The hypocrisy of the ________

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics




So this is an unbiased investigation?

This investigation is clearly biased... Mueller gotta lotta plaining to do. Consider yourself officially "WOKE"

Chico ,news flash ,everyone in this country has an opinion on trump.Who was the FBI agent texting when he wrote that text???


Chico ,I like you but you need to educate yourself.


Newest Additions to Our Trump-Russia Timeline



As others have pointed out,if facts come to light it doesn't matter what my opinion is as long as the facts are true or the information is truthful.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chico ,news flash ,everyone in this country has an opinion on trump.Who was the FBI agent texting when he wrote that text???


Chico ,I like you but you need to educate yourself.


Newest Additions to Our Trump-Russia Timeline



As others have pointed out,if facts come to light it doesn't matter what my opinion is as long as the facts are true or the information is truthful.

Sorry, and I know it's tit for tat, and old news, and all that crap, BUT when in one investigation Abedin lied about the email servers in an interview with the biased FBI investigator and that's NOT obstruction of justice or worthy of charging her with lying to the FBI as determined by the acknowledged biased investigator, and then Flynn lied about a legal activity (contacting Russia as staff of the President elect), to the same investigator and IS charged, then I think it's reasonable to question if the investigator acted in bad faith, and the "facts" received are somehow tainted.

In the Clinton case, the Daily Caller reported that FBI documents show Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told investigators they were not aware of Clinton’s email server until after Clinton left the State Department. However, released emails show Abedin and Mills discussing the server long before Clinton left the State Department. The two were both interviewed by Strzok and never faced criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, was charged with lying to the FBI last week for dishonest statements he gave in an interview with the FBI on Jan. 24. Strzok was the agent who interviewed him

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chico ,news flash ,everyone in this country has an opinion on trump.Who was the FBI agent texting when he wrote that text???


Chico ,I like you but you need to educate yourself.


Newest Additions to Our Trump-Russia Timeline



As others have pointed out,if facts come to light it doesn't matter what my opinion is as long as the facts are true or the information is truthful.

Your rationalize of those facts I presented as just “opinions people have” is perfect for this thread. Because if this was president Hillary Clinton with an investigation against her emails, server, etc being lead by a team of trump supporters, with biased text messages against Hillary, with a lead investigator who had pushed a fictitious dossier which was funded by the Republican Party, etc. then you would have zero problem with it...right?

[mooby]

The beauty of a criminal investigation is that once it goes to trial, actual evidence is what determines if a person is guilty or not. Was Strzok corrupted by personal bias? Yes, but unless the game plan was to use Strzok's testimony in court that Trump is an incompetent boob, it's not going to make a difference. This whole case is contingent upon evidence that Trump/co. colluded with Russians. So they will either need someone from that circle to flip and testify (like Flynn perhaps) and/or they will need actual evidence, let's say bank accounts, phone records, video of them meeting up, etc. to prove they committed a crime.

What are you asking for, a totally non-partisan team of investigators to investigate? LOL we might as well shut the investigation down then.

As the old saying goes, what are you afraid of? If you don't have anything to hide, you're in the clear.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by mooby

The beauty of a criminal investigation is that once it goes to trial, actual evidence is what determines if a person is guilty or not. Was Strzok corrupted by personal bias? Yes, but unless the game plan was to use Strzok's testimony in court that Drumpf is an incompetent boob, it's not going to make a difference. This whole case is contingent upon evidence that Drumpf/co. colluded with Russians. So they will either need someone from that circle to flip and testify (like Flynn perhaps) and/or they will need actual evidence, let's say bank accounts, phone records, video of them meeting up, etc. to prove they committed a crime.

What are you asking for, a totally non-partisan team of investigators to investigate? LOL we might as well shut the investigation down then.

As the old saying goes, what are you afraid of? If you don't have anything to hide, you're in the clear.

This. Evidence should be what wins the day. I hate Donald Trump more than anyone on this planet, and I would actually work damn hard to find something concrete. If I didn't find something, then hey, I'm just a guy who hates Trump. If I did, whatever, the proof is still in the delicious, delicious pudding.

[BaltimoreSkins]

If the republican argument for Neil Gorsuch is that a judge will rule based on facts and not on political opinion then I will assume that an FBI investigator can do the same.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

If the republican argument for Neil Gorsuch is that a judge will rule based on facts and not on political opinion then I will assume that an FBI investigator can do the same.

Except when the same investigator handles two similar situations (Flynn and Abedin) in two polar opposite ways with a clear stated bias.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Except when the same investigator handles two similar situations (Flynn and Abedin) in two polar opposite ways with a clear stated bias.

True, hence why he was removed from his job and demoted. And fortunately for you, he wasn't in a position to decide whether or not to bring charges anyways. So if all he brought to the table was corrupt bullshit, you are saying you don't have faith in Mueller that he could correctly decide whether that evidence would be admissible in court. Nor do you have faith that a pro-Republican Congress could look at that same evidence and determine whether it's admissible or not. This case is not going to built on his testimony. I bet Flynn will be the star witness, most likely along intercepts from Russia and other circumstantial bits and pieces used to tie it together.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

True, hence why he was removed from his job and demoted. And fortunately for you, he wasn't in a position to decide whether or not to bring charges anyways. So if all he brought to the table was corrupt bullshit, you are saying you don't have faith in Mueller that he could correctly decide whether that evidence would be admissible in court. Nor do you have faith that a pro-Republican Congress could look at that same evidence and determine whether it's admissible or not. This case is not going to built on his testimony. I bet Flynn will be the star witness, most likely along intercepts from Russia and other circumstantial bits and pieces used to tie it together.

I said before, if a majority Republican house sees the evidence and votes to impeach, or if the Supreme Court upholds the removal from office, I will abide by that.

But it's interesting, how many cases Baltimore just threw out on the basis of fake evidence by biased cops. The question is could a clearly biased investigator either by omitting evidence that clears or allowing patently false evidence (Steele Dossier) into the record, sway a case to a false end?

I think so...

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I said before, if a majority Republican house sees the evidence and votes to impeach, or if the Supreme Court upholds the removal from office, I will abide by that.

But it's interesting, how many cases Baltimore just threw out on the basis of fake evidence by biased cops. The question is could a clearly biased investigator either by omitting evidence that clears or allowing patently false evidence (Steele Dossier) into the record, sway a case to a false end?

I think so...

The beauty of it is that it's a team of investigators, so if one of them deliberately withheld evidence you'd like to assume there would be enough checks and balances in place to ensure it's not passed over. Additionally, in light of the fact he was removed for bias, you would also assume they are going over all his contributions to make sure they didn't miss anything, especially because it's going to be heavily scrutinized in court.

[CRedskinsRule]

I am curious how people interpret this text from Strzok

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”*

[Chico23231]

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case | TheHill

The Hypocrisy of the FBI.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case | TheHill

The Hypocrisy of the FBI.

....the hill?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case | TheHill

The Hypocrisy of the FBI.

Seems some other investigators have found some other problems.....


Will Mueller Charge Mike Pence or Donald Trump Jr. In Russia Investigation in 2018?

[mooby]

Found some actual fake news by Chico's favorite credible source, The Hill:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...tbq?li=BBnb7Kz

There's no reason to put this article out unless you want the American public knowing lawmakers are actually questioning Trump's ability to handle the job. What is there to gain by releasing this article? We all know Trump isn't going to be removed from office for his tweets, no matter what he says. Even if Trump's physical goes bad, and it comes out that he subsists on a diet of Twinkies and Big Macs, nothing is going to come of it. It's probably easier to prove that he colluded with Russians than proving he doesn't have the mental capacity to handle the office.