Peter Strzok Testimony Before Congress 07-12-18

a reply to: angeldoll

He didn't tell him he couldn't consult with HIS attorney, and in fact he was allowed to consult with and did consult with HIS own personal attorney. He was told he couldn't consult with the FBI'S attorney.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

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.”

These two statements are explaining the text messages that prompted them to investigate more thoroughly.

They are not conclusions.

the conclusion after investigating the concerns you quoted is clearly stated in multiple place and most obviousl under "Conclusion" in the IG Report.

And again from CONCLUSIONS on page 497 of IG Report

we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter.

While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation

Full IG Report here:
www.vox.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Precisely.

I'm not sure how much simpler it can be put for people.

a reply to: introvert

I didn't apologize.

Now I should start asking for clarifications?

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

Well, I have been questioned by lawyers, and have sat on more than one jury where I watched lawyers examining hostile witnesses. I think that is sufficient for me to equate what I have experienced to what poor, wounded Peter Strzok was subjected to.

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

If all else fails, lie.

Ah, another insult! Good, I'm winning this one too.

Do you have anything of substance to offer?

Much. And I have offered it. The problem is that when I do, you tend to make ludicrous statements as you have done over the last few pages.

I am simply handing you back your own medicine.

And yes, it will continue. You have proven that the last several times we have crossed paths. You will refuse to consider any arguments put to you, preferring to twist words, use semantics, and try to shift the discussion to something you can 'win.'

If those are the rules you wish to play by, fine. I can play by them as well as you. I honestly don't see what good it does, nor is it any more pleasurable for me than actually holding an adult conversation. But, things are what they are.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

Hey,...Isn't that the same infallible lawyer whose law firm was also forced in to bankruptcy and is being sued by his law and business partners?

a reply to: IAMTAT

I do believe it is the same one.

TheRedneck

The bias seems abundantly clear from what I seen. What a disgrace this man is. The democrats obstructing for him are equally disgraceful. It's pathetic that our democratic process was abused like this and people think it's just fine. The hearing was a damn circus thanks to these people with no amount of integrity.

On what basis do you instill trust into someone who is so ideologically opposed to yourself?

How can you trust anyone that is ideologically opposed to you?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

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.”

These two statements are explaining the text messages that prompted them to investigate more thoroughly.

They are not conclusions.

the conclusion after investigating the concerns you quoted is clearly stated in multiple place and most obviousl under "Conclusion" in the IG Report.

And again from CONCLUSIONS on page 497 of IG Report

we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter.

While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation

Full IG Report here:
www.vox.com...

That simply states Strzok wasn't stupid enough to send a text stating "Hey, im doing this for political reasons!"

Reading them, you don't need him to say it...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
On what basis do you instill trust into someone who is so ideologically opposed to yourself?

How can you trust anyone that is ideologically opposed to you?

I don't believe you can. At most you can achieve "detente". Essentially a " no-fire zone". All the while knowing that aggression is just around the corner.

a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Obama is going to have a lot to answer for, including letting so many Russian spies proliferate the country under his watch.

Oh by the way before I forget... Those quotes DO NOT come from the "Why we investigated" it came from Section D, the analysis of reviewing the texts. page 449 to be specific.

a reply to: carewemust

I really doubt Obama will go down, period. Neither will Hillary, if she'll just go back in the woods and enjoy her ill-gotten gains in peace.

Trump is a very practical person. The goal is to remove the corruption from the Federal government, and he has at most a total of 8 years to do it. That's a lot of corruption to clean up in a very short time. He's going to focus on those who are in the Federal government more than those who were in it. Hence, the issues with the FBI, while little has been said about Obama administration executives.

TheRedneck

Not only did the IG have issue with the Strozk bias as quoted, he notes the OTHER VIOLATIONS these text messages committed, were not investigated nor disciplined !!

We believe the messages discussed in this chapter particularly the messages that intermix work-related discussions with political commentary potentially implicate provisions in the FBI’s Offense Code and Penalty Guidelines, which provides general categories of misconduct for which FBI employees may be disciplined. This includes the provisions relating to Offense Codes 1.7 (Investigative Deficiency – Misconduct Related to Judicial Proceedings), 3.6 (Misuse of Government Computer(s)), 3.11 (Misuse of Government Property, Other), 5.21 (Unprofessional Conduct – Off Duty), and 5.22 (Unprofessional Conduct On Duty).

However, we did not identify any prior FBI misconduct investigations under these provisions that involved a similar fact pattern or similar issues.

originally posted by: Open_Minded Skeptic
Having watched this circus, once again the GOP is a major embarrassment. And the person they are trying to crucify shows up as the one with integrity and honesty. Goudy, Gomert and others are a laughing stock. Once a person gets over retching at their stupidity, the laughter comes along.

What a joke these clowns are. Of course, it is the job of clowns to be a joke.

Trying to crucify ? Really ? Did you buy into that Purple Heart nonsense ? The guy is a major player in trying to "get Trump" and stop him from being elected. Read this as biased attempt to interfere in a Presidrntial election by a member of the intel community. Please what was that about crucifying ? And it didn't make you wretch when the Democrats tried to change the subject by talking about immigration and children separated from their parents .... and that had what to do with the testimony at hand?

Strzok says he can't remember changing "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless".
Metadata says Strzok's computer made the change.
Strzok then says only HE and his secretary (to limited files) had access to his computer...So he must've made the change.

NOW...(Blue Aja?)...didn't we see a text from Page reminding Strzok to allow access to his computer for her?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Strzok says he can't remember changing "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless".
Metadata says Strzok's computer made the change.
Strzok then says only HE and his secretary (to limited files) had access to his computer...So he must've made the change.

NOW...(Blue Aja?)...didn't we see a text from Page reminding Strzok to allow access to his computer for her?

No way!

I am certainly interested in this but I definitely require hard evidence. Big if true indeed.

a reply to: soberbacchus

From the IG report

We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations

I am not sure how much simpler it can be put for people.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you sir. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this exchange and watching your counterpart run down his well-worn crib sheet of retorts. As usual, he starts with "context" then moves to "logical fallacy" or "false equivalence" (sometimes both). When pushed farther, he resorts to "comprehension" or a lack of intelligence. Then it goes to "dishonesty/lies" and lack of substance as a last resort. His normal big finish is usually "I must conclude that you are talking out your ass" but you got the pigeon/chessboard analogy this time. Well done.

SUMMARY: GOP "Got Played" by Peter Strzok on Thursday:

The hearing never had a chance of uncovering the truth. This is so because Strzok enjoyed the advantage of being able to shower the committees with self-serving protestations while hiding behind the restrictions on his testimony imposed by the FBI attorney hovering behind him.

Strzok understood this and exploited his opportunity to the hilt while snuggling up to the anti-Trump Democrats embracing him.

The savvy Strzok cleverly outmaneuvered the Republicans on the committees. That’s surprising, given the extensive experience of Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., as a former federal prosecutor. Gowdy should have known better than to take the bait.

The Republican members succeeded only in turning Strzok into a Democratic hero and giving him a national audience for his emphatic denials of Republican allegations that his anti-Trump and pro-Clinton political allegiance influenced his investigations involving the two candidates.

More at: www.foxnews.com...

That crafty weasel! Won't help him though, if the "silent executioner" ( Jeff Sessions ) activates himself.