Strzok Denies Bias

PsyOps

Pixelated
I am not at all surprised that Democrats come to his defense.
There was a curious paradox going on with this. While they (some) defended Strzok in receiving the ire from republicans, some also blamed Strzok, Comey and the FBI for causing Hillary's loss.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Did anyone catch the "you need your medication" when Gohmert was questioning Strzok? :lol:

Really, the whole thing was an embarrassing circus from all sides.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I really wish he wasn't leaving.

You have to wonder about this Strzok person, what kind of an arrogant ass he is to be sassing a United States Congressman during a hearing where he is being questioned about his unethical and perhaps illegal behavior.
Because it is straight out of the Democrat playbook - when they have you dead to rights, show indignance. It somehow works with adults.
I say that because if I catch my kids doing something they absolutely should never be doing, I'm not going to listen to their crap about how I went into their room
or how dare I question the integrity of a child who lies pretty much every time they're caught.

Two things surprise me - one is - the revelation of any kind of personal bias would - were this voir dire in a courtroom - result in immediate rejection from a jury.
That sort of thing if it came up would totally convince any attorney that the potential juror is far too biased to make an objective decision.

The other is, that his bias was known - but it apparently was never brought up either when he was brought on to the investigation - or when he was dismissed.
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
The other is, that his bias was known - but it apparently was never brought up either when he was brought on to the investigation - or when he was dismissed.
That's the most damning thing.

Tells you all you need to know about what the environment is like at the FBI.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
There was a curious paradox going on with this. While they (some) defended Strzok in receiving the ire from republicans, some also blamed Strzok, Comey and the FBI for causing Hillary's loss.
I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?
It was the House - 100% are up for re-election. Historically, I think it is in the 90% range for those who seek re-election to be re-elected, thanks to gerrymandering and the political parties controlling who runs where.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Two things surprise me - one is - the revelation of any kind of personal bias would - were this voir dire in a courtroom - result in immediate rejection from a jury.
That sort of thing if it came up would totally convince any attorney that the potential juror is far too biased to make an objective decision.
I've seen this mentioned a few other places, and I find it to be spot-on accurate. I wonder if he was asked about this or if he would be asked this on camera at some point.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
The other is, that his bias was known - but it apparently was never brought up either when he was brought on to the investigation - or when he was dismissed.
The only thing we can do is try to connect the dots. Hillary was about as guilty as it gets. I've stated it numerous times... I've been working in and around classified environments for decades. I know how this stuff works with handling classified. Her mishandling of classified would have put any other ordinary person in prison for a long time. This leads to the bias and Comey's dismissal of any recommendation of indictment. What role did Strzok play in this decision? His text messages were clear that he had INTENT to stop Trump. The only way he could do this was to use his power and influence in the FBI. Yet, he managed to justify why he wrote these texts. His claim that there was no bias is just blatantly false. Everyone has bias. Not everyone acts on that bias. When I connect the dots between his text messages to Comey exonerating Hillary, it becomes clear to me that he acted on that bias. The problem is, there really is nothing to actually prove that's how it happened. This is the FBI. They know how to cover things up.

If anyone has any faith in our FBI at this point - at least at the highest levels - I'd like to know why. Like the IRS, they became a political tool to go after political enemies. It's really disgraceful.
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
I've seen this mentioned a few other places, and I find it to be spot-on accurate. I wonder if he was asked about this or if he would be asked this on camera at some point.


I watched enough of it yesterday to be convinced of two things... The Democrats will interrupt all testimony, questions or statements that are damning, and that the traitorous POS will get away with it completely.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Did anyone catch the "you need your medication" when Gohmert was questioning Strzok? :lol:

Really, the whole thing was an embarrassing circus from all sides.
Well Gohmert asked what lie he told his wife when he was screwing Page.
That brought out screams, but it did show the guy is a liar.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
It was the House - 100% are up for re-election. Historically, I think it is in the 90% range for those who seek re-election to be re-elected, thanks to gerrymandering and the political parties controlling who runs where.
:doh:


Oh, yeah - duh! :lol:
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Well Gohmert asked what lie he told his wife when he was screwing Page.
That brought out screams, but it did show the guy is a liar.

It did bring out the screams - which was funnier really than Gohmert's comments. Yes, "they got out of hand", if you will (hell, nothing like Parliament!!)- but the whole thing is ridiculous and should never have even been necessary.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?
Interesting question. I can only surmise that, if there are any, they are pretty comfortable knowing their constituents are on their side.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Well Gohmert asked what lie he told his wife when he was screwing Page.
That brought out screams, but it did show the guy is a liar.
I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.
Well you are probably right, but I enjoyed it.
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.
Perhaps over the top, but it did serve to establish Strzok as a skilled liar.
 
Top