Reply With Quote
Yeah. Formatting goes wonky, but here's the start page. Easy enough to find the time specified.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447953...gations-part-1
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447953...ations******=0
Well, I'm not wasting any more of my life on this
Last edited by rmt; 07-14-2018 at 12:25 PM.
Yeah. Formatting goes wonky, but here's the start page. Easy enough to find the time specified.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447953...gations-part-1
I don't really get what you're driving at. What's your point here?
If you were heading an investigation and someone working for you sent those texts, wouldn't you at least ask why he was stupid enough to send such texts on a work phone, what he meant about stopping Trump, what he meant about "insurance plan" and whether that had any effect on the work he had done in the investigations Strzok had already done? I would. Mueller didn't want to know so no one could ask him about the texts.
Mueller pulled Strzok off the investigation. Was that inappropriate?
No reason for him to ask about any of it. He knew the texts gave the appearance of bias and that's all he needed to act on.
No one -- not one person has given any evidence that Strzok's mean texts affected the investigation in any way. I'm sure they never will. All this is subject to review and the Clinton stuff has already been reviewed.
Which investigation are you referring to?
totally appropriate but the real question is when did mueller know of strzok's bias? before the hrc investigation or during the special council investigation? all these agents know each other especially the upper echelon of which strzok and mueller belong to. i doubt mueller was blind to the bias of strzok prior to even the hrc investigation.
Any investigation. You had your chance, TSA. You folded.
I'll ask again: What are you saying Strzok did?
List your accusations.
Look TSA, you've been saying for years that there has always been enough evidence in the hands of the authorities to put Hillary in federal prison.
They still have all that evidence.
Trump has been in power for a year and a half.
Why no charges?
JAIL HER!
They have the Presidency, Congress, The Senate, and the Supreme Court and yet, she s on all of them.
If Hillary was guilty of anything like ya say, and she is walking free right now, she has more power than the ing president.
Peter Strzok was involved in the Clinton investigation and the Russia investigation. Which one are you claiming his bias did not impact?
How did it impact them? Surely you got something.
What part of "any investigation" do you not understand?
I'll ask again: What are you saying Strzok did?
List your accusations.
They have the Presidency, Congress, The Senate, and the Supreme Court and yet, she s on all of them.If Hillary was guilty of anything like ya say, and she is walking free right now, she has more power than the ing president.
He did something wrong. What did he do? I can't say...
Are you claiming his bias did not impact the Russia investigation yes or no?
That's your talking point. Not his.
he said no evidence exists that strzok's texts affected any investigation in any way.
You claimed he did something wrong and now you're asking pavlov to prove otherwise.
Are you a ing re ?
as he testified in the Repug kangaroo court, he was one of many people, below, equal, and above him in counterintel who were involved in the hunt for the Russians.
but for you Trash fellators, he totally ed, biased, screwed the investigation all by his lonesome self.
Question pending.
I'll ask again: What are you saying Strzok did?
List your accusations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
