Jump to content

Strzok Testimony


babysdaddy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

It's just further confirmation that the GOP, while for years wearing the mantle of the "values" party (whatever that means), has only one value: Supporting Trump.  Everything else (humanity, dignity, decency, respect for rule of law) has gone completely out the window.  A wholesale jettisoning of anything resembling any sort of character or moral fiber.  No, it's all orange buffoon and buffoonery, 24/7.  

 

If the right cared about morals and family values, McCain would have been jettisoned early on, given his personal/family life.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Austin Orange said:

Surly likes cops now and thinks they are all unbiased, the victim, and have unquestionable judgement?  Cool.  

Listen jarhead - the FBI is totally different than the local rubes who fuck with minorities and poors. I would say “you know this” but you have been a high functioning regard for years, so maybe you don’t.

We respect your service, but leave the thinking to the adults,

Edited by VRHorn
DWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

Listen jarhead - the FBI is totally different than the local rubes who fuck with minorities and poors.

Bobby+fullsm.jpg

Cream of the crop.

And

Michigan Cop and FBI Agent Beat Wrong Suspect, Deleted Videos by Witnesses

An undercover Michigan cop with an FBI agent beat up an innocent man, then stopped to force bystanders to delete all footage of the actual incident.

 

Edited by Austin Orange
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there wasn't bias, how do you explain the FBI producing evidence that convinced a grand jury?  It's defacto fruit of a biased poison tree, ergo Republicans need to kill the investigation to save democracy.  Only then can the POTUS investigate and destroy the liberal bias cancer from our justice system.  

Republicans are not convinced Russia is responsible because Putin is too clever to leave an evidence trail that would lead an FBI investigation to his GRU teams.  And even if it did, not a single ballot was hacked.  Podesta failed to have a strong password to protect us, but the FBI/DOJ isn't indicting him.  Whatabout all the election hacking done by dems in the past against foreign nations?  This is a sanctioned politcal coup by the deep state dems because Americans elected Trump instead of Clinton.  

Am I doing it right?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strock's lovergirl, Ms. Page, testified behind closed doors.  The reps gave lots of hay and apparently she gave more answers than loverboy Strocky.   While not a current FBI employee, she was able to depend on the FBI attorneys who apparently let her answer more questions which earned her lots of hay. 

Any news beyond that?  Any speculation on what she said that was different and/or more expansive in content?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zork said:

Strock's lovergirl, Ms. Page, testified behind closed doors.  The reps gave lots of hay and apparently she gave more answers than loverboy Strocky.   While not a current FBI employee, she was able to depend on the FBI attorneys who apparently let her answer more questions which earned her lots of hay. 

Any news beyond that?  Any speculation on what she said that was different and/or more expansive in content?

That they weren't really of a different mind about Donald Trump than a lot of Republican members of Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zork said:

Strock's lovergirl, Ms. Page, testified behind closed doors.  The reps gave lots of hay and apparently she gave more answers than loverboy Strocky.   While not a current FBI employee, she was able to depend on the FBI attorneys who apparently let her answer more questions which earned her lots of hay. 

Any news beyond that?  Any speculation on what she said that was different and/or more expansive in content?

Pubs could release the first closed door testimony by Strzok as requested by Dems and there'd be a lot less need for speculation, but that would be counter to Pubs perpetual need for speculation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Disco Strangler said:

Very much cops.  The guys working non-stop to find the Austin bomber, to investigate every nut job who claims to be plotting the next 9/11, guys who are very invested in the role of law. 

Did you mean rule of law, idiot?

asking for a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tuco said:

So, apparently if Mark Furman had cheated on his wife, white people would think OJ was innocent. Because perjuring himself about saying n- wasn’t enough.

Completely unrelated to this thread, but you do realize the tapes of Mark Fuhrman using the n-word and disparaging women were all from a screenplay development in which he was asked to audition  to play a corrupt/dirty cop, right? This is the equivalent of claiming Will Ferrell is homophobic based on a scene from "Get Hard" or Steve Carrell is a racist based on what Michael Scott did during "The Office" Diversity Day episode.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2018 at 11:13 PM, Dropout said:

1) Objectively is to put aside ones feelings and personal opinion. What task did Strozk not objectively act on? His text messages are not an act on behalf of the American people. That’s not his job it’s his personal opinion. When did those opinions cause him not to objectively act?

I could totally buy the objectivity/didn't influence my work/just my opinions defense up to the point where he says, "Fuck Trump." When you've done that, you've intentionally chosen the second- or third-most vile word in the American language to express your complete contempt for a fellow human. At that point, however, just shy of calling a woman the c-word or a black the n-word, you've completely made your disparaging view of the individual crystal clear and surrendered all claims to being an objective party.

It also doesn't help Strzok's case that he can't own what he said in the case of the "smell" of Trump supporters in the South Virginia Walmart. Anybody with a three-digit IQ (i.e. most people in that room with the exception of those named Sheila Jackson-Lee) understands that's an unequivocal insult. It was sad yet hilarious to watch him try to dismiss it simply by saying it was late at night or a flippant remark or it just seemed so different how people in one part of the state were supporting Trump. He clearly was insulting Trump voters and his inability after preparing for weeks for his testimony to just say, "Yep, I implied in a private conversation that I think Trump voters are primarily lower-socioeconomic status Wal-Mart shoppers who need to bathe more often," indicated that he wasn't going to be truthful about anything he said on Thursday. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gd fucking damn you and many Trump supporters must have aced the Trump U course on misusing the English language. Perverse use of the English language is astonishing.

Strzok’s personal feeling/opinion equals Fuck Trump. He has complete contempt for Trump no argument. Strzok’s personal feeling/opinion is Trump supporters smell of dogshit. He has complete contempt for Trump supporters no argument.

To be OBJECTIVE is to put these feelings/opinions aside and do the job that was asked of him. So I will ask again since you didn’t answer the first time in all that babble. What task did Strzok not complete OBJECTIVELY? Did he make things up? Did he twist or alter facts while he was on the investigation? If so lay them out here. I’ll wait.

Edited by Dropout
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Swam@Texas said:

Completely unrelated to this thread, but you do realize the tapes of Mark Fuhrman using the n-word and disparaging women were all from a screenplay development in which he was asked to audition  to play a corrupt/dirty cop, right? This is the equivalent of claiming Will Ferrell is homophobic based on a scene from "Get Hard" or Steve Carrell is a racist based on what Michael Scott did during "The Office" Diversity Day episode.

 

Yeah, no. They were recorded by a screen writer during an interview as she was trying to get the perspective of a real cop. Those words and feelings were his, not read off by him using someone elses words. 

Swammed

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dropout said:

Gd fucking damn you and many Trump supporters must have aced the Trump U course on misusing the English language. Perverse use of the English language is astonishing.

Strzok’s personal feeling/opinion equals Fuck Trump. He has complete contempt for Trump no argument. Strzok’s personal feeling/opinion is Trump supporters smell of dogshit. He has complete contempt for Trump supporters no argument.

To be OBJECTIVE is to put these feelings/opinions aside and do the job that was asked of him. So I will ask again since you didn’t answer the first time in all that babble. What task did Strzok not complete OBJECTIVELY? Did he make things up? Did he twist or alter facts while he was on the investigation? If so lay them out here. I’ll wait.

Not sure about a specific task but something whether real or perceived led Mueller to remove him from the team. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was taken off the case because his texts and personal bias would have blown up the Mueller investigation.

He’s a smug, arrogant little bitch who thinks he’s above the law. Worse, he thinks he is the law and rules don’t apply to him.  No telling what he did or didn’t do about his job, but I guarantee you he did not leave obvious evidence of crimes or bad actions (if he committed anything edgy at all). He’s at least smart enough to cover his tracks. 

That being said, the clown show was beyond stupid (mainly by the Repubes). 

Mueller needs to go on. We’ve all known Russia messed with our election. That’s on Obama’s watch. Old news. Seems to be no collusion identified at this point.  Let’s see if Mueller can tie anything to Trump. 

It would be refreshing to get you guys back to being funny.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FUBAR said:

He was taken off the case because his texts and personal bias would have blown up the Mueller investigation.

He’s a smug, arrogant little bitch who thinks he’s above the law. Worse, he thinks he is the law and rules don’t apply to him.  No telling what he did or didn’t do about his job, but I guarantee you he did not leave obvious evidence of crimes or bad actions (if he committed anything edgy at all). He’s at least smart enough to cover his tracks. 

That being said, the clown show was beyond stupid (mainly by the Repubes). 

Mueller needs to go on. We’ve all known Russia messed with our election. That’s on Obama’s watch. Old news. Seems to be no collusion identified at this point.  Let’s see if Mueller can tie anything to Trump. 

It would be refreshing to get you guys back to being funny.  

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

He was taken off the case because his texts and personal bias would have blown up the Mueller investigation.

He’s a smug, arrogant little bitch who thinks he’s above the law. Worse, he thinks he is the law and rules don’t apply to him.  No telling what he did or didn’t do about his job, but I guarantee you he did not leave obvious evidence of crimes or bad actions (if he committed anything edgy at all). He’s at least smart enough to cover his tracks. 

That being said, the clown show was beyond stupid (mainly by the Repubes). 

Mueller needs to go on. We’ve all known Russia messed with our election. That’s on Obama’s watch. Old news. Seems to be no collusion identified at this point.  Let’s see if Mueller can tie anything to Trump. 

It would be refreshing to get you guys back to being funny.  

Seems to be no collusion? You mean other than the loads of collusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

He was taken off the case because his texts and personal bias would have blown up the Mueller investigation.

He’s a smug, arrogant little bitch who thinks he’s above the law. Worse, he thinks he is the law and rules don’t apply to him.  No telling what he did or didn’t do about his job, but I guarantee you he did not leave obvious evidence of crimes or bad actions (if he committed anything edgy at all). He’s at least smart enough to cover his tracks. 

That being said, the clown show was beyond stupid (mainly by the Repubes). 

Mueller needs to go on. We’ve all known Russia messed with our election. That’s on Obama’s watch. Old news. Seems to be no collusion identified at this point.  Let’s see if Mueller can tie anything to Trump. 

It would be refreshing to get you guys back to being funny.  

0phgojewen911.gif

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Yeah, no. They were recorded by a screen writer during an interview as she was trying to get the perspective of a real cop. Those words and feelings were his, not read off by him using someone elses words. 

Swammed

 

 

 

Because everything in a Hollywood screenplay has to be verified for truthfulness and authenticity before it gets marketed to production companies, right? Yeah... that's how Hollywood works. Because, just imagine how great movies like "Training Day" and "End of Watch" would be if the dialogue were edited to not be offensive.

“When I was making up dialogue, I spoke in the first person. But these weren’t my own words, my own experiences, or my own sentiments. They were the words of fictional characters I had created based on my imagination and experience. I knew I had to exaggerate things to make the screenplay dramatic and commercially appealing…And since Laura and I sometimes drank wine while we had our recorded conversations, occasionally I got a little carried away. As I mentioned, Laura was extremely innocent, and I got a charge out of shocking her with some of the things that I said and making her laugh with others. When I testified in the Superior Court trial, I did not think about the tapes. Bailey asked me if I had ever used the ‘N’ word in addressing a person. I could truthfully answer that I had not. I never thought that screenplay notes and character dialogue could be misinterpreted as my own words.”

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about a specific task but something whether real or perceived led Mueller to remove him from the team. 

Every single person who holds any kind of responsible position in both the public and publicly traded private sector is required to take ethics courses wherein they are cautioned not to take action that -could- reasonably give the impression of a conflict of interest, which for an investigator or judge would include prejudicial bias. ALL of these curricula include the idea that a conflict need not exist to create the impression of a conflict.

 

So for Strzok, Mueller’s states reason for removing him was that his actions could create a negative perception of bias. He needed to be removed. So far there is no evidence in the public eye that any action was taken that would indicate bias.

 

That being said, it’s been sad to watch you carry the water for corruption in power. You sure have changed your tune from a few years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Strzok’s arrogance is the product of a corrupt FBI

Quote

Watching FBI agent Peter Strzok battle with Congress, my initial reaction was pure anger. His repeated, arrogant insistence that he had done nothing wrong despite tons of evidence to the contrary convinced me he deserved immediate firing — if not the firing squad.

Gradually, though, anger gave way to amazement as Strzok grew increasingly combative and condescending. Given his predicament, the sneering and smirking were stupid, and yet he persisted.

Who is this jerk, I wondered, and how in the hell did he get to be a big shot at the FBI? And why are taxpayers still paying for the privilege of his malignant presence on the FBI payroll?

My answers can be summarized in four names: James Comey, Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray. They are chief culprits in the death of public trust in the Department of Justice.

The cause of death was murder, and it was an inside job.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/14/peter-strzoks-arrogance-is-the-product-of-a-corrupt-fbi/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 3:44 PM, VRHorn said:

Listen jarhead - the FBI is totally different than the local rubes who fuck with minorities and poors. I would say “you know this” but you have been a high functioning regard for years, so maybe you don’t.

We respect your service, but leave the thinking to the adults,

People are people.  Everyone has biases.  There are  many, many examples of cases where evidence was manufactured, suppressed,  etc....at the Federal level, by the justice department and fbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.intellihub.com/a-sheep-dipped-peter-strzok-works-for-both-the-fbi-and-cia-documents-reveal/

CIA spook too, explains why he was laughing while destroying the reputation of the FBI.

A unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line “Supplemental Classification Review and Determination” was addressed to the Bureau of National Security’s Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as “Section Chief” of the “Counterespionage Section” in reference to Strzok’s CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok’s position at the FBI is “Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division” not “Section Chief” which is a CIA post.

  • Fuck You 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...