Disgraced FBI Agent PETER STRZOK Subpoenaed to Appear B4 Congress on 6-27-2018 at 10am.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: carewemust
Congressman Jim Jordan explains why the hearings tomorrow with Peter strzok will be closed to the public.

dailycaller.com...

Satisfactory explanation?

Thanks for that link. I was beginning to get really ticked that this hearing would not be open, but Jordan has a point.

He said their questions in private would not be limited to 5 minutes and said he supports a public hearing after the closed-door session. I'm going to trust this one.

Jim Jordan told his friend Congressman Mark Meadows that he's going to push for having the transcrpits of the questions/answers published after Strzok's testimony, minus any classified content.

Doing this will prevent certain Congressmen from running to the microphone and spreading disinfo right after the testimony.

a reply to: carewemust


IMPORTANT FYI:

Potential Bombshell with the Peter Strzok closed-session testimony later this morning. Congressman Jim Jordan is one of those who will be questioning. Jordan told Neil Cavuto (FoxNews) Tuesday that he's been going over some recently received Strzok e-mails. He was in touch with at least 30 other officials, inside and outside of the FBI.

And, some of the E-mails are significantly more "ominous" than the text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page. This is why the testimony will be behind closed doors. Information that, if true, cannot be made public yet, according to Jordan.

a reply to: carewemust

ooooooh.

ominous.

That's one of those words that the more you say it the less it sounds like an actual word. Like, plank.

Doing this will prevent certain Congressmen from running to the microphone and spreading disinfo right after the testimony.

Good plan. Silence the opposition. It would make a Kim proud.

a reply to: Phage

Who is silencing the opposition? The proposal was to release the transcripts with the facts, so that the public has the truth instead of lies and spin.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Who is silencing the opposition?

I don't know. Ask the person who said this:

Doing this will prevent certain Congressmen from running to the microphone and spreading disinfo right after the testimony.

Because anything which contradicts the narrative is disinfo, right?

(see my sig)

a reply to: Phage

Anything that contradicts the truth is disinfo.

How will revealing the truth via transcripts stop anything other than disinfo? People can still speak up with their comments amd opinions. But disinfo will be called out for what it is if the facts are available.

a reply to: BlueAjah

How will revealing the truth via transcripts stop anything other than disinfo?

Is every word you have ever spoken been the truth? If so, how can anything anyone says about it refute what you have said?
Do you think OJ is innocent?

a reply to: Phage

You know very well that the disinfo in this case would be those lying about the testimony in a closed session.

It has nothing to do with the validity of the testimony itself, but rather with the distortion of those reporting on that testimony.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I see.

Only one faction is capable of lying?

a reply to: Phage

I didn't say that.
I said the transcript would be proof of the actual testimony.

If it is public it will be quite funny hearing his excuses. "Oh, I was just joking"...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust


IMPORTANT FYI:

Potential Bombshell with the Peter Strzok closed-session testimony later this morning. Congressman Jim Jordan is one of those who will be questioning. Jordan told Neil Cavuto (FoxNews) Tuesday that he's been going over some recently received Strzok e-mails. He was in touch with at least 30 other officials, inside and outside of the FBI.

And, some of the E-mails are significantly more "ominous" than the text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page. This is why the testimony will be behind closed doors. Information that, if true, cannot be made public yet, according to Jordan.

This is going to be huge. Knowing that the IG was willing to post the texts in the report, which were bad enough, I wonder what was so bad in the emails that they were not included in the report?

Either these emails were in the classified section, or the IG did not have these emails until after the report was released. Either way, if they are bad enough to require a closed session, then this is very interesting.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Anything that contradicts the truth is disinfo.

An extremely naive statement. Disinformation does not necessarily need to contradict the truth, it only needs to make seeing the truth more difficult. Posing contrafactuals in the form of questions is now the preferred method. Were the emails leaked, not hacked? Did the text messages contain coded language? Is there a deeper plot behind the "jokes?" You get the idea. Anything that leads away from the obvious.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust


IMPORTANT FYI:

Potential Bombshell with the Peter Strzok closed-session testimony later this morning. Congressman Jim Jordan is one of those who will be questioning. Jordan told Neil Cavuto (FoxNews) Tuesday that he's been going over some recently received Strzok e-mails. He was in touch with at least 30 other officials, inside and outside of the FBI.

And, some of the E-mails are significantly more "ominous" than the text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page. This is why the testimony will be behind closed doors. Information that, if true, cannot be made public yet, according to Jordan.

This is going to be huge. Knowing that the IG was willing to post the texts in the report, which were bad enough, I wonder what was so bad in the emails that they were not included in the report?

Either these emails were in the classified section, or the IG did not have these emails until after the report was released. Either way, if they are bad enough to require a closed session, then this is very interesting.

The agents were involved in several classified investigations, some of which are still in progress. That is probably why they were redacted. See my note above about speculation as disinformation.

a reply to: DJW001

Speculation is not disinfo when it is presented as speculation.
If we stop theorizing and speculating, we will be nothing more than robotic sheep.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Speculation is not disinfo when it is presented as speculation.

It is when the intent is to lead people away from the truth. Some people robotically follow the trail of "speculation" rather than make observations for themselves.

originally posted by: UKTruth
If it is public it will be quite funny hearing his excuses. "Oh, I was just joking"...

"You see... I was just tryna get laidddd"

a reply to: BlueAjah

Who's translation is that?

a reply to: BlueAjah

P.S. You reject the truth every day.
You have no interest in the truth .
Only getting clinton...for something....anything...
Jay walking

a reply to: carewemust

Probably won't stop some.
Like Jordan himself or Devin Nunes.