Strzok text and why isn't anyone asking the obvious?

a reply to: seeker1963

Partisan rhetoric? Not at all, the amount of support I've gotten in this thread should be proof enough of that.

Also, was the DOJ's investigation into Hillary based on FACTS? If so, why wasn't she put in jail? Because she should be in jail right now if they could be trusted. But I'm guessing that now the DOJ is the only alphabet agency that can be trusted because of this information they gave to the media?

Funny how trust is so easily given and taken away these days whenever it suits someone's biases.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yes, the DOJ are paid political hacks. Where was this trust in them when they were investigating Hillary? It was nowhere to be found except on the left, now it has done a complete 180 and the partisan roles reversed. I wonder why?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

it is no longer sensitive
the guy got fired for it

when someone involved at that level of an investigation that may lead to impeachment it is a big deal no matter how you want to spin it

or do you not care that this investigation is carried out properly?

What we see today is not a government that works "by the people, for the people", we have nothing close to that. We have "checks and balances" in our government for a reason, so things like this CANT happen. But when they all work in unison, scary things can happen... We are seeing what happens when the DOJ, FBI, and other alphabet agencies conspire together to cover up all the dirty deeds that have happened for years (decades).... I truly hope we're able to clean house, drain the swamp, and move along collectively together... But the deep state has done a wonderful job wedging both sides against one another. Its so bad that when damning evidence comes out about one side or the other, people seemingly have their heels dug into the ground and refuse to acknowledge the other side.... Not sure what it was like prior to the Civil War happening, but I'm sure there's loads of parallels from then to now... It just looks like the deep state has the populace in the exact spot they like to see, clear division so Trump can't get anything done to help better us..

a reply to: shooterbrody

So what is the deciding factor, in your opinion, in whether this investigation is carried out properly? If they indict Mueller and by association Trump as well, would you say it was carried out properly or would you say that Trump was treated unfairly?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Where was this trust in them when they were investigating Hillary?

Well, for my part, I know I have quoted from the Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements report (direct .pdf link) which showed that, among many other things, former Secretary Clinton did not ask for nor receive approval to use a private, non-secured server for all of her official communications.

I also recently quoted from the FBI vault (via a screen cap) showing who was present during Hillary's non-sworn, unrecorded interview.

Speaking for myself only, that is.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

no answer to the question posed to you?
like i posted earlier jog on

a reply to: shooterbrody

My answer is yes I do care. Now answer mine, what is the deciding factor on whether the investigation is carried out properly, in your opinion? Whether Trump/Mueller are found guilty or innocent?

If you decide not to answer then I will assume your answer is that it depends on whether Trump is found innocent or guilty, much like during the election where people said they wouldn't trust the election results if Trump lost. In other words, personal bias is the deciding factor.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

So you don't trust the investigation they performed on Hillary. Thanks.

Will you trust their investigation regardless of the outcome or will it depend on Trump/Mueller's guilt/innocence?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

i think mueller is capable of conducting a proper investigation

but that investigation has to be TRANSPARENT

that is the purpose of the SC to begin with

when people mueller picked are fired we deserve to know why

if the bum fired interviewed manafort and manafort gets off because of the bums bias we deserve to know that

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you don't trust the investigation they performed on Hillary.

Was Hillary interviewed under oath?

Were there others present who were also interviewed as part of the investigation that were granted immunity?

Was that immunity compromised in any way?

Were there lies told by any of those same people for which charges were not filed?

Will you trust their investigation regardless of the outcome or will it depend on Trump/Mueller's guilt/innocence?

What has come out of the investigation so far?

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's not an answer to my question. If Trump is found guilty will you trust the investigation was carried out properly? What if the opposite is the case and Trump is found innocent?

What is the deciding factor?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What does an oath mean to a politician? Politicians are paid to break oaths, alphabet agencies are paid to deceive the people.

Regardless of the outcome I'm not going to put my trust in an alphabet agency or politician. Whatever the outcome is the agenda was accomplished.

What has come out of the investigation so far?

That's not an answer to the question. Quit dodging it.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So I am referring to this text from Strzok:

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . "

And everyone seems to be focused on his "we can't take that risk" portion.

Why is nobody asking why this was being discussed with McCabe in the first place? Apparently Page threw out a scenario in McCabes office as to how Trump doesn't get elected...meaning they were discussing all of this directly with McCabe....

How come this isn't being discussed? Has it simply been overlooked that this implicates McCabe in everything they are alluding to? Even as a conspirator.....

To me this is proof that there was something shady going on behind the scenes. I'm just not sure if it was related to the investigations or if it was something else they were/are trying to sit in motion. Either way I want to know what "path" they were talking about that would prove to be insurance....

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you're saying that it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary was placed under oath for her interview as it is expected she will lie anyway?

Is that your contention?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That's my contention for any politician or person in a position of power. You don't make your way to the highest offices by being honest.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So it is expected that Hillary would have lied to a federal agent during an interview and that she would also not face any consequences for lying to a federal agent?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

with what we know now evidence from the 2 fired is suspect

if mueller is transparant with his recommendation i will accept it

mueller now has a problem with transparancy as one was removed in august and no explaination
i do not expect mueller to speak to the press, but someone in the doj should have been upfront about the issue
now it looks like a coverup

mueller is not deciding guilt or innocence that is up to the house and senate
but you knew that right?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I've already made my stance clear, stop dodging my questions.

If Trump is found guilty (even if by association) will you trust that the investigation was carried out properly?

a reply to: shooterbrody

You have yet to answer the question. If Trump is found guilty by association, will you trust the outcome of the investigation?