I didn’t question your observation that what you actually heard was partisan. I questioned you drawing a conclusion that the entirety of the hearing was just partisanship based upon what little you confessed to hearing.
Strzok hearing is riveting TV
- Thread starter PDT816
- Start date
I didn’t question your observation that what you actually heard was partisan. I questioned you drawing a conclusion that the entirety of the hearing was just partisanship based upon what little you confessed to hearing.
No. I question your claims for exactly the reason I stated.
Not always, but when that analysis so clearly parrots the analysis of your team, it actually does.
I was using the term “independence” in terms of independence from asking and engaging in or accepting the talking points of their team and “team player” to describe someone who primarily engages in or accepts unquestioningly the talking points of their team. You may not believe you do that. Nobody here believes they do that. I believe you do.
Adopt the approach of arguing to personal authority with others.
Don’t like it when your own claimed personal authority is questioned.
Got it.
And that pledge to see that the other doesn't win manifested itself how?
So what is the principle in play here? That LE is allowed to have biases about the subjects of their investigation as long as it isn't political bias?
You are aware that there's an investigation into the Russia Russia Russia investigation, right?
Sys and 2 cents: Nothing to see here....move along...nothing to concern ourselves here...obviously no misconduct with Strzok’s behavior.
Trumpets: The entire investigation is tainted. Everybody involved is just out to get Trump. Don’t believe anything that comes out of the investigation now.
Me: Explicitly saying nothing I have heard would ruins the investigation, but Strzok’s behavior is questionable and inappropriate because it raises a possible appearance of impropriety and leads to opportunities to attack the credibility of the investigation.
AND I’M THE ONE CLUTCHING AT PEARLS.
Trumpets: The entire investigation is tainted. Everybody involved is just out to get Trump. Don’t believe anything that comes out of the investigation now.
Me: Explicitly saying nothing I have heard would ruins the investigation, but Strzok’s behavior is questionable and inappropriate because it raises a possible appearance of impropriety and leads to opportunities to attack the credibility of the investigation.
AND I’M THE ONE CLUTCHING AT PEARLS.
probably being undertaken by people with political bias too
You are aware that there's an investigation into the Russia Russia Russia investigation, right?
Yes, you didn't say he caused the attack. Sorry that I misrepresented your position.
You said he got us attacked and now you are claiming he let it happen. I just don't believe that is true sy. I think at the worst the Bush administration underestimated the threat Al-Qaeda posed. I also don't see the need to blame Bush for the attack nor have I seen anything that represents gross incompetence before the attack on the administration's part. Al-Qaeda is to blame for 9/11.
You don't believe Bush intentionally let it happen do you?
Yes that is what you (and some other posters) are doing. You consistently defend Trump on here and attack Democrats and liberals. You also seem to really dislike Hillary Clinton and attack her every chance you get. I am sure you thought she was guilty of every crime imagined while you now cast doubt on the Trump investigation.
You also love ad hominem attacks when you have nothing of worth to contribute to a discussion.
Not real interested in debating something as obvious as this. This level of displayed, quoted and verified animosity presents - at minimum, a severe credibility issue for both investigations. At worst, indicates a willingness to actively pursue some plan B methodology to prevent a Trump presidency.
And given that this agent at least claimed he could prevent one person from becoming the leader of the free world, it’s kind of a unique sitcheashun.
Weird to me that anyone exists who is ok with a federal agent claiming he can fix this little problem.
Yes, that was a mistake. That is why I said he made mistakes.
However, I don't think it was criminal nor do I believe he belongs in jail. I also think Comey was trying to do the right thing. He believed he was doing his duty to Congress and the American people. But yes, it was a mistake and he should have listened to the lawyers who advised him not to go public.
I also think what he did influenced the election. Whether or not it swung the election in Trump's favor is debatable.
I also believe had Clinton won and Republicans discovered the investigation that occurred in October, they would have cried foul and we would have seen hearings about it and claims Comey was protecting Clinton.
You can be trying to do the right thing and be on the wrong side of the law. Those in LE or the Judiciary should not be trying to do what they think is right. They just need to perform their jobs impartially and fairly and follow the damn law.
LE and the Judicuary is our last line of defense against the entire corrupt political apparatus in Washington. When they interject what they think is right and pick sides? We are totally phucked.
this is what happens when you try to cheat....chaos. They like to find the tallest tree, climb out on the skinniest branch and tell the biggest lie...instead of standing on the ground and just telling the truth.
Ok. And I believe you do as well sometimes. Like you said, nobody here believes they do that, which would include you. But we all do.
Still, simply agreeing with a team sometimes doesn't discredit the analysis. Really, this whole "team" talk is a distraction.
You are now misrepresenting what occurred. I never questioned anyone who made a career or personal claim. I didn't question yours when you made them. I simply stated a while back that it is clear some posters on here have no experience with criminal investigations and law enforcement. And that is true and clear to see.
And, again, I don't care if you question my "personal authority." Doesn't bother me one bit. It reveals more about you then it does me.
AND I’M THE ONE CLUTCHING AT PEARLS.
Yes, when it comes to acting all shocked by what we have learned so far about Strzok and seemingly implying that it represents some gross aberrance from what regularly occurs in the real world.
btw, I am not saying that I would never accept that Strzok did something wrong or acted unethically. Maybe he did. But we need actual proof of that. Just ranting that the man had political opinions and strong opinions about the presidential campaign isn't proof. And attacking the man in a congressional hearing over irrelevant junk (i.e. his marriage) also isn't proof. That is politics.
Stupid point, but great gif.
Deer lowered. Private political opinions don't bother me. Conducting an extramarital affair per the lady senator may. I didn't hear it all. What I heard was plainly partisan.
No. But the immorality, deception, and cruelty of what he did with Iraq doesn't make it so far fetched.
Well Mrs. Lincoln, other than that how was the play?
Biff? Manafort? Flynn? Page? Papaddapoulus, are you guys listening to this wisdom?
They're red-assed because he didn't like Biff.
I seem to recall he wasn't real fond of Hillary, either. Did any of that come out?
I want to see what substantively the investigation did wrong. You can tell when leads aren't followed or statements are twisted.
I'm all ears, Pookie.
Sure. But again, I don't believe he broke any laws. At least, not from anything that has been shown so far.
That is what the vast majority are trying to do. They are trying to do what they think is right when it comes to being impartial and fair. But they are often second-guessed repeatedly, especially if they are part of a high profile political investigation.
Comey would have been attacked regardless of how he handled the Clinton investigation. Those who had it out for Clinton were not going to accept anything less than her being "locked up." And Clinton defenders would have (and did) challenged the investigation at any point where Clinton's political future was in jeopardy. Just as Trump defenders are now doing.
Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps they aren't choosing sides in their investigations? That perhaps it is politicians (who are under investigation) and their defenders who are attacking the investigations to score political points?
Today, they are out to get Trump politically. Three/two years ago they were out to get Clinton politically. Both sides using the same playbook to attack law enforcement.
Last edited:
Fair enough, but if animosity is standard, then we need to use this event as a opportunity to root out all animosity in law enforcement.
Would be a lot more concerned with all of this if the FBI actually did anything to prevent a Trump presidency.
Would be very interested in see the text messages sent by the agents in NY.
What I have learned from you is that as an attorney when it comes to criminal matters you are ok with having standards below a CPA and writing it off as business as usual and politics as usual.
Iraq was a mess, no doubt about that. But, Iraq is doing somewhat better today...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...rs-after-americas-invasion-iraq-is-doing-well
I am glad though that you don't accept the silly conspiracy theories about 9/11 that are out there.
Again....
I haven’t acted “all shocked”. I haven’t claimed the entire investigation is tainted or ruined. I have merely said that there is a difference between simple “political opinions” and what Strzok has said with regards to a particular person that he was investigating at the time. I’ve also said that what he said and did leads to an appearance of impropriety without further reaching an opinion on whether or not there was actually any impropriety.
It’s the extremes on both sides of this matter that are the ones clutching their pearls...either Strzok is a victim of the Trumpets who did nothing wrong OR he and the entire DOJ have run a crooked investigation just to get Trump from the start.
74 OS 150.5
74 OS 150.21b
Might want to take a look at those statutes. If you don’t like them, maybe advocate getting them changed instead of whining about “gratuitous” confidentiality and implying OSBI is taking a position just to protect officers inflicting homicides.
Also, discovery standards in Federal Court lawsuits are different and don’t have to follow state created confidentiality requirements. If you have reasonable belief of the the facts that an officer used excessive force, there are plenty of attorneys out there ready and willing to file that suit and issue a subpoena.
I just disagree with you about what Strzok's political opinions indicate. I do agree though that those who wish to attack the credibility of this investigation for political reasons are using his personal political opinions as their current ammo. And if it wasn't Strzok, it would be someone else.
btw, I also understand why Strzok was removed from the investigation, as I stated earlier on this thread.
I have never claimed that Strzok didn't do anything wrong. He may have but that has to be proven with evidence. Did he make mistakes? Sure.
All I am claiming is that at this point, based on what I've seen so far, what is occurring around Strzok is politics. And that was clearly on display yesterday where Republicans on that committee
You apparently also disagree with there being any “appearance of impropriety” in Strzok’s behavior...which is a different, lesser standard actual impropriety.
How do you propose it “be proven”?
Are you proposing that the hearings yesterday should have never been held or just that they didn’t prove anything yesterday?
What I am saying is that it they probably should be held, and I don’t know or have an opinion at this time on what...if anything...they proved so far.
The statutory confidentiality is totally gratuitous. Yes, I'm well aware our federal courts breeze through it, as they should. Nice that a family has to file a federal lawsuit to get it. That's cheap and easy.
There's no implication -- I'm saying that I suspect our badge bunny legislature probably acceded to LE and/or OSBI lobbying to frustrate transparency when the state kills somebody. It's insane and enables law enforcement corruption. Who the hell else gets that kind of special treatment in Oklahoma?
With evidence. If the claim is that Strzok took either unethical or illegal action to influence the Clinton investigation, to target Trump, or even somehow to stop Trump from winning, then those claims need to be backed up with hard evidence.
Asserting the man had political bias doesn't prove that claim. Asserting he had an extramarital affair doesn't prove that claim. Insulting him doesn't prove that claim.
I have no problem with the hearing being held. I just think the hearing didn't prove what Trump defenders are trying to sell here. And many people, on both the left and right, are saying the same thing (albeit drawing different conclusions on some minor points).
https://www.weeklystandard.com/mich...-fbi-agent-who-investigated-clinton-and-trump
Could Strzok be guilty of something? Sure. But prove it. And if it can't be proven, then we need to call this what it is. A distraction, politics, and an attempt by Trump defenders to discredit an on-going criminal investigation.
Last edited:
Then advocate for further changes in the law.
I also know, for a fact, that the recent changes in those statutes providing several exceptions to that confidentiality (including the ability to advise crime victims or family victims regarding the status of a pending investigations) were at the request of the OSBI and have been used to advise families of homicide victims as to the findings of such investigations.
74 OS 150.5 has been in effect since 1976. Which indicates pretty clearly to me, it wasn’t as a result of lobbying by the OSBI to frustrate transparency in officer involved shootings.
Fair enough. I’ll merely point out that I haven’t asserted that it has been proven he committed a crime or that any improprieties were, in fact, committed by him or anyone else in the investigation. In fact, I have specifically disclaimed that position. All I have said is that his conduct raises an appearance of impropriety that should be looked at and that I wouldn’t want someone with strong personal and political opinions about a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL (as opposed to simple “political opinions”) involved in the investigation of that particular individual because the appearance of impropriety.
Thanks for the clarification because I will confess to having interpreted several of your statements as indicating the hearings shouldn’t have even been held. I have also specifically said I haven’t watched the hearings and don’t have an opinion on whether or not anything was proven.
I understand this.
Not at all. And if I gave that impression, I'm sorry.
I have no problem with congressional oversight. I do wish at times the oversight was less partisan (in terms of the focus and witnesses called), but that is unfortunately the nature of politics.
I just did. And have. And will. And at least 2 judges in the western district seem to agree with me from what I can tell. That law enforcement records of a stolen lawnmower are public record but someone getting killed is not.... it's nuts.
You lost me on the 1976 deal. Both the OSBI and state leg existed then.
Yeah, I'll get right on lobbying the legislature - you obviously have their ear and the legislature won't do anything remotely progressive that runs against LE's wishes. I might as well yell at the clouds.
Western District of Oklahoma...as in Federal Court? I can’t remember the last time the OSBI asserted confidentiality of its records pursuant to state statute in a federal lawsuit.
On the 1976 statement, officer involved shootings weren’t exactly a hot button topic then and knowing whatI do about it’s history, I kind of doubt the OSBI was involved in many OISs then...so I doubt it was to avoid transparency on those cases.
Finally, you’re full of crap with this whole line of argument that the OSBI is lobbying against further lessening of those statutes.
I didn't say the osby lobbied against anything. No, I'm sure the osby didn't try to talk a federal judge into hiding the investigatory file. I'd bet they did at some point though. Did they? If so, did the judge tolerate it for two seconds?
Maybe you can point to the posts I've made in this thread in defense of Trump? I suspect I'll get your usual lame zero supporting evidence line of crap. Surprise me this time.
If evidence of their political bias lights itself in large neon signs via text messages about the investigation on agency devices, I'll have equal concern.
