Have you ever stopped to wonder what these hearings are supposed to accomplish? Why have them if it’s nothing but a show?
Is there some new law that is going to result from this particular hearing? Some change in policy?
They literally did not say they believe that. They were very careful not to say that. If they said they believed bias affected his decision they would have said so. But he didn’t.
Besides, and once again, it is not like Strzok was the only person involved in either of the investigations. He assigned out the Weiner laptop investigation to career Bureau supervisors, analysts, and investigators to pursue. It is not like it was Peter Strzok’s case that he single-handedly placed on the back-burner so he could single-handedly spend his time investigating the Russian attack on our election. That is not how any of this works. You do know that right? There are countless people involved.
Too bad nothing of the sort seems to have actually happened.
And instead of our country being led by people like that, we’re led by people like Fox and Friends.
Messed up. Majorly.
This is a great point. And is further proof that all this is, is kabuki theater at its worst. And all the while the House, under GOP leadership, has held ZERO hearings on Russian meddling in our elections. As in None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. But now countless hours have been spent on Hillary Clinton’s emails. This is not normal.
Wrong logic. The IG stated that they could not be sure he was free from bias, not that he did indeed demonstrate bias in his actions.
I used to like like that word. But now it has been ruined for me. I now prefer news outlets that don’t use the word “seems”.
DUDE you MISS the POINT
The IG showed Strzok’s Bias caused him to not look at the weiner laptop and report them up the chain till October.
So that had an Impact that didn’t favor Clinton because Strozk’s Bias in trying to get Trump caused an issue for Hillary’s campaign.
I get your HUNG up on that it didn’t impact the over all investigation.
BUT his BIAS impacted a Segment of the the Investigation.
They had NO confidence that his decision which was an Action was not free from bias implying that it was influenced by his Bias against Trump.
No. It was going to happen with or without him. The top brass at the DOJ/FBI/CIA was loaded with partisan hacks. They were planning to destroy Trump win or lose, because he had the audacity to challenge DC Royalty.
Seems like in incredibly odd punishment to let him be president (appointing Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges, making trade decisions, signing bills, pardoning people, meeting world leaders, spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on his personal trips, undoing obama’s “legacy”, making military decisions, setting U.S. policy at the UN, NATO and G8, giving speeches, campaigning…the list goes on) while there was all of this “evidence” to open multiple investigations
Who knew our justice system could be so lenient??
1 Like
Yes. That agrees with the logic I put presented, and not yours.
That is completely untrue. It does not say that at all. It does not determine if bias affected the decision one way or another. And that is beside the point that agents of the bureau were already assigned to analyze and investigate the emails on the laptop.
Again, you make it seem as if this is all just one guy doing all of the investigative work, and not teams of people. As he stated yesterday in his sworn testimony under oath, that within one day of learning of the emails on the Weiner laptop, he assigned a high ranking Supervisor, their team, along with analysts to begin investigating what was found.
That is simply your own conclusions, but not based on any evidence presented. It once again presumes that a single man was solely investigating these two issues by himself, and not instead assigning these responsibilities out to people. It is completely illogical and shows a lack of understanding of how investigations of this magnitude work within the Bureau.
It did not affect the outcome. That is correct. And again, there is no evidence that his bias affected his decisions here at all. The IG report confirms this. It does not state that they conclude his decisions were based on the bias. You’ve added that assumption in all on your own my friend.
Which is different than saying they had confidence that bias did affect this ONE decision.
That’s not what they’re saying.
…and we still have an inadequate answer to the “insurance policy” text.
That was the reason for having Strzok there. To clarify and alleviate concerns about the terrible implications that could be inferred from the texts.
Focus is an important factor.
What are you going on about? Seems the FBI would wait to get as much evidence as possible before coming out with such an explosive charge.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
Did you not watch it? He gave a perfectly good explanation for it.
This is whats so aggravating about Trump Davidians. They get the answers they say they want, and then they pretend like its still unanswered. “Huh? Bwuh? Me no see nothing”.
Nine hours after the start of Thursday’s extremely contentious House committee hearing, FBI official Peter Strzok was given the opportunity to explain the infamous “insurance policy” text he sent to FBI lawyer Lisa Page — a text that has become a focal point in GOP conspiracy theories of a deep state plot to undermine President Trump with the Russian investigation.
According to Strzok, it was sent in the context of a debate over how aggressively the FBI needed to move on its Russia probe. He that said at the time he was arguing to aggressively investigate the Trump campaign even though doing so could put a source at risk.
“While it isn’t likely according to all the pollsters and everybody that candidate Trump is elected, we need to make sure we are protecting America,” Strzok said at the hearing, explaining what he was arguing at the time the text message was sent. “We need to responsibly and aggressively investigate these actions, because you know what, if candidate Trump is elected, there might be people we need to be investigating that might be nominated for important security positions. Everybody in America would want to know that. Candidate Trump would want to know that.”
In the August 2016 text, which was revealed as part of a Justice Department Inspector General investigation, Strzok referenced a meeting he and Page attended with then-FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe.
“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. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…” Strzok’s text said.
In Strzok’s retelling of the discussions that he was referencing in the text, some were advocating for the FBI to move slowly — and not put the sensitive source who had provided information at risk — since Trump was not expected to win the election.
“What I’m saying is look we’re the FBI. We need to do our job. We need to go investigate,” he recalled Thursday of his sentiments in that text.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/strzok-explains-insurance-policy-text
If that doesn’t cover what “insurance policy” means, then you aren’t looking for an answer, you’re trying to keep the original hornswaggle alive.
2 Likes
This is simply not true. Not surprised to see you ran with that idiot dimocrat talking point though.
