Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

a reply to: soberbacchus

STRZOK:
I THINK YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE SPEAK IN CONVERSATION, YOU WILL SAY THINGS THAT ARE HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATIONS, THEY ARE NOT LITERAL.

Hmmm.... so are you saying that Strzok lied about this, or are you claiming that Trump is not a person?

Oh, and ALL CAPS is not necessary. Some of us can read without them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: introvert

It's rather silly, actually, and embarrassing.

My apologies; It was not my intent for you to be embarrassed.

Perhaps you did not see the exchange in question. If it was meant to do as you described, then Gowdy is a bigger idiot than I thought. How is the "divide that by 10" argument supposed to elicit a response other than what he received?

I do not have time (nor the required expertise, to be honest) to teach you the finer points of examination questioning. Perhaps another member is more versed in legal etiquette and can help you out there?

You obviously are in need of some serious enlightenment in that area.

That is a logical fallacy.

I see no logical fallacy in recognizing the ability of those who are under investigations to lie. I see a lot of logical fallacy in assuming they will not lie.

Perhaps you use a different logic than I do. If white is a color and all unicorns are white...

At this point I'm not sure if you are trolling again or playing dumb.

I am responding to your words. We like to call it "debate."

TheRedneck

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He had assumed guilt even before the investigation started.

Much like a hand full of discredited crazies on this site and others.

a reply to: soberbacchus

The IG concluded that Strzok had personal opinions that never affected any decision in any of his investigations.

No, the IG concluded that they could not prove bias, even though they suspected it and saw indications of bias.

You do realize you are talking to people who are capable of reading the report, right?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So...CLEARLY Mueller, in his wisdom, felt Strzok couldn't be trusted to be fair and non-biased based upon his biased texts.

Or Mueller could have fired him for using a government issued device for an illicit personal affair?

Agents cheating on their wives are blackmail risks.

They are required to report any relationships illicit or not for that reason.

Or he could have fired him for the same reason the IG criticized Strzok, which is the most likely conclusion, risking the PERCEPTION of bias in a high profile investigation.

None of that is the same as Mueller believing Strzok's bias actually effected any professional decision.

I know a single guy that works for US government overseas, nothing too senior. His Security Chief advises him that he needs to report any woman he "dates" more than twice.

Someone senior in the FBI having an ongoing affair with a colleague? That was enough to bench Strzok by itself.

I must say...
You're doing a lovely job painting Strzok as a man of integrity and honor.

BTW:
The pig could use a little mascara...after you're finished applying it's lipstick.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

STRZOK:
I THINK YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE SPEAK IN CONVERSATION, YOU WILL SAY THINGS THAT ARE HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATIONS, THEY ARE NOT LITERAL.

Hmmm.... so are you saying that Strzok lied about this, or are you claiming that Trump is not a person?

Your question does not make sense.

Oh, and ALL CAPS is not necessary. Some of us can read without them.

All Caps is the format of the CSPAN Transcripts

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

The IG concluded that Strzok had personal opinions that never affected any decision in any of his investigations.

No, the IG concluded that they could not prove bias, even though they suspected it and saw indications of bias.

Pleas cite the IG report (like I have) to support the above claim.

You do realize you are talking to people who are capable of reading the report, right?

As for you personally, your postings cast doubt on that capability.

originally posted by: soberbacchus


Just in case you were wondering what a LEGITMATE investigation looks like:

22 Indictments, 5 Guilty Pleas, 4 cooperating witnesses (that we know of)
5 U.S. nationals, 14 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations
Trump's Campaign Chief, Deputy Campaign Chief, Chief National Security Advisor, a Foreign Policy Advisor etc.

And potentially Trump's Personal Attorney of the past couple decades.

and the Special Counsel hasn't even reached it's final conclusion yet!

Plus another 12 indictments this AM.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well, let's be honest here... they also consider the porn star who is now sitting in a jail cell as their hero as well...

Oh, and her infallible lawyer who is fighting disbarment. Can't forget him.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

Your question does not make sense.

Of course it does. Strzok claims that people use hyperbole when speaking. Trump's use of hyperbole has been taken as literal every single time he has used it, even when pointed out. So, either Strzok lied about people using hyperbole or Trump is not a person. I asked which it was.

All Caps is the format of the CSPAN Transcripts

Ah, that explains it. Too bad you didn't include a link so I could see that for myself.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My apologies; It was not my intent for you to be embarrassed.

Sometimes people do things that are embarrassing to witness, whether they intend to or not.

I do not have time (nor the required expertise, to be honest) to teach you the finer points of examination questioning. Perhaps another member is more versed in legal etiquette and can help you out there? You obviously are in need of some serious enlightenment in that area.

So you do not have the expertise to know what you are talking about. Ya, I got that.

It's been obvious, considering the absurdity of your statements.

I see no logical fallacy in recognizing the ability of those who are under investigations to lie. I see a lot of logical fallacy in assuming they will not lie. Perhaps you use a different logic than I do. If white is a color and all unicorns are white...

I'm not surprised that you did not see the logical fallacy in what you said. The illogical rarely seem know what they are saying is illogical.

I am responding to your words. We like to call it "debate."

You're not debating. You're playing the role of pigeon on a chessboard.

You've made ridiculous assertions that were irrelevant at best and just seem to be saying things with the intent of being snarky, not actually imparting an intelligent point that is worth debate.

You've knocked the pieces over and # on the board. Fine.

Move along.

I have no desire to continue to debate with a grown man that doesn't seem to understand simple English and has to make things up out of thin air because he has no better point to make.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Pleas cite the IG report (like I have) to support the above claim.

To what end? It has already been cited at least 5 different times in this thread that I have seen (and I missed most of the thread yesterday) and you simply ignore it.

As for you personally, your postings cast doubt on that capability.

Oooh! An insult!

That means I am winning!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your question does not make sense.

Of course it does. Strzok claims that people use hyperbole when speaking. Trump's use of hyperbole has been taken as literal every single time he has used it, even when pointed out. So, either Strzok lied about people using hyperbole or Trump is not a person. I asked which it was.

Lies and Hyperbole are two different things.

Whether you personally choose to conflate them and pretend not to understand the difference is your choice.

Ah, that explains it. Too bad you didn't include a link so I could see that for myself.

TheRedneck

CSPAN Link

a reply to: introvert

Sometimes people do things that are embarrassing to witness, whether they intend to or not.

No need to apologize.

So you do not have the expertise to know what you are talking about.

Well, considering I am not a member of the bar, I thought it only appropriate to allow those who might be to handle the educating. Are you a bar member?

I'm not surprised that you did not see the logical fallacy in what you said. The illogical rarely seem know what they are saying is illogical.

Ah, so true, so true. Keep trying though.

You're not debating. You're playing the role of pigeon on a chessboard.

I might not be an attorney, but I have played in chess tournaments. I know about pawns, rooks, bishops, knights, the king and queen... never heard of a pigeon piece. Do you have unicorns on your chess board as well?

Seriously, yes, I am debating, as best as your illogic and refusal to realize it will allow. To claim that an assumption of complete accuracy in the testimony of the subject of an investigation is logical is... what was your term?... oh, yes, "laughable."

I have no desire to continue to debate with a grown man that doesn't seem to understand simple English and has to make things up out of thin air because he no better point to make.

Good thing you aren't debating yourself.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Pleas cite the IG report (like I have) to support the above claim.

To what end? It has already been cited at least 5 different times in this thread that I have seen (and I missed most of the thread yesterday) and you simply ignore it.

And where does it show what you claimed?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oooh! An insult!

Apologies, it wasn't meant as an insult.

Your claims and what the IG report actually says are two different things.

I attributed that to a reading comprehension deficit.

If not than there would be an honesty deficit.

Feel free to clarify which.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Lies and Hyperbole are two different things.

Yes, they are. Strzok lied. Trump regularly uses hyperbole.

Thank you for the link.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No need to apologize.

I didn't apologize.

Well, considering I am not a member of the bar, I thought it only appropriate to allow those who might be to handle the educating. Are you a bar member?

No. I am not. But I also did not give my opinion as to how lawyers "examine" people. You did.

Now you appear to be backing away from that statement.

Ah, so true, so true. Keep trying though.

Keep trollin'...

I might not be an attorney, but I have played in chess tournaments. I know about pawns, rooks, bishops, knights, the king and queen... never heard of a pigeon piece. Do you have unicorns on your chess board as well?

Seriously, yes, I am debating, as best as your illogic and refusal to realize it will allow. To claim that an assumption of complete accuracy in the testimony of the subject of an investigation is logical is... what was your term?... oh, yes, "laughable."

I made no such assumption or claim.

It appears you may be resorting to tactics we have seen you use before.

If all else fails, lie.

Good thing you aren't debating yourself.

Do you have anything of substance to offer?

You've made false assumptions about intent and it appears you are beginning to make false statements.

As usually seems to be the case, you corner yourself with your own absurdities and must rely on a lack of honesty, integrity and a whole lot of snark to make it seem like you are actually bringing something of value to the table, when in reality you are not.

Like I said, you're #ting on the chessboard in order to be the obvious troll. This is not the first time, not will it be the last.

Just sad that you have to be dishonest to do it.

Guess some men never learn to be men.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Pleas cite the IG report (like I have) to support the above claim.

To what end? It has already been cited at least 5 different times in this thread that I have seen (and I missed most of the thread yesterday) and you simply ignore it.

And where does it show what you claimed?

“It is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” the IG said.


"Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

a reply to: soberbacchus

Apologies, it wasn't meant as an insult.

No need to apologize. It is common knowledge that those who are about to lose a debate will resort to insults as a last resort. I considered it a compliment.

Your claims and what the IG report actually says are two different things.

Only in your mind.

I attributed that to a reading comprehension deficit.

Well, I didn't want to bring it up, but so did I. I'm glad we agree.

If not than their would be a honesty deficit.

I have no intention of calling you dishonest.

Feel free to clarify which.

Mindreading is not one of my strong suits, sorry.

TheRedneck