Strzok hearing is riveting TV
- Thread starter PDT816
- Start date
I respect you sy, you bring much needed balance to this board. However, I have to disagree with you here.
Just because President Bush was briefed about the potential threat of an attack by Bin Laden doesn't mean he got us attacked on 9/11.
I can agree that Bush's national security team (as well as Clinton's) didn't do all they could have done with Al Qaeda pre-9/11. However, that doesn't mean they got us attacked. It simply means that they were underestimating the threat Al Qaeda represented.
Do you believe if the Bush administration had adopted the plan that article references in the spring or summer of 2001 that 9/11 would definately have been avoided?
Well, here is one example for you...
https://oklahomastate.forums.rivals...-they’re-very-expensive-”.72878/#post-1238011
Why, because I disagree with you about what is going on with Peter Strzok?
And again, most everyone on this board is a team player in some way or another.
I could care less if you question the truth of it. I could question the truth of your assertions too. I just choose not to because I can accept your differing opinion without the need to question your career claims.
POINT OF ORDER! POINT OF ORDER!
His complete and utter dismissal of any possibility that Strzok’s behavior and comments lead to a valid concern about the appearance of impropriety or that it damages the credibility of the investigation in any way leads me to questioning the integrity of such claim of prosecutorial experience.
Statements he has made about the subject of the investigation he was involved in is something very different than mere “strong political opinions”.
JD's analysis on this is flawed.
Again, it is not uncommon for individuals working on investigations and in law enforcement to have political opinions and support political candidates. State prosecutors are elected in partisan elections for goodness sakes. That doesn't mean though that they can't be fair with their investigations.
And it is also not uncommon for the credibility of investigations to be attacked. I see it all the time, both in the news and in the courtroom.
No, because your posts here and elsewhere reveal a bias in analysis.
I agree that most everyone on this board is a team player. That’s one of the problems with this board. Not a whole lot of independence....a whole lot of reflexive parroting talking points of their team.
There are many...MANY...people here that know me personally and what I do IRL.
Can you say the same?
@CowboyJD is right.
For CPA's the appearance of the lack of independence is as bad as lacking independence in fact. If you lack independence in appearance you can not issue an audit opinion. People that need to rely on the independence of the auditor and the need to rely on the auditor's report are unable to do those things if it appears an auditor is not independent, even if they are in fact. As much as the auditor has a responsibility to his client, his biggest responsibility is to those investors, creditors, and potential investors and creditors that are relying on his audit report and the related financials statements, footnotes, and disclosures.
I would think in matters pertaining to a criminal investigation that the standard for lacking an appearance of independence is even heightened more, and again such lack of independence calls in to question any findings of fact and undermines the trust that citizens can place on a fair legal process.
I am not sure this point in this conversation is getting the attention it deserves. Some people want proof of what this agent was actually thinking when those texts were sent, the only person to ever know that is the agent. No intentional wrong doing has to be proven here. The agent clearly did not act professionally, he clearly at a minimum lacked independence in appearance, which undermined and jeopardizes the whole investigation. Dems want to defend him, but if you truly believe Trump did something wrong, you should be royally pissed over what this agent did, because his actions could undermine any findings the FBI comes up with.
JD makes a very subtle but huge point, and that point has nothing to do with partisan politics.
I have always said to nail Trump if he did something wrong, if he did, this agent may have screwed up in justice being served, that is not fair to all of us.
Last edited:
No you are questioning my experience because I am disagreeing with you on your central assertion regarding Strzok. I don't see it like you see it, so you have to question me.
Others on this board who have bought into the right's narrative on Strzok just level ad hominem attacks at me. You are too sophisticated for that, so instead, you just question my experience.
All very typical and not unexpected.
Last edited:
I think they had repeated chances to acknowledge and address the risk of an airplane terror attack, and elected not to. That article picks up where all the previous reporting left off, but sort of has a link to the first generation of reporting. One of the vignettes from years ago had the Bush admin literally inside the WH rejecting an August written memo because it was deemed Clinton's foreign policy. Clinton was late to acknowledge the threat but more than educated the dubya admin. They were warned in multiple waves, come to find out. This is old news.
The probability of the attack goes way down if Dumbya's admin was diligent. Their #1 job was to keep us secure. They elected to ignore data because of preconceived partisan dogma. We got hit, as people they ignored predicted.
And so does yours often.
Again, none of us are immune from biases. That doesn't though always discredit one's analysis.
And you are a team player too. Moderates and/or Independents are just as much team players as are Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc.
I do agree though that this can be a problem when one only engages in or accepts the talking points of their team. I don't believe I do that though nor do I think that of you.
Great. Again, I don't feel the need to question you as you are now doing with me. I can accept we have a different opinion on this without adopting that approach.
Not at all. Just stating a fact.
Ad hominem attacks have never bothered me. And I have to admit that I sometimes can be guilty of using them. However, they always reveal more about the person making them then they do the person they are directed at.
To review:
1. Most posters don’t have the experience in criminal investigation that I do.
2. What experience do you have in criminal investigation?
3. I don’t like it when I get questioned in light of the criterion I established 30 minutes earlier.
No, I originally stated that one can tell reading this thread that a number of posters don't have experience with criminal investigations and law enforcement. Which is true.
I don't care that CowboyJD then asked about my experience and gave his. I would expect that considering the statement I made. However, when I told him, he then had a problem accepting it.
I'm so immunized from far worse institutional and individual LE improprieties that are totally unremedied, this hardly registers. Hell the gratuitous confidentiality of OSBI files when a family wants to review an officer-inflicted homicide is worse. "Go to hell, you can't know the facts of your son's death." We've had so much worse for so long in the country and Oklahoma that I'm spinning at your dismay over the guy having a private political opinion. If he did something wrong besides text a private political opinion and horror at Biff's conduct, I stand corrected.
A police officer having a private political opinion doesn't bother me in the slightest -- I assume they all do, just like Judges, lawyers, Dr's, nurses, cops, teachers, meter readers, and jurors that discharge their responsibilities every day without letting personal biases get in the way. I know cops that I trust to be honest although we likely disagree on nothing politically. And for those politicians to sit up there and just chew his ass and then not let him respond (which I heard with my own two ears, he simply wasn't given a chance to respond) is transparent political posturing.
Incidentally, has anybody said that the investigation fabricated evidence or ignored evidence? Is there actual substantive investigatory conduct that was improper?
And Comey threw Hillary under the bus right before the election. That's the sorry SOB that should be in jail. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and these people could give a shit less about that. But it's not partisan. Riiiiiight.
No Russia, no Stzrok. He was overseeing lots of Russia stuff, and he was obviously on to something, we have multiple guilty pleas and Flynn (his national security advisor, a criminal) and manafort (who was only his CAMPAIGN MANAGER) being indicted. That's just the stuff we know about.
I appreciate you not wanting to discuss Russia, but they really are awful and Trump sure looks bad for hiring Manafort and all these criminals. Ugly.
I don't disagree that they misread or underestimated the threat. And I don't disagree that partisan dogma was at work, as it usually always is with a presidential administrion. However, I can't agree with the assertion that they caused 9-11. Al-Qaeda caused 9-11 and was responsible for 9-11.
I also don't see much evidence for how the specific attack that occurred on 9-11 could have been stopped if the Bush administration had followed through with some of the recommendations/ideas during the summer of 2001.
lol.
Yep, he was just exercising those personal political views of his. On FBI devices. While discussing active investigations. Nothing to see there.
Regarding you vs JD, JD dropped you in his very first post. Now he's just dragging your corpse around, smearing your innards all over the place. You know this is the reality. You're just desperate to keep up the charade that you're his equal. You aren't. And I'm pretty sure I can safely say you won't be anytime soon.
"Incidentally, has anybody said that the investigation fabricated evidence or ignored evidence? Is there actual substantive investigatory conduct that was improper?"
Where do you get your news?
Highlights?
Where do you get your news?
Highlights?
I know, right?
That is why I am surprised by JD's comments on this given his experience with criminal investigations and law enforcement.
They do. This is nothing new. Heck, some of the most political people I've met walk in law enforcement.
But again, I've seen people with strong political opinions and loyalities set those aside and conduct a fair investigation or a fair trial. That is their job and they take their oath and responsibility seriously.
Nope.
And that is why I maintain that what is occuring with Peter Strzok is politics. It is an political attempt to discredit the investigation.
We will know when actual corruption is shown or proven.
I have to disagree here with you sy.
Those who attack Comey or the FBI over the Clinton investigation are engaging in the same behavior, in my opinion, that those who are seeking to discredit the Trump investigation are engaging in. Comey wasn't perfect and made some mistakes. But I don't believe he belongs in jail or that he intentionally sought to hurt Clinton politically.
Looking forward to a full investigation of the bias and political animus contained in the text messages of agents in the NYC FBI office.
Also I wonder if any ICE agents have had any bias towards the people they investigate. We should probably check their texts to make sure the law is fairly enforced.
Also I wonder if any ICE agents have had any bias towards the people they investigate. We should probably check their texts to make sure the law is fairly enforced.
I don’t think he’s questioning your experience because you disagree with him. I think he’s questioning your experience because you are sketchy.
ad hominem eh? interesting.
Let's cement the goal posts. I didn't say anybody "caused" the attack. Bush let it happen. He failed. He does his job, it doesn't happen. That doesn't mitigate Al Qaeda's guilt, either. And Al Qaeda's guilt doesn't mitigate his incompetence. If we have any standards of competence at all, that shouldn't have happened. They were on notice. He also literally gave up on getting Bin Laden.
Disengenous. Let 12 people spend hours laying into you, and then give you a few minutes to remember and articulately rebut every point they made. You can't remember it 15 seconds later when you're in that chair, much less hours later.
I drew a conclusion based on two unedited inquiries I listened to. Any person with normal cognition could tell they were being partisan. They literally just chewed him out and then wouldn't let him respond. One did. The other just bitched too, though, and didn't ask anything. And then one female laid into him over the nookie. That was partisan, but sounded fair. If they ask in security protocols if they're having affairs, it's relevant. But that's not where the other guys were headed, they were mad because he didn't like Biff. Well, no shit, he's an educated, intelligent guy.
Reconcile how you can anticipate "a fair amount of political grandstanding" but you question someone's observation that what they actually heard was partisan.
Sure. But. It’s unlikely to find an ICE agent in the position of investigating both candidates for president (of America) - one of whom he feels should win 100,000,000 to 0, and pledging to see that the other doesn’t win.
Other than that, great point.
comey threw cank under the bus because she used private email servers for secure information in her capacity as secretary of state
jeez
lol, this is classic.
I am only sketchy because you don't agree with me. If I was making posts attacking Strzok, questioning the investigation and defending Trump, you would be agreeing with my posts.
the elephant in the room is so obvious...everyone knows what he did and why he did it. Was it criminal? Depends on what degree I guess. They are trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and are going to drag his ass through the mud to find out the whole story, make him admit it and ruin the rest of his life.
I don't get his pearl clutching. JD, wth dude.
If the guy wasn't calling balls and strikes proper, let's see it. NOTHING so far.
I welcome and embrace the disagreement my friend, it's why I'm on here. I hope that the wingnuts take notes how to disagree with calling each other names.
Of course, I'm plainly right and formally requesting the mod to ban you, but I welcome the diversity of opinion.
Wasn't perfect? He gratuitously published that she was under criminal investigation right before the election when he didn't have to, and that was a major theme of Biff's campaign: Lock her up. Like... right before the election. The poll numbers moved.
You get a cigar for that.
I'm holding my breath....
edit: @CBradSmith set down the booger, dry the velour and get itt to see how sensible people can discuss things without personal attacks.
edit, II: Brad, I'm sorry for making fun of your booger eating and incel truck. I'm trying.
Aren't .02 and pilt great influences?
Defending Trump? Yeah, that's what we're doing. Clearly. I see why you won't answer the question of where you went to law school. No need to embarrass the shit out of the place.
