Good for Strzok!

Clearly, you are not equipped to appreciate metaphor. Not my problem.

The kindergarten playground taunts tell me all I need to know about you.

 

Deportation in the cards here?

 

What on earth makes you think that information that an oversight committee has total rights to should be withheld by a FBI agent because a FBI lawyer told him not to tell?????

 

It is very simple to me. Trump can declassify everything the FBI is hiding with regards to the hearings. He needs to do it.

 

Uhmmm... did you even watch the interrogation?

The question you ask was answered during the proceedings.

There is a video several messages above, on this same thread. It's only a tiny part, but I believe the part that addresses this is included.

I haven't seen a single Republican commenting here on this thread about Strzoc's testimony who actually saw it! Not one. But, of courese, your don't actually need to watch it if all you're going to do is go to Fox News and repeat whatever Hannity tells you.

 

most do not want Trump obstructing justice like that

if you allow Trump to do it, that means future democrats can do it too, many the party in power is above the law

 

Meh, then you aren't paying attention. I saw the whole thing. The chutzpah of Strzok was incredible. Anyone that believes he was not biased is either a fool or ...

 

Yeah... but the trick is to be awake when you watch it. The video is further above on this thread.

 

Are you insinuating that because I did not see every bob and weave and every tap dance and fart by Strzok I am missing key facts of the case? Dream on in your reverie.

 

No. I'm not insinuating that. I'm affirming that. As a matter of fact, you missed what was probably the most important part of the circus. It includes the part where the reason why Strzoc is not allowed to answer the questions that he didn't answer is explained. Have no fear, though. It is in the clip that is in this thread. About 3 or 4 pages back, I think.

 

He said he could not answer certain questions because some lawyer at the FBI said he couldn't. Not much different from a witness telling a grand jury that he can't answer questions because his mommy said he can't.

 

So, Ill just ask you this. If the only product of the interference was personal data from the election machines, how did that either a) translate into the interference you reference, or b) how did votes actually change because of it? Obama promised us that neither of these two cases were factual. Turns out, that perhaps, at least in IL, he was mistaken, at least to the extent that personal data may have been viewed.

So, what, again, do you claim is the impact of these attempts to view data in these systems?

 

No no no! You say an absurdity because you refuse to watch the video. So I'l summarize it for you.

First, the corresponding rule is read on the floor. At which point it's clear that the question shouldn't even be asked. But Gowdy asks anyway. So Strzoc asks for permission to consult with the FBI attorney who is sitting right there behind him.if he can respond. They say "no you can't consult with attorneys. Respond or we'll prosecute you for contempt!" (clear violation of his rights) He has to plead with them until, after much yelling and screaming (none of it from Strzoc) they finally allow it. So he turns around and asks The attorney says NO! You can see it on the video. The attorney is sitting right next to other FBI agents who, more than likely, are there just to take Strzoc away in handcuffs in case he decides to answer anyway.

My God, man! What is it with Trump fanatics that you can't even take a "peek" at the actual events.

I assure you: there is no nudity, if that's what you're afraid of seeing

 

You described nothing that affects my claim. You simply described a melodramatic way that Strzok was incorrectly told by a FBI lawyer what he can't say.

 

Incorrectly? What? What is incorrect about it?

I see... in the absence of arguments, you just make up reality. And, of course, that wouldn't work for you if you watched the episode that you are criticizing. It's what cults do. You have elected to live in your own fantasy world because the real world is unbearable.

I find it dehumanizing.....

 

An FBI lawyer does not and cannot decide what information a congressional committee is allowed to have. They can only decide what information they don't want the committee to have, and that is usually downright embarrassing information. Or they can advise their client to plead the 5th. They can decide if the information can be given in public hearings or not.

 

But they can decide what to tell the witness what would land them in jail. And the other FBI agents who were sitting behind him can decide what color handcuffs they will use to carry him out if he didn't follow the attorneys' advice.

Watch the video! Or, at least, read the summary I sent.

Your refusing to do so is making you repeat statements over and over that only make you look more foolish every time.

 

Why on earth do you think that not following one's lawyers advice is a crime??????? Pray tell, what would they have arrested and handcuffed him for? Section 101.1 not doing what your lawyer -- or mommy -- says??????

 

Are you being purposefully disingenuous? Who says it's a crime? Other than you, I mean.

I have been too many times in debates with right wingers to now know that this is how you guys try to change the subject. Won't work...

Don't you find it as interesting as I do how first you assumed that it would be for "not following one's lawyers advice" and now you suddenly changed. I find it fascinating. This is the kind of things that signal to me that the right winger feels "cornered"

He would be charged with whatever statute does not allow FBI agents to disseminate information about an ongoing investigation.

 

I can't ignore it because it is backed by the prevailing powers, and that is all. It exists because people believe in it, but cultures can change.

 

Probably not true, but too irrelevant to verify. The point is that the information was used as a weapon against the democrats, not as some kind of effort at transparency. It was done by the Russians, probably with collusion by some Americans. The recent indictment of the Russians indicates a congressional candidate solicited Guccifer for information on their opponent, for example. More shoes to drop it seems. I hope it's Nunes, would explain a lot.

 

If the dems had not rigged the election against Bernie there would have been nothing to "weaponize". Funny how you want to portray democrats as complete and defenseless victims here. The truth is the dems were exposed for being under handed and also sucking at cyber security.

 

The only information that we know was 100% used as a weapon in coordination with the FBI, the DNC, Clinton, law firms, the Obama administration, foreign intelligence people and Russia was the "dossier".

Mueller's ham sandwich was probably in on it too.

 

It's not that simple. The Constitution is the law of the land, and it codifies our core values. It takes a lot more than simple cultural change (and I'll withhold comment on the idea of a culture evolving to want to have LESS freedom); it will require a Constitutional convention to be called, and for a supermajority of the American people to support the changes that may or may not result.