Strzok hearing is riveting TV

[my_2cents]

I'm sure his removal from the special counsel investigation and ultimately from the FBI building were due to sending personnel text messages to a friend and co-worker too. Standard procedure.

His removal from the special counsel investigation was the right move. Investigation removals don't always indicate wrong doing though. There are other factors that must be considered when one is leading an investigation (especially one surrounding the President).

 

[my_2cents]

Brilliant.

Best response you could come up with, huh? haha

 

[my_2cents]

would you trust Highstick to impartially investigate you if you ran for office?

If he took his oath seriously, sure. I would also trust the checks and balances around him as well.

This is not meant as an insult, but I can tell from this thread that some of the posters on this board have no experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement. If they did, they would not be making some of the assumptions or comments they are making.

What is going on with Peter Strzok is nothing but politics. It is a distraction and an attempt to lay a foundation for a potential political defense of Trump. Today, it was a lousy day for Congressional Republicans in this regard.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

If he took his oath seriously, sure

If. The nebulous nature of that word would be concerning to you. You can lie and say it wouldn’t but it would.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

 

[my_2cents]

If. The nebulous nature of that word would be concerning to you.

That is why I also said (which you failed to quote) I would trust the checks and balances around him. Which, btw, Strzok referenced today.

 

[Rdcldad]

I find this comment fascinating. I watched bits and pieces of the testimony and it seemed to me Strzok exposed himself for the lying corrupt sleaze his is. His preconceived bias in favor of Hillary and against Trump should be condemned by anyone who is concerned about the integrity of law enforcement agencies, regardless of which team with which they identify. He should never have been allowed within a mile of any of those investigations. Your defense of him and his actions may come back to haunt you. The precedent will have been set if he and Comey et al get to walk. If Democrats can politicize law enforcement with your support then what are you going to say when Republicans politicize law enforcement for their own benefit? Isn’t turn about fair play? This is an issue that the base of BOTH sides should unite and demand the corruption stop immediately. It is painful to see you defend such indefensible actions.

wins the thread

 

[long-duc-dong]

And today, he told you these personal text messages were just that, personal text message that had nothing to do with his investigation.

Well hell I didn’t see that part of the testimony. As long as he told us all this bit of earth shattering truth I think they need to just call it good and move on. Get outta here with that drivel.

 

[CowboyJD]

If he took his oath seriously, sure. I would also trust the checks and balances around him as well.

This is not meant as an insult, but I can tell from this thread that some of the posters on this board have no experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement. If they did, they would not be making some of the assumptions or comments they are making.

What is going on with Peter Strzok is nothing but politics. It is a distraction and an attempt to lay a foundation for a potential political defense of Trump. Today, it was a lousy day for Congressional Republicans in this regard.

How much experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement do you have and what is its nature? I have extensive experience in criminal investigations and law enforcement....over 19 years as legal counsel for a statewide law enforcement agency.

If an agent showed the level of personal animus towards the subject of an investigation that is exhibited in the texts (and frankly, in what little snippets of the hearing I have seen), he would be yanked and reassigned IMMEDIATELY. Furthermore, internal controls and supervision are supposed to catch or reveal such animus. It didn’t here until too late.

Corrupt, actively biased investigation with absolutely no credibility? Won’t go that far.

But “nothing to see here”? Nothing but politics? Yeah....No.

His personal animus to the subject of such an incredibly high profile investigation absolutely does, however, damage the credibility of the investigation. We will see if it is fatal damage or not later. Anything that has potential to do that should be nipped ASAP. Must avoid even the APPEARANCE of propriety.

 

[CowboyJD]

That is why I also said (which you failed to quote) I would trust the checks and balances around him. Which, btw, Strzok referenced today.

Except that here, the checks and balances didn’t work to avoid if the appearance of impropriety...which is what they should be designed to do.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

"I'm a dentist so I read body language very well."

My gawd, these people...

 

[Rdcldad]

How much experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement do you have and what is it’s nature? I have extensive experience in criminal investigations and law enforcement....over 19 years as legal counsel for a statewide law enforcement agency.

If an agent showed the level of personal animus towards the subject of an investigation that is exhibited in the emails (and frankly, in what little snippets of the hearing I have seen), he would be yanked and reassigned IMMEDIATELY. Furthermore, internal controls and supervision are supposed to catch or reveal such animus. It didn’t here until too late.

Corrupt, actively biased investigation with absolutely no credibility? Won’t go that far.

But “nothing to see here”? Nothing but politics? Yeah....No.

His personal animus to the subject of such an incredibly high profile investigation absolutely does, however, damage the credibility of the investigation. We see if it is fatal damage or not later. Anything that has potential to do that should be nipped ASAP. Must avoid even the APPEARANCE of propriety.

the bias is good for

how far and wide the net gets cast
how long the case grinds
how far the legal fees ascend

how much of life the man
who’s just doing a job and going home

as opposed to living it

they should have just left strozk on the case

let him grind this no scope investigation
let him flow as far and wide as minimalist mind can venture

all the while in his mental ivory castle
his omnipotence builds
to the point his electronic bread crumbs
seal his fate

at the end of the day it’s about evidence

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

 

[Rdcldad]

View embedded media

for one lucid moment

let the fact that Americans with zero air cover
died in benghazi sink in

that’s what you are cheering on
dead americans

 

[poke2001]

for one lucid moment

let the fact that Americans with zero air cover
died in benghazi sink in

that’s what you are cheering on
dead americans

It was against his team...so he brushes it off.

 

[Rdcldad]

It was against his team...so he brushes it off.

yet the R line standing behind W/Cheney’s WMD boondoggle on this board

is scant

that’s the difference

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

for one lucid moment

let the fact that Americans with zero air cover
died in benghazi sink in

that’s what you are cheering on
dead americans

for one lucid moment

let the fact that Russia has killed journalists
by the dozen

and poisoned, invaded, killed, meddled
by the thousand.

and the cherry blossom glistens in the morning dew.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

yet the R line standing behind W/Cheney’s WMD boondoggle on this board

is scant

that’s the difference

Half true. They didn't before Biff laid into Bush in the republican primary. I laid into him and got ripped time and again, and then Biff criticizes Bush and JOILA!! now Bush was wrong.

Don't forget he got us attacked in 911, lied to justify a war and hardly any of the GOP establishment had a problem with it.

 

[HighStickHarry]

“Got us attacked on 9/11”

You have no rock bottom when it comes to this forum.

 

[Rdcldad]

Don't forget he got us attacked in 911, lied to justify a war and hardly any of the GOP establishment had a problem with it.

this isn’t worthy of a retort

 

[Medic007]

Best response you could come up with, huh? haha

Why waste my time with anything additional? You're Toon with longer posts.

 

[poke2001]

Why waste my time with anything additional? You're Toon with longer posts.

He certainly has more intelligence than toon, but he’s a team player just like toon, and is incredibly dug in. He also has a raging case of TDS so it’s not entirely his fault.

 

[Rdcldad]

for one lucid moment

let the fact that Russia has killed journalists
by the dozen

and poisoned, invaded, killed, meddled
by the thousand.

and the cherry blossom glistens in the morning dew.

back to the dead americans
you were cheering on

by this post
you illustrate what this russia thing is to a T

 

[my_2cents]

Corrupt, actively biased investigation with absolutely no credibility? Won’t go that far.

Exactly. And neither would I. But that is where those who feel the political need to attack the Mueller investigation and/or defend Trump have gone. And it is what I am disagreeing with.

Again, so far, all I see is a lot of politics at play when it comes to Strzok.

btw, those same people are apparently going to do whatever it takes to attack the credibility of this investigation. That is the political decision they have made. That doesn't mean though their attacks are credible.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Exactly. And neither would I. But that is where those who feel the political need to attack the Mueller investigation and/or defend Trump have gone. And it is what I am disagreeing with.

Again, so far, all I see is a lot of politics at play when it comes to Strzok.

btw, those same people are apparently going to do whatever it takes to attack the credibility of this investigation. That is the political decision they have made. That doesn't mean though their attacks are credible.

Where did you go to law school?

 

[Rdcldad]

that is where those who feel the political need to attack the Mueller investigation and/or defend Trump have gone.

all I see is a lot of politics at play when it comes to Strzok.

man speak with forked tongue

 

[my_2cents]

back to the dead americans
you were cheering on

I haven't seen sy cheer on dead Americans anywhere on this thread. No need to go over the top with your rhetoric.

 

[my_2cents]

Don't forget he got us attacked in 911

sy, what do you mean by this? Are you claiming that Cheney and/or Bush were responsible for the 911 attack?

 

[CowboyJD]

Exactly. And neither would I. But that is where those who feel the political need to attack the Mueller investigation and/or defend Trump have gone. And it is what I am disagreeing with.

Again, so far, all I see is a lot of politics at play when it comes to Strzok.

btw, those same people are apparently going to do whatever it takes to attack the credibility of this investigation. That is the political decision they have made. That doesn't mean though their attacks are credible.

Nope...not going to let you get away with selectively quoting out of context.

The balance of the post (which you conveniently omitted) indicated failures by the FBI to weed out an investigator with a clear personal animus to a high profile subject of a high profile investigation with tons of political implications. It omitted statements that such failures were wrong and damage the investigation’s credibility. You also omitted my contentions that such failures raises an appearance of impropriety in the investigation. Such an appearance of impropriety raises a duty by Congress to investigate those appearances and question the credibility of the report...the exact thing you are dismissing as just politics and a distraction.

As for my statement that I won’t go so far as to assert that the entire investigation is corrupt, actively biased, and with absolutely no credibility? I haven’t watched the hearing testimony yet. I’m not going to go to the extreme of dismissing the entirety of the investigation in advance. Nor, however, am I going to go as far as you have and dismiss the Congressional investigation and questioning of the credibility of the investigation and questioning of Strzok as mere politics. The credibility of the investigation is definitely...and rightfully...in question because of Strzok, and it needs to be investigated and examined.

Finally....you didn’t answer my question about your experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement. You raised the argument to authority by pointing out the lack of experience in that arena of other posters here. I established my experience in the area in response, and asked for yours. You bailed on that.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

sy, what do you mean by this? Are you claiming that Cheney and/or Bush were responsible for the 911 attack?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353

 

[my_2cents]

He certainly has more intelligence than toon, but he’s a team player just like toon, and is incredibly dug in. He also has a raging case of TDS so it’s not entirely his fault.

Most posters on here are team players. I don't deny that I am a Democrat (I use to be a Republican) but I do try to be as fair as I can when observing and discussing politics. But we all are going to have biases at some point as it relates to the discussions we have on this board.

btw, while I am not a supporter of Trump, I can give him credit when he deserves it and agree with him when I think he is advocating or pursuing correct policy.

 

[poke2001]

Most posters on here are team players. I don't deny that I am a Democrat (I use to be a Republican) but I do try to be as fair as I can when observing and discussing politics. But we all are going to have biases at some point as it relates to the discussions we have on this board.

btw, while I am not a supporter of Trump, I can give him credit when he deserves it and agree with him when I think he is advocating or pursuing correct policy.

It’s easy to say what you just said. Seeing the proof is much more difficult.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Nor, however, am I going to go as far as you have and dismiss the Congressional investigation and questioning of the credibility of the investigation and questioning of Strzok as mere politics.

Man there is literally no other explanation for a bunch of the speeches that were given yesterday. I haven't heard it all and won't, but I listened to some of it yesterday on the radio behind the wheel (I think a replay) for 20ish minutes and they were just giving speeches for cameras in lieu of asking questions. One guy threw out partisan talking points after points and then they wouldn't let the witness respond.

I'm all in on laying into the FBI, but from what I could hear it was plainly a partisan tv photo-op for at least two inquisitors. The "questions" were just... like a third grader drafted them. They had about 9 "facts" and then the witness would try and respond and they'd shout him down.

 

[purkey]

Except that here, the checks and balances didn’t work to avoid if the appearance of impropriety...which is what they should be designed to do.

unfortunately, the checks and balances around him were on the same team as him. Not all, but anyone who could have done something to address it. I can say that politics is the nastiest business there is and probably the tip of the iceberg is just now starting to show. And that's about all we will get...maybe. Anytime any question got close to revealing the truth or the facts, every democrat there starting yelling unfairities to where it became total chaos. "I don't remember" and "I can't answer because the fbi said so" is the same as taking the 5th.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Man there is literally no other explanation for a bunch of the speeches that were given yesterday. I haven't heard it all and won't, but I listened to some of it yesterday on the radio behind the wheel (I think a replay) for 20ish minutes and they were just giving speeches for cameras in lieu of asking questions. One guy threw out partisan talking points after points and then they wouldn't let the witness respond.

I'm all in on laying into the FBI, but from what I could hear it was plainly a partisan tv photo-op for at least two inquisitors. The "questions" were just... like a third grader drafted them. They had about 9 "facts" and then the witness would try and respond and they'd shout him down.

The Democrats repeatedly objected that Strzok was not allowed to answer his inquisitors, and the Chairman repeatedly gave Strozk all the time he wanted to reply once the Republican's time had expired.

 

[CowboyJD]

Man there is literally no other explanation for a bunch of the speeches that were given yesterday. I haven't heard it all and won't, but I listened to some of it yesterday on the radio behind the wheel (I think a replay) for 20ish minutes and they were just giving speeches for cameras in lieu of asking questions. One guy threw out partisan talking points after points and then they wouldn't let the witness respond.

I'm all in on laying into the FBI, but from what I could hear it was plainly a partisan tv photo-op for at least two inquisitors. The "questions" were just... like a third grader drafted them. They had about 9 "facts" and then the witness would try and respond and they'd shout him down.

I heard a little bit...primarily one of Strzok’s soliloquies...and his own words were pretty damning to the credibility of the investigation.

Like I said earlier...what amazes me is the complete and utter 180 degree difference between the views of the hearings yesterday seemingly based upon nothing but which “side” you they happen to be on. Your statement that you haven’t heard it all (and won’t), but have drawn a conclusion that there is literally no other explanation is a prime example of what I’m unwilling to do...draw conclusions without full analysis. I personally anticipate that it...like most Congressional hearings...involved a fair amount of political grandstanding and actually had some meat and potatoes information concerning the actual issues involved. I’m just not seeing anyone take any middle ground...it’s not necessarily an all or nothing proposition.

 

[my_2cents]

The balance of the post (which you conveniently omitted) indicated failures by the FBI to weed out an investigator with a clear personal animus to a high profile subject of a high profile investigation with tons of political implications. It omitted statements that such failures were wrong and damage the investigation’s credibility. You also omitted my contentions that such failures raises an appearance of impropriety in the investigation. Such an appearance of impropriety raises a duty by Congress to investigate those appearances and question the credibility of the report...the exact thing you are dismissing as just politics and a distraction.

Yes, I disagree with the way you are framing this. That is why I once again simply stated my opinion that we see politics at play relating to Strzok in response to your post. I have been rather clear about my opinion.

You apparently believe that having political opinions about presidential candidates during a presidential election represents "clear personal animus." I disagree with you. In my experience, most individuals in law enforcement and criminal investigations have strong political viewpoints. However, they can usually set those aside and do their jobs.

Also, with most investigations, if one searches hard enough and so desires, one can find something they can use to attack an investigation's credibility. Happens all the time. Again though, that does not mean each attack should be taken seriously.

And I have no problem with Congress investigating. But when it dissolves into politics, then one can call it that. What I saw yesterday was politics. And it wasn't a good day for the Republicans on that committee.

The credibility of the investigation is definitely...and rightfully...in question because of Strzok, and it needs to be investigated and examined.

I disagree with your addition of the word "righfully" and who you attribute the blame to. I would argue that the credibility of the investigation is in question because Trump's legal team along with his political supporters have decided to attack the investigation's credibility. Just as Clinton did with the investigation surrounding her. It is the same playbook.

Strzok is just the pawn the Trump team is currently using. Yet, they didn't really succeed in attempting to discredit him yesterday, which was their sole intention.

Finally....you didn’t answer my question about your experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement.

I too have extensive experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement as a prosecutor.

 

[CowboyJD]

Yes, I disagree with the way you are framing this. That is why I once again simply stated my opinion that we see politics at play relating to Strzok in response to your post. I have been rather clear about my opinion.

You apparently believe that having political opinions about presidential candidates during a presidential election represents "clear personal animus." I disagree with you. In my experience, most individuals in law enforcement and criminal investigations have strong political viewpoints. However, they can usually set those aside and do their jobs.

Also, with most investigations, if one searches hard enough and so desires, one can usually find something they can use to attack the investigation's credibility. Happens all the time. Again though, that does not mean each attack should be taken seriously.

And I have no problem with Congress investigating. But when it dissolves into politics, then one can call it that. What I saw yesterday was politics. And it wasn't a good day for the Republicans on that committee.



I disagree with your addition of the word "righfully." And I would argue that the credibility of the investigation is in question because Trump's legal team along with his political supporters have decided to attack the investigation's credibility. Just as Clinton did with the investigation surrounding her. It is the same playbook.

Strzok is just the pawn the Trump team is currently using. Yet, they didn't really succeed attempting to discredit him yesterday, which was their sole intention.



I too have extensive experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement as a prosecutor.

Well yeah...you’re clearly a complete and utter team player.

How many years experience?

As a DA or a federal prosecutor?

I question the truth of this assertion, clearly.

 

[Rdcldad]

I too have extensive experience with criminal investigations and/or law enforcement as a prosecutor.

then your blind rigidity in the face of JD’s thoughts an analysis is scary at F**8 for anyone in the vice of your inquisition

 

[Rdcldad]

Well yeah...you’re clearly a complete and utter team player.

How many years experience?

As a DA or a federal prosecutor?

I question the truth of this assertion, clearly.

federal???
not possible
unless it’s southern district of new york