1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Stop Scrolling!
    Attention - When discussing new chapters of an anime or manga, please use a source from the official list of approved sources. If you would like to contribute to the list, please do so in the suggestions section.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you write blogs about the current anime season (for linking) or like to add descriptions / impressions on certain series and like to add them to our wiki, then send us a ticket.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Santi would like to notify you guys about The Alley Banner Contest
    Dismiss Notice

Sparks fly in FBI agent's Trump testimony

Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Sherlōck, Jul 13, 2018.

  1. Sherlōck High Functioning Sociopath

    Messages:
    16,949
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    693
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    Spain, Argentina
    President Donald Trump may be out of the country, but Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia grinds on. And Thursday was a fairly dramatic day on multiple fronts.

    At the US Capitol, one of the former top members of the special counsel team, FBI agent Peter Strzok, was grilled by members of Congress over allegations of bias revealed in a series of text messages he exchanged with Lisa Page, a fellow FBI employee with whom he was having an affair.

    Although the president had just concluded a long day of meetings at the Nato summit in Brussels, his mind was clearly on Washington, as he tweeted about the "Rigged Witch Hunt" and Mr Strzok's "hate filled and totally biased Emails" just before 01:00 local time.

    Mr Strzok, a senior FBI counterintelligence agent who has spent much of his career hunting down Russian spies in the US, was dismissed by Mr Mueller last summer after he learned of the messages, which included disparaging comments about then-candidate Trump and his supporters (as well as Obama Justice Department officials and other Democratic and Republican politicians).

    In addition to his involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation from its early stages, Mr Strzok was also a key figure in the FBI review of Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material on her personal email server while she was secretary of state.

    In one particularly testy exchange, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina questioned Mr Strzok about messages in which he said "we'll stop" Mr Trump's election and that Democrat Hillary Clinton should win 100m votes to zero.

    After Mr Strzok said he'd appreciate the chance to explain, the chair of the House Government Oversight Committee shot back: "I don't give a damn what you appreciate, agent Strzok. I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations in 2016."

    That set up perhaps the most pivotal moment of the ongoing hearing, as Mr Strzok attempted to defend his, and the FBI's, integrity and explained that the texts in questions came after Mr Trump insulted the Muslim parents of a slain US soldier.

    At the end of his monologue, Democrats in the committee chamber applauded.

    The rest of the proceedings were frequently bogged down in parliamentary manoeuvring, with a few nuggets of information mixed in. Mr Strzok would note at one point that information about a Russian offer to help the Trump campaign was of "extraordinary significance" and came from an "extraordinarily sensitive and credible source". The hearings were burdened, however, by a queue of more than 70 members of Congress waiting to ask questions.

    If the Gowdy-Strzok exchange were the Fourth of July fireworks, the rest of the day was the traffic jam as the crowds stuck in their cars tried to get home.

    A reversal of fortune

    Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort arrived at his new jail facility, as he awaits the first of two trials on charges of money laundering, illegal foreign lobbying and obstruction of justice.

    Although the charges are unrelated to Mr Manafort's work for candidate Trump, Mr Mueller's team is vigorously pursuing the case - perhaps in the hope of eventually gaining the long-time Washington insider's co-operation in his ongoing investigation.

    They had sought, and secured, Mr Manafort's pre-trial incarceration in early June, after presenting evidence to one of the presiding judges that he had reached out to possible witnesses in his case in an attempt to influence their testimony.

    A mugshot from Thursday morning revealed a somewhat beleaguered Manafort - who used to sport well-coiffed hair and Italian suits - in need of a shave and a haircut after more than a month in jail.

    Mr Manafort's lawyers had been asking to have his 25 July trail date pushed back to allow him more time to prepare - a request that the judge recently denied.

    Mr Mueller, who has been on the job for 14 months, has been Sphynx-like in his silence. The only public voice he has had so far is through its court filings. In fact, he's been so scarce in the public's view that most media outlets are running the same series of photographs taken as he walked the halls of the US Capitol back in June 2017.

    In two weeks, the special counsel's team will appear for the first time in a jury trial. The stakes will be high, and the spotlight's glare will be the brightest it has been so far.

     
    Tags:
  2. Sherlōck High Functioning Sociopath

    Messages:
    16,949
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    693
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    Spain, Argentina
    The wild Peter Strzok congressional hearing, explained

    The FBI agent accused of political bias defended himself in a raucous hearing.

    For months, FBI agent has had a starring role in President Donald Trump’s preferred narrative that the Russia investigation is a deep-state witch hunt that’s biased against him.

    But on Thursday, Strzok testified for hours at a congressional hearing and gave his side of the story for the first time — and what a hearing it was. (Actually, as of press time it’s still going on, over nine hours after it started.)

    In a raucous, partisan, , Strzok repeatedly claimed that his personal political views — expressed in thousands of sent to his coworker and lover, Lisa Page — never affected any of his decisions in either the Hillary Clinton email investigation or the Trump-Russia probe (until special counsel Robert Mueller removed him from it last summer).

    Strzok insisted that if he really wanted to stop Trump from winning, he could have leaked information about the Russia probe to the press — but that he didn’t. He also emphasized that there were “multiple layers” of officials above and below him at every key moment, who would not have tolerated bias. And he maintained that no one has pointed out any one action that he took as part of his job that was driven by bias.

    He also defended the investigation as serious and important. “The information we had which was alleging a Russian offer of assistance to a member of the Trump campaign was of extraordinary significance,” he said. “It was credible. It was from an extraordinarily sensitive and credible source.”

    Meanwhile, Republicans contemptuously scorned Strzok’s claims to professionalism, repeatedly quoting from his more inflammatory text messages in an attempt to impugn the investigation. Democrats, meanwhile, became Strzok’s defenders — even though he was in an inspector general report last month, and removed from Mueller’s team. “If I could give you a Purple Heart, I would. You deserve one,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said.

    The hearing was a remarkable spectacle, devolving several times into dueling partisan choruses of shouts. One Republican brought up Strzok’s extramarital affair, while Democratic staffers held up posters showing Michael Flynn and others who have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe.

    What the hearing didn’t do, though, was reveal much new about that Russia probe. Even though Strzok left Mueller’s team nearly a year ago, he repeatedly refused to answer questions about the specifics of the still-ongoing investigation, because the FBI’s lawyers had urged him not to. Instead, Strzok’s goal was to rehabilitate his own reputation — while Republicans’ goal was to rake him over the coals.

    Who is Peter Strzok?

    After an FBI career of over two decades, Strzok became the lead agent on the bureau’s counterespionage team. It was there that he had a major role in, first, the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and second, the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. After special counsel Robert Mueller’s took over the Russia probe in May 2017, Strzok served on his team too.

    Strzok was a highly regarded agent with a very good reputation — but he had a secret. Through much of this time, he’d been having an affair with a co-worker: Lisa Page, who worked for then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, and was briefly assigned to Mueller’s probe too. (Both Strzok and Page are married to other people.)

    On their work devices, Strzok and Page exchanged thousands of texts in which they frequently discussed investigations they were both involved in — and also shared their views on politics in general. And it turns out that neither were fans of Trump — in fact, they were appalled by him, and repeatedly said so. (You can .)

    FBI officials are of course allowed to have their own opinions about politics, though writing them out on work devices and intermingling them with discussions of the sensitive investigations involving those political figures doesn’t really look great.

    Yet some of Strzok’s texts arguably have more troubling implications. Particularly, in one late-night exchange from early August 2016, Page expresses fear that Trump will win the presidency, and Strzok answers “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” If by “we” Strzok meant the FBI — which had opened its investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties just over a week earlier — that poses the question of whether Strzok hoped to impact the election through his work.

    All this became a problem for Strzok last summer, when Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz, who was reviewing FBI leaks and the bureau’s handling of the Clinton email probe, discovered the texts. Horowitz informed Mueller of what they said — and Mueller was sufficiently disturbed that he removed Strzok from his team immediately. (Page had already left Mueller’s team at that point.)

    So in a punishment worthy of The Wire, the agent who’d worked on some of the most important investigations in the country was transferred to the human resources division of the FBI. There he worked for a quiet few months — until word of the texting FBI lovers and his removal from Mueller’s team , and the story became a media sensation.

    What do Strzok’s texts say about Trump, Clinton, and politics?

    Like much of the rest of America, Strzok and Page closely followed the 2016 presidential campaign. Late at night, they exchanged texts about debates, conventions, and whatever the latest political events happened to be.

    And they weren’t pure partisans. They expressed their contempt for many political figures from both parties, including Bernie Sanders, Eric Holder, Chelsea Clinton, and various members of Congress. More rarely, they praised some politicians, like Joe Biden and John Kasich. At one point Strzok wrote that he was “a conservative Dem.” About Obama, he wrote, “I like him. Just not a fan of the weakness globally.”

    But it’s inarguable that Strzok and Page were particularly appalled by Trump and his candidacy. Strzok wrote that Trump was a “douche,” a “loathsome human,” and that the prospect of Trump winning was “F*CKING TERRIFYING.” Opinions like these, it should be noted, were shared by much of even the Republican establishment at the time.

    However, in August 2016, shortly after the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties, there are a few exchanges that Republicans say raise red flags about whether Strzok and Page’s political views affected their work — two in particular.

    1. On August 9, Page wrote, “He’s not ever going to become president, right?” Strzok answered: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
    2. On August 15, Strzok wrote, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - 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…”
    However, Strzok has suggested that both exchanges are being misinterpreted. Strzok suggested Thursday that “we’ll stop” meant that the American electorate (not the FBI) would stop Trump from winning, by voting against him.

    As for the “insurance policy” text, Strzok that there was an internal FBI debate over whether to move forward with the Trump-Russia probe even if that could jeopardize “an extraordinarily sensitive source,” or whether to slow-walk the investigation under the assumption that Trump was sure to lose, so it wouldn’t mean much. He says the “insurance policy” simply meant just in case Trump won — not trying to affirmatively stop Trump from winning.

    Do Strzok’s texts mean the FBI was biased against Trump?

    Even before the story of the texting FBI lovers leaked out, Trump and his allies (who include key GOP congressional committee chairs) were engaged in a larger effort to discredit the Russia investigation— by alleging supposed wrongdoing by the Justice Department, FBI, or Obama administration officials.

    This effort included, among other things, Trump’s phony allegation that President Obama (which Rep. Devin Nunes tried to turn into the ), as well as months of inquiries about how the FBI used the explosive that alleged Trump-Russia ties.

    So naturally, Trump has for months tried to use the Strzok-Page texts to discredit the whole Mueller probe, accusing it of being tainted by Strzok’s bias:

    That was the context for the performance of most House Republicans at Thursday’s hearing. They argued that Strzok’s political views meant he would have pushed to let Hillary Clinton off easy on the email investigation in early 2016, while trying to “get” Trump with the Russia investigation.

    Here’s the problem — at least so far, no one can point to anything specific Strzok actually did to try to help Clinton win or hurt Trump, either in the Clinton probe or the Russia investigation.

    Now, many of the key Russia probe decisions from this time period still remain secret, and the FBI told Strzok not to answer questions about them at Thursday’s hearing. However, a fuller read of the texts do make clear that Strzok really did take the threat of Russian interference in the election seriously, and wasn’t just contriving it to hurt Trump (“f*cking conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it,” he wrote).

    When it comes to the Clinton probe, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz published his extensive review of the FBI’s handling of that controversial investigation last month. He wrote that, though he was concerned about Strzok’s potential bias and thought he hurt the FBI’s reputation, he couldn’t actually find evidence of bias affecting his actual investigative decisions.

    Horowitz wrote that “Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker” for the key Clinton email probe decisions he reviewed and that in fact Strzok and Page sometimes “advocated for more aggressive investigative measures.”

    Horowitz did write that he didn’t “have confidence” that one Strzok decision — to prioritize the Trump-Russia probe over reviewing new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop — “was free from bias.” But he also couldn’t show that there wasbias there. (After all, there are legitimate arguments that pursuing active Russian interference in the final weeks of the election was the right call, and the new Clinton emails turned out to be unimportant when they were reviewed.)

    More broadly, we should keep in mind that Strzok was being supervised all along by FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap (“for whom,” Horowitz wrote, “we found no evidence of bias”). Meanwhile, the FBI was run by James Comey, who’d been a registered Republican , and whose high-profile actions in 2016 were accused of damaging Hillary Clinton’s chances.

    What did Strzok say at the hearing?

    Thursday’s joint hearing of the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee was notable for two main reasons — first, because Strzok defended himself publicly for the first time, and second, because of the over-the-top nasty partisan theatrics that took place.

    Strzok was an articulate witness, arguing that he was a consummate professional who would never let his political views impact his work, and that his FBI colleagues were similarly professional.

    “At no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” he said. “You don’t have to take my word for it. At every step, at every investigative decision, there were multiple layers of people above me ... and multiple layers of people below me.”

    He pointed out that he could have leaked information to hurt Trump’s chances of winning, but said that possibility “never crossed my mind.” Sometimes, he suggested that even though the FBI wouldn’t let him answer certain questions (for instance, about the Steele dossier), those answers wouldn’t be as scandalous as Republicans were hoping for — “I would very much love to answer that,” he said.

    As for the “we’ll stop it” text, Strzok said that it was sent in the days after controversy over Trump’s attacks on , the Democratic Convention speaker and the father of an army captain who was killed in Iraq — and Strzok even reiterated that Trump’s behavior there was “horrible and disgusting.”

    In terms of the texts that “we will stop” it, you need to understand that that was written late at night off the cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero and my presumption, based on that horrible, disgusting behavior, that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States.

    It was in no way unequivocally any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate ...

    Again and again, Strzok returned to the argument that no one has demonstrated that any one of his investigative actions was biased.

    Why was the hearing so out of control?

    Thursday’s hearing came just two weeks after the same members of Congress interviewed Strzok for nearly 11 hours in private — so for them, it wasn’t really about finding new information. Instead, it was a carnival for public consumption.

    While Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) gave his opening statement, Democratic staff members held up large pictures of all five people who had pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe so far, with the word “GUILTY” .

    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) opened the questioning by asking Strzok how many witnesses he’d interviewed in the early days of the Russia probe. But the FBI had advised Strzok not to answer questions about that investigation, so Strzok said he wouldn’t answer.

    After a lengthy back-and-forth in which Republicans threatened to hold Strzok in contempt of Congress and outraged Democrats objected and tried to disrupt the proceedings, Gowdy said he already knew the answer the question anyway (zero). So the whole thing just seemed designed to put Strzok in an impossible position, toward no particular end.

    Then, Democrats complained that when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon was interviewed by the committee, he had similarly stonewalled questions because he said the White House didn’t want him to answer — but Republicans seem not to care about that. They briefly postponed the hearing to hold , which went down on party lines.

    The proceedings hit a nadir when (R-TX) asked Strzok, “How many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her?” Democrats shouted to interrupt him, with one yelling, “You need your medication!”

    What’s next?

    Thursday’s circus of a hearing comes amid increasing attacks from Trump and leading House Republicans on the investigation and the Department of Justice.

    Key GOP House committee chairs — Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte, and Trey Gowdy — have for months been sending subpoenas flying, trying to get a hold of documents related to the probe.

    Publicly, they say all this is about oversight, and making sure the executive branch didn’t abuse its power in investigating the Trump campaign. But Democratic critics argue that they are merely trying to do the president’s bidding, by digging for information Trump can use to publicly attack the investigation.

    Indeed, despite the occasional chatter that Trump might fire Mueller or Rosenstein, for the time being he’s preferred to attack them in the court of public opinion. And it’s been a relatively effective strategy so far. Polls show Mueller’s favorability , with Republicans increasingly disapproving of the investigation.

    But all the while, Mueller has remained in place, with his team continuing to do its work.

     
  3. Sherlōck High Functioning Sociopath

    Messages:
    16,949
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    693
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    Spain, Argentina
    3 Moments That Actually Mattered at the Peter Strzok Hearing

    Beneath the partisan posturing and fiery monologues, a House hearing Thursday on FBI agent Peter Strzok’s conduct delved into some key factual questions.

    In a hearing jointly conducted by the Oversight and Judiciary committees, Republican lawmakers sharply questioned the embattled agent who oversaw the Hillary Clinton email server investigation as well as the beginning of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election, while Democrats defended him and criticized their GOP colleagues.

    It was the first chance that Strzok has had to publicly respond to criticism of his work, both from the , who looked into texts that Strzok sent to a colleague he was having an affair with, and from President Donald Trump, who has attempted to use those texts to discredit the Russia investigation.

    The hearing became particularly heated at points, with Republicans for refusing to answer a question about the ongoing investigation due to FBI policy; Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert , wondering “how many times did you look innocently into your wife’s eyes and lie to her about” his affair; and Strzok arguing that he sent one controversial text because he was upset by Trump’s treatment of the parents of fallen soldier Humayun Khan.

    But there were also several moments in the hearing in which Strzok and lawmakers discussed substantive questions about the two key investigations into Clinton and Trump.

    Here’s a closer look at three moments in the hearing that mattered.

    How Clinton’s use of a private server went from ‘negligent’ to ‘careless’

    Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner grilled Strzok about how the wording of a statement criticizing Clinton for her use of a private email server was changed before it was issued.

    What we know: In July 2016, Strzok, who was leading the F.B.I.’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, rephrased his description of Clinton’s decisions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in a draft of a statement to be issued publicly by James Comey, who then headed the F.B.I.

    How Strzok responded: He argued that the revision was introduced by the F.B.I.’s internal legal counsel, who noted that the phrase “gross negligence” carried a specific legal meaning and would carry legal implications.

    Key moment: Sensenbrenner asked Strzok to confirm that the revision to the draft was made on Strzok’s computer on June 6; Strzok said he “believe[d] it to be true.”

    “Why was the change made?” Sensenbrenner asked.

    “My recollection is — and I’m not an attorney — that attorneys within the F.B.I. raised concern that the use of ‘gross negligence’ triggered a very specific legal meaning.”

    “Yeah — criminal!” Sensenbrenner said. He then asked if the change was “Hillary’s ‘get out of jail free card.’”

    “Absolutely not, sir,” Strzok replied. He then expounded on the F.B.I.’s desire to avoid using a term with specific legal implications.

    “With regard to that decision, there was concern within the perspective of a legal definition of that term that people would draw an inference based on that use that it was necessarily talking a specific subset of a statute,” he said.

    “That rates four Pinnochios,” Sensenbrenner replied.

    Why he was removed from Mueller’s investigation

    Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Strzok about his removal from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling, which occurred after the inspector general began looking into his texts.

    What we know: Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team last summer after an internal investigation uncovered his text exchanges with Page, which criticized then-candidate Trump. Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the special counsel’s office, said “immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel’s Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation.” Although people speculated about why Strzok was dismissed, Mueller’s team never publicly gave an official reason. Strzok was then abruptly reassigned to a position at the FBI’s human resources division.

    How did Strzok respond: Strzok claimed that, to his knowledge, he was removed from the probe for reasons related to public perception — presumably to maintain trust in the integrity of Mueller’s team — rather than any concern about bias on his part.

    Key Moment: Gowdy asked Strzok to explain the timing behind his dismissal from the investigation team. “No wonder Bob Mueller kicked you off of the investigation, Agent Strzok. My question is, if you were kicked off when he read the texts, shouldn’t you have been kicked off when you wrote them?”

    “No, not at all,” Strzok responded. Gowdy questioned why he was kicked off, and Strzok explained that he was removed “based on the understanding of those texts and the perception that they might create…”

    Strzok testified that the meeting was short, somewhere around 15 minutes.

    When further questioned by Gowdy, he reiterated that “it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias. That it was done based on the appearance. If you want to represent what you said accurately, I’m happy to answer that question. But I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.”

    Gowdy responded, “I don’t give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok. I don’t appreciate having an FBI Agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.”

    What Strzok meant when he said Trump wouldn’t become president

    Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Strzok over perhaps the most controversial text that he sent Page, in which he said that Trump would not become president because “we’ll stop it.”

    What we know: In the summer of 2016, Page sent a text to Strzok, writing “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The inspector general’s report reviewing Clinton’s email investigation found that the texts damaged the FBI’s reputation for impartiality, but ultimately concluded there was no evidence that this affected the investigations.

    Speaking publicly about the text during the hearing, Strzok explained that it was sent the night that Trump disparaged Khizr Khan, a Gold Star father who lost his son in Iraq, and that it was “off the cuff” comment sent late at night that he didn’t even recall. He gave an impassioned defense, arguing that his beliefs never impeded the investigation into Russian meddling because his FBI colleagues wouldn’t have allowed it.

    Key moment: Strzok gave a long explanation for the text:

    “Sir, I think it’s important, when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America.

    “In terms of the texts that — we will stop it, you need to understand that that was written late at night, off the cuff, and it was in response to a series of events that included then candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero.

    “And my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior, that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be President of the United States.

    “It was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action, whatsoever, to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. So, I — I take great offense and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t. As to the 100 million to one, that was clearly a statement made in jest and using hyperbole.

    “I, of course, recognize that millions of Americans were likely to vote for candidate Trump. I acknowledge that is absolutely their right. That is what makes our democracy such a vibrant process that it is.

    “But to suggest, somehow, that we can parse down the words of shorthand textual conversation like they’re some contract for a car is — is, simply, not consistent with my or most people’s use of text messaging.”

     
  4. Sherlōck High Functioning Sociopath

    Messages:
    16,949
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    693
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    Spain, Argentina


     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  5. Ignition Revolving Vaudaville

    Messages:
    6,845
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    943
    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Reputation:
    Catdank Faction:


    > Busted
    > Blames Putin
     
  6. Pliskin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,014
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    268
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Reputation:
    Man, you seldom see something so deserving the name witchhunt like that hearing.


    Actually hearing should be in quotation marks, they didn't really wanna hear his answers.
     
  7. WorkingMoogle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,929
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    463
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Reputation:
    Boy I hope they're consistent with their displays of "unprecedented level of animus" when talking about membership of the Intelligence Committees.
     
  8. JH24 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    329
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Reputation:
    I'm not from the United States, and I don't know what American politics really is like, but I was surprised after watching a video with moments from the hearing. I could feel the hatred, the personal dislike, the frustration seeping through my screen. I don't know enough about Strozk, but are things always this heated in American politics?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  9. Ignition Revolving Vaudaville

    Messages:
    6,845
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    943
    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Reputation:
    Catdank Faction:
    Left wing, right wing / democrates, republicans / liberal, conservative.
    They were always fighting, but it is under Trump that these issues became less transparent, mainstream media constantly feeds people exaggerated information causing the rift to widen.
     
  10. Unlosing Ranger Rebirth and destruction, again and again

    Messages:
    47,991
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    1,243
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Reputation:
    "I will stop it."
    "That text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy…"
    ???????
     
  11. makeoutparadise I will have my revenge

    Messages:
    36,848
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    1,239
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Reputation:
    Catdank Faction:
    Was it “I” or “We”?
    Also yeah very poor choice of words
    Over a FBI work phone
     
  12. Unlosing Ranger Rebirth and destruction, again and again

    Messages:
    47,991
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    1,243
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Reputation:
    I watched the whole thing with Trey. Apparently Strzok also texted about impeaching trump 1 day after he was elected.
    You don't do that, especially with coworkers involved that are supposed to be non-biased in it's approach.
     
  13. makeoutparadise I will have my revenge

    Messages:
    36,848
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    1,239
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Reputation:
    Catdank Faction:
    How long was he on the investigation before he was kicked off? Surely the investigation has developed longer than he’s been involved
    Like if if he was there for like 2 weeks Then surely its not that corrupted
     
  14. SuperSaiyaMan12 The Seventh Hokage's arrived.

    Messages:
    25,559
    Likes Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    689
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Reputation:
    Man, he's really starting to panic now that the walls are closing in now.
     
  15. Unlosing Ranger Rebirth and destruction, again and again

    Messages:
    47,991
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    1,243
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Reputation:
    I mean, looking at it. He barely did anything when calling to impeach and say he'll prevent him from being elected from what was shown. I'm not sure how loud of an echo this would leave in a FBI workplace long term day one if he only texted one person, it's possible it was discussed in more than just texts with others. No one has come forward to speak however, so who knows.
     
  16. Pliskin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,014
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    268
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Reputation:
    Some people really don't get written jokes and sarcasm and read every text message at face value it seems. I mean you always hear that about written communication on the Internet, but this thread is really eye opening just how hard it is for some peeps to grasp written communication and jokes/banter.
     
Loading...