


An internal FBI report released last month found no evidence of political bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

But House Republicans remain unconvinced.


Here are some takeaways from the all-day hearing:

COMMENT:-

If five isn't enough for the media junkies, there is also


From CNN

Lets do a little thought experiment. Imagine the liberal hero, Peter Strzok, were the lead in an investigation of, lets say Martin Luther King. And during that investigation it was learned that he had texted his girlfriend a series of invectives against MLK; called him the N-word, hoped to see him jailed, thought his ascension would destroy the country etc. Then when questioned, claimed he wasnt biased and would never let his opinions effect his actions. Would you be defending him as you are now?
 
Lets do a little thought experiment. Imagine the liberal hero, Peter Strzok, were the lead in an investigation of, lets say Martin Luther King. And during that investigation it was learned that he had texted his girlfriend a series of invectives against MLK; called him the N-word, hoped to see him jailed, thought his ascension would destroy the country etc. Then when questioned, claimed he wasnt biased and would never let his opinions effect his actions. Would you be defending him as you are now?

That might have been a good question.

Unfortunately you appear to be under the delusion that I am "defending" Mr. Strzok simply because I am relaying someone else's reporting on what is happening.

Since an essential element of your question is nonsense, then the whole of your question becomes nonsense.

Exactly how surprised to you think that that makes me?
 
That might have been a good question.

Unfortunately you appear to be under the delusion that I am "defending" Mr. Strzok simply because I am relaying someone else's reporting on what is happening.

Since an essential element of your question is nonsense, then the whole of your question becomes nonsense.

Exactly how surprised to you think that that makes me?

The question isnt nonsense. Your supposed rationale for not answering it, however, is.
 
Back
Top Bottom