Reply With Quote
You brought up the bible.
And now you're backing down.
I accept your white flag about your belief in the bible.
lol Chris
This thread is about demonic Peter Strzok. Look at you trying to derail it.
You brought up the bible.
And now you're backing down.
I accept your white flag about your belief in the bible.
lol Chris
WATCH: Texas Dem goes line-by-line through all of Trump’s links to Russia that have nothing to do with Peter Strzok
In the oversight of these two committees, it is unfortunate that none of these committees, Judiciary or Oversight, have decided to pursue more precious or more important issues than asking about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.”
Meanwhile, she noted, thousands of children on the border are being “stolen away from their families” and the president of the United States is meeting with a foreign adversary.
“Foreign policy scholars are aghast that this president, one who famously refused to read his briefing materials, will be meeting with Mr. Putin. In addition, we’re wasting time on the Clinton investigation rather than investigating the role that Russia played in the 2016 elections,” she went on. “Unanimous and unassailable assessment of the intelligence community is that the Russians helped [President Donald] Trump over Hillary and intended to harm her.”
She even cited that the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee agreed with that assessment.
“Unfortunately, the president and House Republicans do not agree,” she continued. “The leader of Russia is known to have sanctioned murder of dissidents, jailed journalists, and this is the president who is described as easy to meet with. Neither the Judiciary Committee or the Oversight Committee has investigated the president indicating whether he can pardon himself.
So, here we are, Mr. Strzok, to ask you questions.”
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that Trump campaign associate Carter Page was under counter-intelligence surveillance going back to 2013? Anything that you did, yes or no?”
He answered no.
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that in March 2016 the president met with George Papadopoulos, who would later plead guilty for lying to the FBI?” she asked.
He answered no.
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that Donald Trump Jr. met with agents of the Russian government in Trump tower in 2016?” she asked.
Again, he answered it did not.
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that the president asked Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton‘s e-mails?” she asked.
He, again, said no.
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that Paul Manafort, who has pleaded guilty, in fact, that in July 2016 that Paul Manafort changed the GOP party platform at the 2016 GOP convention in order to benefit Russia or change the platform?” she asked, holding up Manafort’s mugshot.
Ma’am, without saying whether or not that’s accurate, no,” he replied.
“Did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that in May George Papadopoulos was drunk in a London bar, bragging about how Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton?” she asked.
“Without confirming that’s accurate or not, no,” he said.
“Did anything you do or say change the fact that when Donald Trump was presented with dirt on Hillary Clinton, he responded, ‘I love it?'” she asked.
“Again, ma’am, only commenting on public accounts of that, no,” he said.
“Did anything in the IG report change the fact that Donald Trump Jr. was communicating with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange about the timing of releasing e-mails designed to harm Hillary Clinton?” she asked.
Again he replied it did not.
She asked if he knew that Michael Flynn had pleaded guilty, which he said he was aware of.
“Well, in his offense statement that we have right here, Mr. Flynn indicated that his statements, false statements and omissions, caused impeding the Russian investigation,
but more importantly, I believe it’s important to take note of the fact that he provided information to the Russian Ambassador that
said, here, ‘Calm down, don’t bother to get upset about sanctions.’
And according to a whistleblower, he said the sanctions would be,
‘Ripped up to allow money to start flowing’ to one of Flynn’s business projects.
You had no interference with that, did you not?”
He agreed that he did not.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/watch-texas-dem-goes-line-line-trumps-links-russia-nothing-peter-strzok/
the dems thus far are acting like all the hyperbolic losers in the streets shouting shame shame shame... and then they fluff fluff fluff strzok over and over again. 4 hrs in and this testimony is hilariously cringe worthy with a dude who acts like his don't stink. this dude is so egotistical it's insane. ugh back at now...
Total show, tbh.
Peter went in deep and raw on these repugs.
The ones destroying the FBI are people like Comey, McAbe, and Strzok.
Peter went in deep and raw on these repugs.
Not demonic, but creepy AF.
Rachel on Strzok
Rachael And The Real Spy Story Of Peter Strzok
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...ist=associated
As Strzok said earlier, his position towards Trash was not BIAS, but based on Strzok's knowledge of Russian operations in USA. He was running FBI's counterintelligence operations for years
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-12-2018 at 09:30 PM.
How many times have you asked someone to kill themselves?
I heard Gohmert made an ass of himself but that’s per usual tbh.
this face looks like a ing serial killer
what a disgrace
What are you guys saying Strzok did?
List your accusations.
‘Fairly unpresidential’: Watch a 2016 Kellyanne Conway trash Trump as ‘vulgar’ for the same reasons Strzok did
as Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) pointed out on Thursday, the criticisms that Strzok made in his text messages were very similar to the kinds of criticisms Republicans themselves made publicly about Trump during the 2016 election.
a 2016 video of top Trump loyalist Kellyanne Conway from before she joined Trump’s campaign reveals that she had many of the same criticisms of Trump that Strzok did.
During an appearance on CNN, Conway blistered Trump for using childish nicknames to describe his opponents at the time, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Conway called out Trump for being “vulgar” and said that his vulgarity “cost him votes.” She then said voters were starting to question whether they wanted a candidate “who hurls personal insults or who talks about philosophical differences.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/fai...e+Raw+Story%29
KAC being subpoena'ed to appear before Congress?
Strzok's "reasons" for being personally against Trash were not from Trash's name calling.
Republicans Thought Peter Strzok Would Be a Punching Bag. He Just Knocked Them Out.
the Capitol Hill show trial of veteran FBI agent and former head of the Bureau’s Counterespionage division Peter Strzok turned into a disaster for Republicans.
Strzok instead delivered one of the rarest of moments: the full Joseph N. Welch.
After an hour of drama-queen badgering from Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte, Strzok issued two passionate statements that will be the takeaways from an otherwise disorganized and contentious show
The first was a ringing defense of the FBI, with Strzok showing the kind of real passion that makes for great television. The FBI lifer issued a ringing defense of himself and his agency, punching Gowdy hard in the nose.
The second was a shot across Donald Trump’s bow:
“I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.”
This latest spectacle was designed for one purpose only:
the destruction of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia ties.
Because Trump supporters live in a hermetic media echo chamber, these hearings are part of
a predictable, hokey Kabuki dance.
They’re a device for generating a new round of
hyperbolic base-only stories
that will follow the same dumb arc as all the rest.
Strzok had none of it.
In this morning’s round he left the Trumpists of the House staggered in their corner, cut and shaky, wondering where Strzok learned to hit back that hard.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-thought-peter-strzok-would-be-a-punching-bag-he-just-knocked-them-out?ref=home
Can the less, corrupt, Pootin-pawn Repugs counterpunch?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-13-2018 at 09:56 AM.
NYT conservative calls out GOP hypocrites on Strzok: ‘There’s a reason they’re called the stupid party’
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens called out Republicans for attacking FBI agent Peter Strzok over his private political views — which many of them shared before Donald Trump won the GOP nomination.
The conservative columnist told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that
even Vice President Mike Pence warned that Trump must not be allowed to win the nomination,
yet agreed to become his running mate and serve alongside the former reality TV star in the White House.
“There’s a reason Republicans are called the stupid party,”
Stephens said. “My old colleague at the Wall Street Journal,
Holman Jenkins, used to say there are certain ideas that vanish in the presence of thought.”
Stephens said the entire premise of the hearing was ridiculous.
“The idea there was a bias at the FBI toward Hillary Clinton is simply refuted by the fact that the FBI was the one agency of government which played a decisive role in getting Donald Trump elected,”
“So if Vice President Pence is allowed to have that bias up until march of 2016,” he added,
“why is agent Strzok not allowed to have it up until the summer of that year?
I can name
dozens of prominent Republicans, including people who then are now serving in this administration,
who thought exactly as agent Strzok did throughout the 2016 election.
Maybe they should step down from office.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/nyt...theyre-called-
stupid-party/
Strzok is ruining the fbi by expressing personal opinions through texts?
"The ones destroying the FBI are people like Comey, McAbe, and Strzok."
goddamn, you're ing stupid
The FBI is being destroyed? how? (we're not expecting ANY facts or explanation )
or
Are the Repugs slandering the FBI for credulous dupes like Darrin, etc, to protect Trash and destroy Mueller, Strzok, McCabe, and the reputation of the FBI?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-13-2018 at 11:00 AM.
Sure he is
Obvious bias. No matter how much he denies it.
He actually destroyed the Trump investigation with those texts. No way a judge will ignore those texts when they try yo charge Trump tbqh.
Similar to the way judges consider Trumps tweets when they evaluate his immigration/other policies
Good iob ztork
the notion that government employees expressing strong political opinions is improper, is preposterous.
He was THE lead investigator in the Trump case.
You make it seem like he is a regular desk worker at Transportation department
And saying We will stop him is not a strong political opinion tbqh. Its a promise of action.
a tweet is broadcast to the public. a text is a private message.Sure he is
Obvious bias. No matter how much he denies it.
He actually destroyed the Trump investigation with those texts. No way a judge will ignore those texts when they try yo charge Trump tbqh.
Similar to the way judges consider Trumps tweets when they evaluate his immigration/other policies
Good iob ztork
Next Republicans will be telling us that state prosecutors can't show bias against defendants.
It's expected that lead investigators will presume guilt if there are enough breadcrumbs leading down that path. He would still have to prove guilt, and unless you can show that he tampered, altered or mislead during the investigation, that's not criminal bias.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions