Jump to content

Peter Strzok and Implicit Bias


fortyofforty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seriously? How can they not defend him.

When one understands: "the ends justify the means", one understands the obvious machinations of the DNC.

Socialists and collectivists will sell out their own family and friends to achieve what they want. See how Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren acted after the convention. Republicans will sell out their party and the State to avoid a fellow Republican from getting an elected office. See Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan acted after the convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blueiron said:

Seriously? How can they not defend him.

When one understands: "the ends justify the means", one understands the obvious machinations of the DNC.

Socialists and collectivists will sell out their own family and friends to achieve what they want. See how Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren acted after the convention. Republicans will sell out their party and the State to avoid a fellow Republican from getting an elected office. See Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan acted after the convention.

Being a political bitch is not a crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

accountability.......for what? Not agreeing with you?

swamp bullshit is a felony?

What charges do you file for being an *******? 

“You have been found guilty of being a swamp bullshit *******, you admit to texting **** to your girlfriend and not likening the guy you investigated, even if it didn’t make any difference.............death!!!”

 

 

 

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 73, § 1505, as well as FBI policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crockett said:

 

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 73, § 1505, as well as FBI policy.

Not obstruction to not find anything. 

Not obstruction to not like the guy your investigating.

not obstruction to like the bitch your investigating.

talking **** to a girlfriend is not obstruction.

what is it that you think he is guilty of obstructing justice?

nothing actionable unless campaigning is an action.

and FBI policy is at best debatable and not a criminal act.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

How about an admission to obstruction of justice?

strzok-text-sept-10-20161.jpg

Not obstruction

what part of “because they weren’t relevant to the understanding of the focus of the investigation” is relevant to the focus of the investigation? 

In your professional opinion what exactly did he obstruct? He said he didn’t turn the 302s over to congress and explained why he didn’t turn them over as they weren’t relevant.

Edited by Dric902
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dric902 said:

Not obstruction to not find anything. 

Not obstruction to not like the guy your investigating.

not obstruction to like the bitch your investigating.

talking **** to a girlfriend is not obstruction.

what is it that you think he is guilty of obstructing justice?

nothing actionable unless campaigning is an action.

and FBI policy is at best debatable and not a criminal act.

 

Do I really need to repost where he admits to obstruction of justice?  It was not within his power to determine what information Congress was entitled to.  They were to be given everything.  He was not entitled to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Not obstruction to not find anything. 

Not obstruction to not like the guy your investigating.

not obstruction to like the bitch your investigating.

talking **** to a girlfriend is not obstruction.

what is it that you think he is guilty of obstructing justice?

nothing actionable unless campaigning is an action.

and FBI policy is at best debatable and not a criminal act.

 

 

Alright, lets flip this around. Why do you defend the actions of an agent with zero integrity against all that has come out by now? Are you ex LE / fed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crockett said:

 

Alright, lets flip this around. Why do you defend the actions of an agent with zero integrity against all that has come out by now? Are you ex LE / fed?

Did the integrity zero agent do anything illegal?  Or is he just an *******?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

Do I really need to repost where he admits to obstruction of justice?  It was not within his power to determine what information Congress was entitled to.  They were to be given everything.  He was not entitled to choose.

He didn’t admit to obstructing justice any more than me saying “I’d hit that” is admitting to attempted rape.

only in your mind is that an admition of anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

He didn’t admit to obstructing justice any more than me saying “I’d hit that” is admitting to attempted rape.

only in your mind is that an admition of anything

So his full admission of acting in defiance of Congress isn't enough for you?  Have you watched any of his testimony?  His criminal actions were brought up on several occasions.  He didn't have any legal reason for why he defied Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boogieman said:

So his full admission of acting in defiance of Congress isn't enough for you?  Have you watched any of his testimony?  His criminal actions were brought up on several occasions.  He didn't have any legal reason for why he defied Congress.

His full explanation of why the irrelevant information was not given to congress because it wasn’t......relevant?

his criminal accusations were brought up on several occations by the very people who didn’t ask for the irrelevant information that wasn’t turned over as it wasn’t....relevant?

he didn’t defy congress by not giving them what they didn’t ask for.

what he was.....was a prop for politicians on both sides to sharpen their campaign talking points on.

if you spin a nothing burger, it’s still a nothing burger

is he a dick? Hell yeah.

is he a scumbag? Hell yeah.

is he a political tool for the political parties to politically posture on in order to make political headlines?.....unfortunately, hell yeah

its fiction to attempt a poll shift of a couple points. About as substantive as the Kavanaugh criticism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

His full explanation of why the irrelevant information was not given to congress because it wasn’t......relevant?

his criminal accusations were brought up on several occations by the very people who didn’t ask for the irrelevant information that wasn’t turned over as it wasn’t....relevant?

he didn’t defy congress by not giving them what they didn’t ask for.

what he was.....was a prop for politicians on both sides to sharpen their campaign talking points on.

if you spin a nothing burger, it’s still a nothing burger

is he a dick? Hell yeah.

is he a scumbag? Hell yeah.

is he a political tool for the political parties to politically posture on in order to make political headlines?.....unfortunately, hell yeah

its fiction to attempt a poll shift of a couple points. About as substantive as the Kavanaugh criticism 

As was brought up.  It was not up to him to determine what Congress needed.  They ordered everything.  He chose to (illegally) not comply.  That's called obstruction of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

As was brought up.  It was not up to him to determine what Congress needed.  They ordered everything.  He chose to (illegally) not comply.  That's called obstruction of justice.

No they didn’t, there is no such thing as a subpoena or a request for “everything”

they will only receive what they specifically ask for within the parameters of the request.

it is at most contempt of Congress, if it could be proven that the information not provided was within the stated parameters. That’s not obstruction or Holder would have gone to prison.

 

what is the coverage? That he admitted to obstruction?

or “Gohmert went off on him” “do you need to take your medicine” “Nadlers soundbite about smearing a witness”

 

political theater.......nothing but whipping up the base, both of them

 

.

Edited by Dric902
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

No they didn’t, there is no such thing as a subpoena or a request for “everything”

they will only receive what the specifically as for within the parameters of the request.

it is at most contempt of Congress, if it could be proven that the information not provided was within the stated parameters. That’s not obstruction or Holder would have gone to prison.

 

what is the coverage? That he admitted to obstruction?

or “Gohmert went off on him” “do you need to take your medicine” “Nadlers soundbite about smearing a witness”

 

political theater.......nothing but whipping up the base, both of them

 

.

You haven't actually watched the fiasco have you?  Not just the bits the MSM have chosen to allow you to watch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boogieman said:

You haven't actually watched the fiasco have you?  Not just the bits the MSM have chosen to allow you to watch?

Do you feel the hook in your mouth? Cause that’s what it is.

Nobody going to jail, nobody being charged. No crime, just crime drama.

 

you should have watched Justice League instead. It is about as real but a little more entertaining.

 

lets see who is charged with what by November?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Louie Gohmert nailed it perfectly..... How many times did you look at your wife with that innocent look and lie to her about your girlfriend.

A man that can't be faithful to his wedding vows can not be expected to be faithful to anything else, especially the truth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Do you feel the hook in your mouth? Cause that’s what it is.

Nobody going to jail, nobody being charged. No crime, just crime drama.

 

you should have watched Justice League instead. It is about as real but a little more entertaining.

 

lets see who is charged with what by November?

So why does my simple question cause you such terror?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...