Peter Strzok and Implicit Bias

[Dric902]

20 minutes ago, F350 said:

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.

 

I agree completely.

not a crime though

[Boogieman]

3 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Not about me

charge him

Now deflection?  Hmmm

[Dric902]

Charge.....him

questioning me is the deflection

what are the charges? Didn’t admit to anything actionable. Can’t support obstruction. Not treason.......

gonna charge him with being a democrat? 

[Boogieman]

6 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Charge.....him

questioning me is the deflection

what are the charges? Didn’t admit to anything actionable. Can’t support obstruction. Not treason.......

gonna charge him with being a democrat? 

Y U so mad?  It's a simple question.  It has to do with your knowledge of the subject at hand.  Why does this simple question so enrage you?

[Dric902]

36 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

Y U so mad?  It's a simple question.  It has to do with your knowledge of the subject at hand.  Why does this simple question so enrage you?

I am no one of consequence, my tv watching habits are meaningless to your charges. If I went to the bathroom and missed Nadler make a fool of himself, can I have no opinion?

charges??

here, I’ll help......

obstruction of Trump (D Felony)

conspiracy to vote democrook (C Felony)

lying to mistress (misdemeanor)

violation of soundbite (capital offense)

obstruction of talking point (A Felony)

if it can be proven that he voted for Hillary then we can add an additional charge of violation of the will of the people (B Felony)

any more?

(I’m not mad at all, I’m having fun)

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Dric902

[Boogieman]

Just now, Dric902 said:

I am no one of consequence, my tv watching habits are meaningless to your charges. If I went to the bathroom and missed Nadler make a fool of himself, can I have no opinion?

charges??

here, I’ll help......

obstruction of Trump (D Felony)

conspiracy to vote democrook (C Felony)

lying to mistress (misdemeanor)

violation of soundbite (capital offense)

obstruction of talking point (A Felony)

if it can be proven that he voted for Hillary then we can add an additional charge of violation of the will of the people (B Felony)

any more?

 

You seem to be saying everything the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC have been spoon feeding the American public.  Not like someone who has actually watched the vast majority of the questioning.  

[fortyofforty]

10 hours ago, Dric902 said:

So you can only investigate the people you agree with? You can only investigate Trump if you voted for Trump? No bias there right?

it is improper to let your bias influence the facts or conduct of an investigation. 

And “rabid” is an opinion of the degree of opinion. Who defines the level of “rabid” required to recuse yourself.

 

No, I never said that.  If you hold extremist beliefs about your targets, and espouse those beliefs frequently, and promise to hold your targets to a different standard than other people, that is improper.

Would you feel the same way about someone who believes Islam is a dirty religion, and all Muslims are evil, deserving nothing but imprisonment and death, then gets assigned to investigate Muslim groups?

Rabid is not just my opinion.  It was also the opinion of Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, in case you forget.  Rabid opinions rising to hatred clearly tainted the conduct of two investigations I can name.  The standard of "proving" that taint is a legal standard, but it is certainly more than obvious to anyone paying attention to the details.  If you don't think so, I'd suggest you explore how Hillary Clinton was handled during her investigation, and see if you think other targets got the same treatment.

[fortyofforty]

8 hours ago, Boogieman said:

Y U so mad?  It's a simple question.  It has to do with your knowledge of the subject at hand.  Why does this simple question so enrage you?

He thinks he's showing he's smarter than everyone else by pretending to be "neutral" or "impartial" even in the face of overwhelming evidence of impropriety.  It's a technique he's used over and over, and common among Never Trumpers.  You're just ignorant for thinking the FBI did anything wrong, or that it didn't treat everyone equally.  Pay no attention to your own eyes, just disengage your brain and accept what NPR tells you.

[Dric902]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

No, I never said that.  If you hold extremist beliefs about your targets, and espouse those beliefs frequently, and promise to hold your targets to a different standard than other people, that is improper.

Would you feel the same way about someone who believes Islam is a dirty religion, and all Muslims are evil, deserving nothing but imprisonment and death, then gets assigned to investigate Muslim groups?

Rabid is not just my opinion.  It was also the opinion of Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, in case you forget.  Rabid opinions rising to hatred clearly tainted the conduct of two investigations I can name.  The standard of "proving" that taint is a legal standard, but it is certainly more than obvious to anyone paying attention to the details.  If you don't think so, I'd suggest you explore how Hillary Clinton was handled during her investigation, and see if you think other targets got the same treatment.

 

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

He thinks he's showing he's smarter than everyone else by pretending to be "neutral" or "impartial" even in the face of overwhelming evidence of impropriety.  It's a technique he's used over and over, and common among Never Trumpers.  You're just ignorant for thinking the FBI did anything wrong, or that it didn't treat everyone equally.  Pay no attention to your own eyes, just disengage your brain and accept what NPR tells you.

We prosecute crimes, but there has to be one. We expouse our political beliefs all the time, many people do. Doesn’t mean we have the means, intention, or capability to act on them. (Or many of us would be in jail)

being a political hack is not criminal. You being a trump worshiper is not a crime.  Being politically/criminally naive is not a crime. They are all just stupid.

if your definition of the often dreaded “Never Trumper” is someone who votes republican, supports republican causes, have never voted Democrat, likes many of the things Trump has done, 

But is less than 99.9998 in agreement with every word, action, tweet, soundbite, policy shift.

 

I guess I am. 

Perhaps if you watch and follow politics through a few administrations and keep a decent memory of actions and reactions rather that...Obama bad,Trump good 

you too could be just jaded enough to doubt the headlines and think for yourself.

but hey, that’s no fun right?

MAGA, MAGA, DEEP STATE, SWAMP, BUILD THE WALL, LOCK HER UP, TREASON!!!!!!

 

?????

(live your life, love your family,think for yourself)

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

 

We prosecute crimes, but there has to be one. We expouse our political beliefs all the time, many people do. Doesn’t mean we have the means, intention, or capability to act on them. (Or many of us would be in jail)

being a political hack is not criminal. You being a trump worshiper is not a crime.  Being politically/criminally naive is not a crime. They are all just stupid.

if your definition of the often dreaded “Never Trumper” is someone who votes republican, supports republican causes, have never voted Democrat, likes many of the things Trump has done, 

But is less than 99.9998 in agreement with every word, action, tweet, soundbite, policy shift.

 

I guess I am. 

Perhaps if you watch and follow politics through a few administrations and keep a decent memory of actions and reactions rather that...Obama bad,Trump good 

you too could be just jaded enough to doubt the headlines and think for yourself.

but hey, that’s no fun right?

MAGA, MAGA, DEEP STATE, SWAMP, BUILD THE WALL, LOCK HER UP, TREASON!!!!!!

 

?????

(live your life, love your family,think for yourself)

Oh, but there have been crimes.  I have seen them with my own eyes.  The problem is that those in charge of impartially investigating criminal activity chose not to bring evidence to prosecutors in some cases, and leaked supposed evidence in order to spark prosecutorial activity in another case.

I could list the crimes for you, but you know full well what they are.

Start to think a little.  It is hard at first, but you might get the hang of it eventually.

[F350]

14 hours ago, Dric902 said:

I agree completely.

not a crime though

Not a crime; but an FBI agent who essentially admits to lying and breaking his marriage vows can hardly be be expected to be faithful to anything. How can he be believed about anything, even after raising his right hand a swearing to tell the truth, can a lying liar ever be believed about anything? 

[Dric902]

2 hours ago, F350 said:

Not a crime; but an FBI agent who essentially admits to lying and breaking his marriage vows can hardly be be expected to be faithful to anything. How can he be believed about anything, even after raising his right hand a swearing to tell the truth, can a lying liar ever be believed about anything? 

Crime?

[Dric902]

4 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Oh, but there have been crimes.  I have seen them with my own eyes.  The problem is that those in charge of impartially investigating criminal activity chose not to bring evidence to prosecutors in some cases, and leaked supposed evidence in order to spark prosecutorial activity in another case.

I could list the crimes for you, but you know full well what they are.

Start to think a little.  It is hard at first, but you might get the hang of it eventually.

No, no

feel free to list the chargeable criminal offenses......I’ll wait

[Boogieman]

12 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

No, no

feel free to list the chargeable criminal offenses......I’ll wait

Once again, here's the one he fully admitted was a crime.  BTW...you haven't mentioned if you actually watched the hearings?  Becuause you keep repeating the same talking points spoon fed to the ill informed by CNN and MSNBC?

 

[crockett]

[Dric902]

1 hour ago, Boogieman said:

Once again, here's the one he fully admitted was a crime.  BTW...you haven't mentioned if you actually watched the hearings?  Becuause you keep repeating the same talking points spoon fed to the ill informed by CNN and MSNBC?

 

Do you not understand the use of parentheses?

he clearly,

(although not under oath or making any type of a sworn statement that could possibly be construed in a court as an admission of anything)

((see how I used them right there?))

stated why, why, why, the reason, the stated reason why, the documents were not turned over. But I will clearly say it again without the confusing parentheses.

they...were...not...relevant. 

Meaning to the more simple of those present, and those of which English is a second language or that the reading comprehension is seriously lacking..........

they were not relevant, they did not fall under the order of the mythical “everything” as they didn’t pertain to the “anything” that the order was ordering to be released to the people who ordered the order for documentation.

 

but hey, we need the headline so....here goes

-I killed Kennedy-

now, charge me with murder

 

 

[Boogieman]

14 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Do you not understand the use of parentheses?

he clearly,

(although not under oath or making any type of a sworn statement that could possibly be construed in a court as an admission of anything)

((see how I used them right there?))

stated why, why, why, the reason, the stated reason why, the documents were not turned over. But I will clearly say it again without the confusing parentheses.

they...were...not...relevant. 

Meaning to the more simple of those present, and those of which English is a second language or that the reading comprehension is seriously lacking..........

they were not relevant, they did not fall under the order of the mythical “everything” as they didn’t pertain to the “anything” that the order was ordering to be released to the people who ordered the order for documentation.

 

but hey, we need the headline so....here goes

-I killed Kennedy-

now, charge me with murder

 

 

You were never on the debate team were you?  And you obviously are only repeating what the MSM has allowed you to say.  He admitted to a crime. In his own words.  Whether he will actually be charged is anyone's guess.  But he fully admitted that he committed a crime.

[Dric902]

‘Kay then

 

so did I 

whether I will be charged is dependent upon my volume of MAGAMAGA  at the next trump rally I suppose

Edited July 14, 2018 by Dric902

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

No, no

feel free to list the chargeable criminal offenses......I’ll wait

You don't have to wait long.  Here are two, right off the top of my head:

Obstruction of justice in violation of 18 United States Code § 1505

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924

Peter Strzok was in charge of the investigation of Hillary "I'm with her" Clinton.  Jim Comey decided he would make the final decision on prosecution.  Both crimes were found.  And both were dismissed.

Why?

I'll wait.

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, Boogieman said:

Once again, here's the one he fully admitted was a crime.  BTW...you haven't mentioned if you actually watched the hearings?  Becuause you keep repeating the same talking points spoon fed to the ill informed by CNN and MSNBC?

 

Repeating such nonsense makes some people feel superior, since only they can see the real truth.  It doesn't matter if what they're spouting is ignorant gibberish.  They just feel superior.

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Dric902 said:

Do you not understand the use of parentheses?

he clearly,

(although not under oath or making any type of a sworn statement that could possibly be construed in a court as an admission of anything)

((see how I used them right there?))

stated why, why, why, the reason, the stated reason why, the documents were not turned over. But I will clearly say it again without the confusing parentheses.

they...were...not...relevant. 

Meaning to the more simple of those present, and those of which English is a second language or that the reading comprehension is seriously lacking..........

they were not relevant, they did not fall under the order of the mythical “everything” as they didn’t pertain to the “anything” that the order was ordering to be released to the people who ordered the order for documentation.

 

but hey, we need the headline so....here goes

-I killed Kennedy-

now, charge me with murder

 

 

Who decided they were not relevant?

Mmmmmmkay.

[Dric902]

7 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

You don't have to wait long.  Here are two, right off the top of my head:

Obstruction of justice in violation of 18 United States Code § 1505

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924

Peter Strzok was in charge of the investigation of Hillary "I'm with her" Clinton.  Jim Comey decided he would make the final decision on prosecution.  Both crimes were found.  And both were dismissed.

Why?

I'll wait.

Ok, listen to yourself 

Strzok was in charge of the investigation....

4 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Who decided they were not relevant?

Mmmmmmkay.

The...agent....in...charge...of...the...investigation

not a crime

 

do you see MSM monsters under your bed? 

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Ok, listen to yourself 

Strzok was in charge of the investigation....

The...agent....in...charge...of...the...investigation

not a crime

 

do you see MSM monsters under your bed? 

Finally, we're getting somewhere with you.

Do you think Strzok treated Hillary without prejudice or bias?  Do you think another person who committed those crimes would have gone unpunished?

Do you think it's normal to allow the subject of an investigation to decide which records to turn over?

 

 

Do you see Hillary in your dreams?  Is she naked, pole dancing?  I'm guessing yes.

[Boogieman]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Ok, listen to yourself 

Strzok was in charge of the investigation....

The...agent....in...charge...of...the...investigation

not a crime

He admitted that it was a crime.   So who should we believe?  You or him?  lol

[Dric902]

11 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Finally, we're getting somewhere with you.

Do you think Strzok treated Hillary without prejudice or bias?  Do you think another person who committed those crimes would have gone unpunished?

Do you think it's normal to allow the subject of an investigation to decide which records to turn over?

 

 

Do you see Hillary in your dreams?  Is she naked, pole dancing?  I'm guessing yes.

Do you have any evidence that his political opinion influenced his investigation? (Not “come on, you just know’)

he was not the subject of his own investigation. So yes he was.

i don’t see Hillary at all, I didn’t vote for her, didn’t donate to her, didn’t root for her, have never voted for any Democrat in my entire life.

do you prosecute people for their political opinion in your dreams?

Is not liking Trump a crime in your dream world? 

Do you execute somebody for making faces at congressmen?

I’m guessing yes

 

in this world you must have evidence to prove a crime was committed.

Not a text, not a tweet, not an opinion, not an “admission””confession” or or even Probable Cause to text something. 

And you have the same protections if a democrook wins at some point in the future. The legal system will not let you prosecute someone cause he is an *******, even a Democrat *******.