ADVERTISEMENT

Strzok Hearing

TopSecretBoiler said:
clinton's lies drug the benghazi case out. If she wasn't a lying sack of shit it wouldn't have taken so long to set the record straight.
Click to expand...
No, the Republicans wanted to drag it out as long as possible in order to hurt her political aspirations in the future, they knew she'd be running. They also used it as political fundraising. RNCC emails were sent out asking for money so donors could become a "Benghazi Watchdog" it was completely shameful.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/nrcc-fundraising-benghazi-106444
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/benghazi-fundraising_n_5288336.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
miksta said:
TopSecretBoiler said:
He's one of the most level headed, data and evidence driven members of congress. so for dems that makes him a "massive jackass".
Click to expand...

Lol what? What data? He wouldn't know a valid analysis/argument if it smacked him in the face.

"Level headed?" Did you watch his grandstanding hissyfit yesterday? GTFO.
Click to expand...

It’s as if folks like topsecret live in an alternate universe. Wait, that’s just called whatever spin Fox News puts on it.

I’m still laughing at what he said about Gowdy. I’m guessing he has a poster of him above his head too. Goodness.
 
PurdueFan1 said:
Lol whatever helps you sleep at night.
Click to expand...
You're right. It was Susan Rice too.
indy35 said:
No, the Republicans wanted to drag it out as long as possible in order to hurt her political aspirations in the future, they knew she'd be running. They also used it as political fundraising. RNCC emails were sent out asking for money so donors could become a "Benghazi Watchdog" it was completely shameful.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/nrcc-fundraising-benghazi-106444
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/benghazi-fundraising_n_5288336.html
Click to expand...
dude...I know you love your news left wing so you can just read the timeline and remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
You're right. It was Susan Rice too.

dude...I know you love your news left wing so you can just read the timeline and remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack
Click to expand...
Republicans used Benghazi to attack Clinton politically, are you going to try to deny this? None of the Fox News conspiracies came out to be true once the Republican led committees finished their reports. Are you going to deny that Republicans used the investigation to fundraise?
 
[QUOTE="BuilderBob6, post:

I don't know anything about your reasonable prosecutor reference. Hillary was stupid but there was no intent.
/QUOTE]
HRC is not stupid and there are some 30,000 subpoenaed emails she had destroyed so the FBI and the public would never see them. She said these were personal and about weddings and such. I have a lake front property to sell you in the desert. So the FBI took her word the destroyed emails and cell phone cards contained only wedding pictures of her daughters wedding. Remember these were subpoenaed documents that were destroyed.
So the FBI was afraid if they released this info it may have an effect on the election. Wtf are they here for if not to inform of of this very kind of thing?
But at the same time they started investigating the Trump campaign, over colussion with Russia, based on a dosier paid for by HRC. The fake dosier, all 3 of them were used to get the FISA warrant which led to wire tapping of the Trump Tower and the placing of a spy within the Trump campaign. Heck why send some agents over to the Watergate Hotel at night to gather information on your opponent when you can send a spy into the campaign in broad day light.
 
Last edited:
indy35 said:
Republicans used Benghazi to attack Clinton politically, are you going to try to deny this? None of the Fox News conspiracies came out to be true once the Republican led committees finished their reports. Are you going to deny that Republicans used the investigation to fundraise?
Click to expand...
nice to move the goalpost. I'll return it to the original argument. The R's didn't drag it out. It was started because of blatant lies from the Obama administration. It was then uncovered that Clinton was running her own email server which she lied PROFUSELY about and was purposely obstructing the investigation. I love the liberal revisionist history lesson though. Appreciated.
 
U.S. District Court Judge Threw Out a Lawsuit Tuesday That Alleged Collusion with Russia and WikiLeaks Stone: Dismissal of Lawsuit a 'Crushing Defeat' for Brennan, Clapper
 
BuilderBob6 said:
All I heard for months was that Strzok and co. we're going down the river when the IG report came out.

So the IG investigated the investigation. Strzok's bias did not affect the results of the investigation. Now they are investigating the investigation into the investigation. Dig a hole. A big one.
Click to expand...

You were sooo close.

The IG's report said that they could not prove that his bias affected their decisions, but he also stated that Strzok used poor judgment and his bias may have affected his decisions. It's very hard to believe, that when you're that biased, your decisions won't be impacted.
 
BuilderBob6 said:
Lol. It is truly unbelievable that you can be so totally one sided while watching this. Wow.

This hearing is embarrassing to our republic, on both sides.
Click to expand...

I posted this after the first few minutes of the hearing, where neither the Chairman nor Gowdy couldn't get more than a few words out of their mouths, without a half dozen Dems screaming "point of order". It looked more like an unruly Kindergarten class than a Congressional Committee hearing. I suspect the biggest problem was that they knew that there were cameras present, so they all wanted to get face time, no matter how silly it was.

Taking the partisanship out of it, one side was trying to get to the facts and the other side was trying to obstruct that at every turn. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

Strzok is a highly partisan hack that was in charge of both HRC's e-mail investigation and the Russian Collusion investigation. As was pointed out in the hearing, HRC was exonerated before she and numerous others were even interviewed in spite of volumes of evidence indicating wrongdoing, and Strzok was talking about impeaching Trump, before he even conducted the first interview. I don't care what your political affiliation is, having someone that biased in a position of power in the FBI is unsettling. For those of you, who are feeling good, because he's batting for your team, the next time the batter may be playing for the other team. There is no room for political activism in the FBI or the Justice Department.
 
indy35 said:
How far do you have to bury your head in the sand to continue to state that in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

What evidence? After 2 years and millions of dollars spent there is NO EVIDENCE of any Russian Collusion other than the Clinton Campaign funding the Russian Dossier, which started all this foolishness. Not that it matters to you, but collusion is not a crime.

If you can pull your head out of your rectum long enough, why don't you give us all this evidence that seems so obvious to you?
 
BoilerMadness said:
What evidence? After 2 years and millions of dollars spent there is NO EVIDENCE of any Russian Collusion other than the Clinton Campaign funding the Russian Dossier, which started all this foolishness. Not that it matters to you, but collusion is not a crime.

If you can pull your head out of your rectum long enough, why don't you give us all this evidence that seems so obvious to you?
Click to expand...
Today's indictment hints otherwise
 
BoilerMadness said:
What evidence? After 2 years and millions of dollars spent there is NO EVIDENCE of any Russian Collusion other than the Clinton Campaign funding the Russian Dossier, which started all this foolishness. Not that it matters to you, but collusion is not a crime.

If you can pull your head out of your rectum long enough, why don't you give us all this evidence that seems so obvious to you?
Click to expand...

https://www.justsecurity.org/57863/paul-manafort-evidence-collusion/

Read this and see if you can pull your senile head out of your ass long enough to understand a little bit about what’s going on.
I love that people on the right have been using the “collusion isn’t a crime” more often. It’s almost like the propaganda machine is softening up your pudding minds even further so when more comes out you’ll just excuse it.
 
indy35 said:
I understand that Republican views are incredibly short sighted, do you think that maybe some things that happen today may have a terrible effect later? Just because a terrible policy doesn't' immediately create harm doesn't mean it's not a harmful policy.
Click to expand...

So you agree that Obamacare was a mistake?
 
indy35 said:
The obvious difference in intelligence, eloquence and allegiance to American democracy between the Democrats and the Republicans is glaringly obvious.

The GOP has turned their backs on America. They are operating like a crime family attempting to shut down an investigation into their crimes.
Click to expand...

What crimes?

You have got to stop wearing your rectum as a stocking cap. The lack of oxygen has definitely affected what little brain function you have left.
What I saw was a group of Dems acting like idiots, trying to disrupt any meaningful questioning of a Senior FBI agent, who had gone rogue. You have to ask yourself, why would they put forth so much effort to disrupt the hearing? I would think they would like to get to the truth, as well, but apparently not.
 
BuilderBob6 said:
They don't know where the investigation is going. Given all the contacts and Trump's refusal to even acknowledge the interference, why would they make such a statement?
Click to expand...

What interference is he supposed to acknowledge, when there is no evidence that Trump was involved in any interference? Your wishing and hoping don't make it true.
 
BoilerMadness said:
What crimes?

You have got to stop wearing your rectum as a stocking cap. The lack of oxygen has definitely affected what little brain function you have left.
What I saw was a group of Dems acting like idiots, trying to disrupt any meaningful questioning of a Senior FBI agent, who had gone rogue. You have to ask yourself, why would they put forth so much effort to disrupt the hearing? I would think they would like to get to the truth, as well, but apparently not.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy against the United States for one. I think it’s time you took a little time out, this all seems to be a bit above your level of comprehension. There was absolutely no legitimate questioning from the traitorous Republicans. They were there to try to hurt the legitimacy of Mueller’s investigation and to create a couple of sound bites to play on Fox News. Strzok made them look like the ignorant vermin they are.
 
mk_peters said:
You do understand that the hacking of the DNC servers was a crime, right? You do understand that the Trump campaign openly lobbied those who hacked the DNC servers to release the hacked information, right? You do understand that the Trump campaign took a meeting with Russians who offered dirt on Clinton, right? You do understand that the Trump Administration released a misleading response to the question regarding the substance of that meeting, right? You do understand that there have been numerous indictments and guilty pleas resulting from the ongoing investigation, right?

Here's my question: Why did you ask your question?
Click to expand...

Trump had nothing to do with the hacking. No crime
Asking people to release information that may damage your opponent is not a crime.
They met with a Russian that offered dirt on Hillary. No crime - Btw, she was actually lobbying Trump's son about opening up adoption of Russian children.
Since the meeting was inconsequential, what difference does the statement make. No crime.
None of the indictments or guilty pleas had anything to do with Trump or Russian Collusion. They were people working for Trump that did stupid things, some over a decade old, that got swept up in the investigation. No direct relation to Trump, but you can keep dreaming. Since this is largely political, I expect it to run until the midterm elections are over.

Here's my question: Why do you throw a lot of crap out there that has no substance and try to make it look like it matters?
 
BoilerJS said:
[QUOTE="BuilderBob6, post:

I don't know anything about your reasonable prosecutor reference. Hillary was stupid but there was no intent.
/QUOTE]
HRC is not stupid and there are some 30,000 subpoenaed emails she had destroyed so the FBI and the public would never see them. She said these were personal and about weddings and such. I have a lake front property to sell you in the desert. So the FBI took her word the destroyed emails and cell phone cards contained only wedding pictures of her daughters wedding. Remember these were subpoenaed documents that were destroyed.
So the FBI was afraid if they released this info it may have an effect on the election. Wtf are they here for if not to inform of of this very kind of thing?
But at the same time they started investigating the Trump campaign, over colussion with Russia, based on a dosier paid for by HRC. The fake dosier, all 3 of them were used to get the FISA warrant which led to wire tapping of the Trump Tower and the placing of a spy within the Trump campaign. Heck why send some agents over to the Watergate Hotel at night to gather information on your opponent when you can send a spy into the campaign in broad day light.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to get Hillary or expose the deep state conspiracy.......or are they they the same thing?

I have no explanation or defense for the emails, I don't give a damn about HC. But this crap about the tapping of Trump Tower, the spy, the Fisa warrant is just repeated lies that became the truth. You have no idea what led to the FISA warrants, they are not public. The three dossiers argument is not even a fact at this point, just Trump propoganda.

If the FBI released everything they were investigating its very possible Trump isn't the president. Do you people have any idea how much you contradict yourselves? Lol. Like today. Rosenstein is right when it benefits you but wrong when he doesnt. Same thing with Comey. Same thing with Sessions.

All you cared about today, as well as the WH communications office, is that Rosenstein said the info he put out today did not affect the election. You don't give a damn that it proves our enemy of 60 years interfered in our election.......The same enemy that Trump is meeting on Monday. As long as it helped Trump you don't give a fvck about anything else.

You better hope Putin doesn't decide to change his choice of candidates in 2020. The sound of Trumper's heads exploding from the rage and victimization would be deafening.
 
BoilerMadness said:
You were sooo close.

The IG's report said that they could not prove that his bias affected their decisions, but he also stated that Strzok used poor judgment and his bias may have affected his decisions. It's very hard to believe, that when you're that biased, your decisions won't be impacted.
Click to expand...
You mean the decisions that would have to be approved by his supervisors? Careful, you're going to have to drag senior FBI officials into another house hearing.

The problem is a culture has been created that says anyone with an opinion.....or a relative or a coworker or a friend that is involved with one of these investigations......or God forbid someone from another party, can't be objective, can't be unbiased. We now expect the worst from everyone. Very sad.
 
BoilerMadness said:
I posted this after the first few minutes of the hearing, where neither the Chairman nor Gowdy couldn't get more than a few words out of their mouths, without a half dozen Dems screaming "point of order". It looked more like an unruly Kindergarten class than a Congressional Committee hearing. I suspect the biggest problem was that they knew that there were cameras present, so they all wanted to get face time, no matter how silly it was.

Taking the partisanship out of it, one side was trying to get to the facts and the other side was trying to obstruct that at every turn. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

Strzok is a highly partisan hack that was in charge of both HRC's e-mail investigation and the Russian Collusion investigation. As was pointed out in the hearing, HRC was exonerated before she and numerous others were even interviewed in spite of volumes of evidence indicating wrongdoing, and Strzok was talking about impeaching Trump, before he even conducted the first interview. I don't care what your political affiliation is, having someone that biased in a position of power in the FBI is unsettling. For those of you, who are feeling good, because he's batting for your team, the next time the batter may be playing for the other team. There is no room for political activism in the FBI or the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
you have no proof of "political activism". You have an FBI agent with an opinion that expressed it to other people. You gonna try and load the FBI with only totally objective agents, good luck.

There is zero evidence that Strzok acted on his bias. He actually went against it when he had the perfect chance to expose the Trump investigations no danger of it coming back to him. You people just seem to brush right past that fact.

The hearing was a farce on both sides. I saw the dems do what you are saying. I also saw the pubs cutting off Strzok when he started to talk about what they didn't want to hear. The guy couldn't finish an answer. I also saw a chairman making up the rules as he went along. Stop acting like this was one sided. Jeez.
 
BoilerMadness said:
What evidence? After 2 years and millions of dollars spent there is NO EVIDENCE of any Russian Collusion other than the Clinton Campaign funding the Russian Dossier, which started all this foolishness. Not that it matters to you, but collusion is not a crime.

If you can pull your head out of your rectum long enough, why don't you give us all this evidence that seems so obvious to you?
Click to expand...
Lol. If anything today's indictments should prove to you that no one outside of Mueller and his team knows what evidence is out there. Mueller does not talk and does not leak......The way it's supposed to be. If there's evidence against the Trump campaign you will see it when Mueller is ready to show it to you. Why is that hard to understand?
 
BoilerMadness said:
Trump had nothing to do with the hacking. No crime
Asking people to release information that may damage your opponent is not a crime.
They met with a Russian that offered dirt on Hillary. No crime - Btw, she was actually lobbying Trump's son about opening up adoption of Russian children.
Since the meeting was inconsequential, what difference does the statement make. No crime.
None of the indictments or guilty pleas had anything to do with Trump or Russian Collusion. They were people working for Trump that did stupid things, some over a decade old, that got swept up in the investigation. No direct relation to Trump, but you can keep dreaming. Since this is largely political, I expect it to run until the midterm elections are over.

Here's my question: Why do you throw a lot of crap out there that has no substance and try to make it look like it matters?
Click to expand...
Trying to illicit info on an opponent from a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT is a crime. Both campaigns were warned that the Russians may try to do it. The Trump campaign ignored that warning.
 
mk_peters said:
You do understand that the hacking of the DNC servers was a crime, right? You do understand that the Trump campaign openly lobbied those who hacked the DNC servers to release the hacked information, right? You do understand that the Trump campaign took a meeting with Russians who offered dirt on Clinton, right? You do understand that the Trump Administration released a misleading response to the question regarding the substance of that meeting, right? You do understand that there have been numerous indictments and guilty pleas resulting from the ongoing investigation, right?

Here's my question: Why did you ask your question?
Click to expand...
You do realize that today, Mr. Rosenstein stated as fact that no American was involved...no Obama, No Bush, No Manafort and most importantly....no President Trump.
 
indy35 said:
No, the Republicans wanted to drag it out as long as possible in order to hurt her political aspirations in the future, they knew she'd be running. They also used it as political fundraising. RNCC emails were sent out asking for money so donors could become a "Benghazi Watchdog" it was completely shameful.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/nrcc-fundraising-benghazi-106444
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/benghazi-fundraising_n_5288336.html
Click to expand...
So you don't believe the testimony of the American servicemen who were there?
 
On one text, Strzok In one exchange, Ms. Page, who also worked on both investigations, said to Mr. Strzok that Trump is “not ever going to become president, right?”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Mr. Strzok replied

How many ways will this be spun?
 
TwinDegrees2 said:
You do realize that today, Mr. Rosenstein stated as fact that no American was involved...no Obama, No Bush, No Manafort and most importantly....no President Trump.
Click to expand...
That would be true of this indictment. He also didn’t mention Putin or the 400 pound guy in New Jersey either but perhaps they will be later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
mk_peters said:
Not a scintilla of evidence supports this statement
Click to expand...

You have a long record of saying dumb things here, but this may be the absolute dumbest thing you may have ever said. Of course, I don't doubt your ability to say something even dumber.
 
BoilerMadness said:
You have a long record of saying dumb things here, but this may be the absolute dumbest thing you may have ever said. Of course, I don't doubt your ability to say something even dumber.
Click to expand...
Well, then, you should be able to support your thesis. Have at it.
 
BuilderBob6 said:
Is there any evidence, other than Strzok didn't like Trump and he texted about it? Any evidence his superiors or people under him were helping him interfere in the election? Him and Lisa undertake this monumental conspiracy all by themselves?

I'm willing to consider the possibility......but this guy was actually harder on Hillary than Trump........and could have literally blown up the Trump campaign by simply leaking the investigation. If he was out to get Trump, why didn't he just do that?
Click to expand...

His superiors were:
James Comey - Fired
Andy McCabe - Fired
Strzok was the lead investigator that reported to McCabe. Their e-mails implicate McCabe. Will that work for you?

Additionally, Associate Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Ohr gave Strzok the Dossier. Ohr has since been demoted for having had a meeting with Richard Steele (former British spy) and Glenn Simpson (founder of Fusion GPS). who was paid by the DNC to find dirt on Trump, which led to the Dossier. FYI, Simpson's wife worked for Fusion GPS..

Yes, Strzok could have leaked info on the Trump investigation and had he been caught, he would have been fired. If you care to remember, as late as 8:00PM on election night, most people thought HRC was going to win the election, so he probably decided it wasn't worth the risk.
 
BuilderBob6 said:
And all these people committed these treasonous acts when EVERYONE thought HC was going to win........but they all risked their careers and their freedom to bring down Trump JUST IN case he won....or to prevent him from pulling the upset. Right.

Why didn't Strzok just leak the Trump investigation? Take him out anonymously. But no, let's get it all in writing in a text, much safer.
Click to expand...

Open your eyes. They were freely texting, because in their minds, it was a foregone conclusion that HRC had the election locked up. They got arrogant and sloppy, because they couldn't imagine Trump could win.

Going back to the Clinton e-mail scandal, it's already been mentioned that she had been exonerated, before she and several of her senior staff were ever interviewed. If the fix wasn't in, why did the FBI give 5 of HRC's top assistants immunity and then destroy their laptops for them? Usually, immunity is given, when someone is willing to testify against someone higher in the food chain. That wasn't the case here, they just got a free "Get Out of Jail" card. Doesn't that ever make you wonder WHY?

Why do you do readily dismiss any wrongdoing, when she destroyed over 30K emails that were under subpoena from Congress? That's a felony, yet the Dems are OK with it. Is the Trump hatred and partisanship so strong on the Left, that you're blinded to the corruption on your own side? Open both eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinDegrees2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

The beat goes on

Replies
1
Views
145
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Riveting-
Riveting-
Boiler Buck

The Real Election Interference

Replies
13
Views
297
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
3ZSDAD
3
Boilermaker03

To those that trust in Corporate media

Replies
10
Views
396
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
typeviic
typeviic
Boilermaker03

Least Corrupt - Donald Trump

Replies
15
Views
224
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Boilermaker03
Boilermaker03
Boiler Buck

Trust in media, reveals Dems are still susceptible Patsies

Replies
1
Views
154
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Boilermaker03
Boilermaker03
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back