Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One has to bend over backwards to excuse Strzok. Some are obviously willing to do just that. Just like w/ Lois Lerner. Some are obviously willing to do just that. Funny how they all seem to be partisan Democrats.
OMG someone said they would stop Trump from being president. MILLIONS of people said the same thing. They thought voting would be enough. (they were wrong)
You obviously never read the IG report . It said they could not prove political bias in the handling of the Hillary email server scandal specifically. No where did the IG report say Peter Strzok was not guilty of bias. No where in the report did it say he was not still under investigation for bias in regard to the Trump investigation.
Directly from the IG report:
“We found the FBI’s explanations for its failures to take immediate action after discovering the Weiner laptop in October 2016 to be unpersuasive, and we did not have confidence that the decision of deputy assistant director Strzok to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Weiner laptop was free from bias in light of his text messages,”
- "We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations."
- Strzok/Page texts show “a biased state of mind [and implies] a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects."
From that report the IG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that Strzok acted on that bias, at least with regard to the Clinton email investigation. (The IG did not review the handling of the Russia investigation, which is ongoing.)
Do you understand that there is a difference between having a bias, and acting on it? EVERYONE has a bias.
This text came one week after Strzok joined the Mueller investigation.
The same investigation he told Page he didn't think there was "any there, there", but was going to join anyway & that Page hoped would lead to impeachment.
OMG someone said they would stop Trump from being president. MILLIONS of people said the same thing. They thought voting would be enough. (they were wrong)
Those millions of people weren't heading up a sketchy, as of yet, unproven, investigation accusing Trump of colluding with Russia to rig the election. That's a pretty significant distinction.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 26 days ago)
27,646 posts, read 16,125,463 times
Reputation: 19056
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
OMG someone said they would stop Trump from being president. MILLIONS of people said the same thing. They thought voting would be enough. (they were wrong)
From that report the IG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that Strzok acted on that bias, at least with regard to the Clinton email investigation. (The IG did not review the handling of the Russia investigation, which is ongoing.)
Do you understand that there is a difference between having a bias, and acting on it? EVERYONE has a bias.
Please re-read your original post that I replied to where you stated Strzok had done nothing illegal and had shown no evidence of bias. We were discussing the phony Russia investigation, not the Hillary email scandal, which is why I explained the difference to you. You were wrong. Strzok is far from being cleared of wrongdoing.
"The IG wentover all of this, and while people have cherry picked a ton of stuff, the bottom line is-they did nothing illegal, and their work product did not show evidence of bias."
Rep. Louie Gohmert said he was amazed at how easily Strzok was lying on the stand. A very cool character. Then he realized that Strzok is so used to lying to his wife about his mistress Lisa Page that he's had a lot of practice.
Meeting with more people around seems like just that sort of thing. Its not what you do generally when you want to hide something.
Reminded me of Jeff Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador at a big work party and he was later accused of colluding with Russians so he had to recuse himself from any investigations. Except unlike the Lovebirds, Sessions didn't leave a trail of incriminating emails and texts to contradict his testimony. Sometimes a party is just a party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It said they could not prove political bias in the handling of the Hillary email server scandal specifically. No where did the IG report say Peter Strzok was not guilty of bias. No where in the report did it say he was not still under investigation for bias in regard to the Trump investigation. 
