Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[acbytesla]

You forgot JFK.

Him too.

 

[Steve]

Many people are saying that they are pleased that hypocrites are finally admitting that they were wrong.

The best people. The best people are saying that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Big giant hole in the GOP argument about Strzok, he could have leaked about the investigation before the election and he didn't.

If you buy the nonsensical argument Strzok didn't leak anything because he believed Clinton would win, then you got no argument Strzok was so desperate to stop Trump he would have done anything against Trump.

 

[NoahFence]

They really got exposed for all to see.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Strzok isn't the target, Mueller is. Republicans are appealing to the TV-court drama level of legal expertise which could undo the Mueller probe due to bias and a "fruit of the poison tree" (Dossier) BS.
In the end, it's a smokescreen to provide them with cover for not impeaching Trump.

 

[Aridas]

It is clear that this entire Strzok hearing is nothing more than a GOP attempt to help Trump undermine the validity and credibility of the Mueller investigation.

The Republicans cry on and on about how the Democrats in the FBI are allowing their bias to interfere with investigations as if Republicans in the FBI don't fall prey to the same biases. Give me a break.

Bias! The "racist" of the right. It's even better to use, though, because you don't even have to pretend to have any rational basis for the accusation. Everyone has biases, after all. All you have to do is conflate things just a little and BAM! Truth and facts only count when you think they say what you want them to say, regardless of what they actually are.

Gotta hand it to the Republicans, It is amazing the mileage they can get out of things like
Clinton's email server, Benghazi, Uranium One, and these text messages. They can milk these things for every precious drop and turn them into tempests. They are much more talented at this than the Democrats.

That's what happens when you don't care about honesty or integrity when you pursue your goals, after all.

The outraged, "gonna pop the veins in mah forehead" GOP ask Strzok a question but don't let him answer. They continually interrupt him. They aren't really interested in his answers, they just want to make an accusation in the form of a question.

Welcome to the utter mockery of "investigating" that the House GOP has been doing with nigh everything to do with Trump-Russia.

Strzok and his gal pal used governmental devices to cover up their disgraceful affairs.

Checks the thread

And strzok is the leftists newest hero

Fantastic

Hero. Riiiight.

Attack someone really dishonestly and anyone who calls you out on your lies is treating the person as their hero!

Yes, he's unfairly and loudly being attacked by the GOP as part of a deeply dishonest political ploy. That "leftists" are quite opposed to the dishonesty of the GOP's political ploy does indeed mean that he's being defended to some extent. A little bit like how I never liked Obamacare in the first place, but I've kept finding myself defending it, over and over, in light of repetitions of the many, many falsehoods the GOP has attacked it with. I'm more interested in actual truth when I assess things, though, rather than moronic misrepresentations, incredibly shifting "standards," and dishonest tactics in general.

cool

as such I conclude you don't give a damn about Trump/Stormy either.

Cool!

I'll be a little different than that person. I think that both are disgraceful, but that both are largely irrelevant to their job and whether they do/did it well, which is the actually relevant issue at hand. Tangentially, Trump's continued usage of NDA's, on the other hand, including in the White House, is of far greater concern. Trump misusing large amounts of campaign money to cover up his affair with Stormy is also dramatically of greater concern than the likely nothing extra that the Strzok texts actually cost the government.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No actually they were using government equipment to set up their tawdry affairs.

Trump used campaign funds to pay off Daniels - as per statements made by Michael Cohen when he and Trump were still close and sticking up for each other. I suppose the key difference is that what Trump did is actually illegal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll be a little different than that person. I think that both are disgraceful, but that both are largely irrelevant to their job and whether they do/did it well, which is the actually relevant issue at hand. Tangentially, Trump's continued usage of NDA's, on the other hand, including in the White House, is of far greater concern. Trump misusing large amounts of campaign money to cover up his affair with Stormy is also dramatically of greater concern than the likely nothing extra that the Strzok texts actually cost the government.

Well, another reason why the Daniels thing is relevant is that it demonstrates that Trump is susceptible to blackmail over sexual issues - which makes the pee tape a little more credible, as the basis of that claim is that Trump is being blackmailed over something sexual. Strzok and Page having an affair which they discussed on government-issued phones does not imply that either of them was more susceptible to acting with political bias while working in an official capacity.

 

[quadraginta]

At this rate, Trump will be cheating on his future wife any day now.

Odds are he's already done that.

We know he's a habitual cheater.

We know he habitually cheats on his wife at the time with a future wife.

Chances are pretty good that he's cheating with someone else at the same time he's cheating with a wife-to-be.

Cheaters are cheaters. They usually aren't particularly discriminating about it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A good old fashioned Show Trial.

Goodlatte not letting Strzok respond if members use their five minutes to make speeches and not ask him any direct questions.
After Biggs attacked him for five minutes, Strzok asked if he could respond and Goodlatte says “No, you may not".

What is the point of this again?

 

[quadraginta]

A good old fashioned Show Trial.

Goodlatte not letting Strzok respond if members use their five minutes to make speeches and not ask him any direct questions.
After Biggs attacked him for five minutes, Strzok asked if he could respond and Goodlatte says “No, you may not".

What is the point of this again?

This is how today's Republicans conduct an investigation.

Find people they don't like and take turns yelling at them.

No wonder they aren't happy with Mueller. He's doing it wrong.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And then getting hit by a Big Mack Truck, otherwise known as the big dog!

Hoooowwwlllllllllll!

You poor child...

 

[The Big Dog]

what does Trump's alleged affair have to do with this thread, nothing.

What does Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI have to do with it?

Everything.

Two guesses what the Leftists want to focus on?

Fantastic

 

[Sabrina]

I thought this was a fairly good breakdown of the testimony given... plus the whining of the Repubs in the room.

Jerry Nadlar is officially my favorite representative EVER, and here's one of the reasons why:

"In majority's view, the texts exchanged between Strzok & Page are higher priority than Trump's request that Comey end the investigation of Flynn or his decision to fire Comey... their view is we don't have time to conduct oversight on almost any national security issue."

Classic. His dry, completely factual and backed up by official policy and law breakdown of the Republican attack on Strzok following both Gowdy's and Goodlatte's rants trying DESPERATELY to link Strzok's dislike of Trump to bias was just... *kisses fingertips*

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

what does Trump's alleged affair have to do with this thread, nothing.

Actually, it demonstrates that he's susceptible to being blackmailed over sexual matters, lending credibility to the pee tape.

What does Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI have to do with it?

Nothing. Strzok is not under investigation by Mueller, he was removed from the Russia investigation when the texts came to light because they could given the impression of bias, and all the work he'd done was double-checked by other agents to ensure that there was no issue of bias there.

 

[johnny karate]

I thought this was a fairly good breakdown of the testimony given... plus the whining of the Repubs in the room.

Jerry Nadlar is officially my favorite representative EVER, and here's one of the reasons why:



Classic. His dry, completely factual and backed up by official policy and law breakdown of the Republican attack on Strzok following both Good wdy's and Goodlatte's rants trying DESPERATELY to link Strzok's dislike of Trump to bias was just... *kisses fingertips*

That’s good stuff.

This bears repeating, if not shouting from the nearest mountain top:

Strzok makes the key point that if he or other FBI agents were operating with anti-Trump bias, it makes no sense that they didn't leak details about the investigation of the Trump campaign to the press during the 2016 campaign.

Yet nobody leaked such information.

And this:

@RepJerryNadler debunks House Republicans' conspiracy theory within 3 minutes -- Strzok is entitled to political views, he didn't express them publicly, the IG found Strzok's views didn't impact his work, and other FBI agents are clearly pro-Trump

 

[dmaker]

what does Trump's alleged affair have to do with this thread, nothing.

What does Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI have to do with it?

Everything.

Two guesses what the Leftists want to focus on?

Fantastic

Misfeasance and malfeasance mean essentially the same thing. Where did they abuse their authority or wrongfully exercise their authority? Where is there proof of bias, much less extraordinary bias? There have been attempts to demonstrate such but all have failed miserably.

All I see is a government employee with a perfectly normal opinion about a political candidate, and who also happened to be engaged in an affair with a co-worker.

Your fiery rhetoric is unfounded and unproven. But don't let the facts stop you in any way.

 

[dmaker]

I just explained it, and you don’t care about either affair, so, CONSENSUS!

Well argued.

No, we do not have consensus. Nice try. I stated that I find the extramarital affairs of Trump or Strzok to be irrelevant. You agree regarding Trump, but express great outrage at Strzok for using a government phone to send text messages.

I would hardly call that consensus.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, another reason why the Daniels thing is relevant is that it demonstrates that Trump is susceptible to blackmail over sexual issues - which makes the pee tape a little more credible, as the basis of that claim is that Trump is being blackmailed over something sexual. Strzok and Page having an affair which they discussed on government-issued phones does not imply that either of them was more susceptible to acting with political bias while working in an official capacity.

Huh? Since when is the pee tape sexual? It's a demonstration of his racism toward the Obamas.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I might have missed it, but when is the hearing into FBI bias against Clinton?