Good for Strzok!

You said I was insulting Mattis and Kelly champ. That is a lie. You are the one who twisted and deflected like a Trumpster.

 

That is exactly what I mean: and the question might have been "relevant", but Congress had no right to even ask for them at this point. It's an ongoing investigation. And the only reason they wanted those answers was to undermine that investigation and protect Trump. And whether "looking like child" or not.. he left it clear why they wanted those answers, and why they should not have them.

Other than that... you can hang Strzok, for all I care. He has served his purpose.

But look at the spectacle the House has made, just to protect Trump. If they had spent even a tiny part of tha energy to protect the country against an attack by a foreign nation, then we would all be making fun of Strzok. As it is, the clowns turned out to be the Republicans.

 

Meh, pure horse hockey.

 

I would have used more syllables, but the meaning would have been, in essence, the same.

 

He didn't they were already on hand when he took office. The place is still full of Obama hold overs. And this farcical investigation exist almost entirely to keep Trump from being able to clean house

 

The bottom line, folks, is that the Republicans didn't condemn Strzok for his testimony, but for the character assassinations the Republican leveled at him. Their display of tripping over themselves to launch hideous personal attacks was disgraceful to say the least. But there will be a day of reckoning.

 

Yeah, Trump brought in a bunch of winners alright. He has had to fire more of his own picks in the first year and a half than the last three presidents did in 24 years. Deep State, my ass.

 

Sometimes the belief that you are the smartest guy in the room can come back to bite you in the ass Strozk's nonsense you mentioned is a classic example of that. Mad scientists or in this case intemperate weasels always have to show how smart they are.

 

It also exists to coverup the crimes committed by shillary, the FBI and DOJ.

 

Yep almost all of them Jack ass deep staters recommended by others.

 

Right champ, it couldn't be that Trump is responsible for his own bad judgement, could it. Deep State made me do it defense. It will be interesting to see if this nonsense will fly in court. I think not.

 

It's fascinating to see Steve Bannon's talking points filter all the down to the bottom feeders.

 

Because he { Trump } didn't.That was Your boy Obama.
More and more Americans are finding out what Obama was
really up to.His real Transformation.To weaken the Middle
Class and virtually take the American Dream off the table.
For the Middle Class.But not for his Deep State bureaucrats.
More Millionaires created under Obama than any time in American
history.

 

When it happens, take some oxy, lie down and try not to groan to much. Are you scared?

 

Anyone who can get behind the persona of Strzok are the people who require medication.

I don't take drugs of any kind, other than the occassional tylenol, but you do you.

 

Maybe. Gerrymandering itself is a cynical assault on fair elections and I would love to see it undone and a more ethically based system pursued.

 

Trump is an outsider to washington

But he’s learning

 

And we'll leave that at that. Your take on this is clearly heartfelt, but is so completely different from what I took from what was happening that what I saw and what you saw might as well have transpired on different planets. I'm non-partisan and have reason to find the leadership of both parties to be horrifically corrupt. For the most part I detest the entire partisan duopoly. There are issues we might discuss where I would come off sounding like the farthest left liberal, and others where I would sound like a complete right-winger. When it comes to politicians I find them all to be unethical.

In this case, however, I saw a man utterly devoid of morality, conscience, or ethics sitting before a Congressional committee and exposing himself as a sociopath. I did not see the Republicans engaged in any kind of threatening or badgering behavior; they were asking legitimate questions and getting justifiably angry at the contempt Strzok directed at them. The Democrats, on the other hand, were clearly doing everything they could to derail a legitimate inquiry, and in this case I find THEM to be the unethical parties.

Neither here nor there in the end. You see it your way, and I see it mine, and clearly we saw totally different things.

 

A person made an observation about Strzok, using a generic metaphor clearly indicated to illustrate how much Strzok comes across as an unethical sociopath and a totalitarian. Frankly, I think any Hollywood director would clearly hire Strzok in a heartbeat to portray the villainous and megalomaniacal villain, so I found the metaphor apt.

Your response, to compare Gowdy to a specifically monstrous historical figure, claiming they "look alike" when they don't (unless you mean they both use their eyes) came across as gradeschool taunting. Sorry, that's just my take on it. You don't have to like it, and I don't have to care what you think.

That's your take on it, and I fundamentally disagree with it. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, your take on it is so far outside the pale of what actually happened it's astonishing.

What's obvious to me is that you are a blind partisan with an agenda, and no facts, logic, or evidence will shake your commitment to it. Sorry, but I have no further time to waste on such things.

 

Right. And all the arguments on the forum are only about that dog and pony show because that is all we know about. The closed door meeting was just that and the Republicans stand alone in refusing to release the details of that meeting. What are they hiding? I guess we will have to wait and see if anything leaks.

 

I wouldn't have been nearly as polite as Strzok, given the bullshit grandstanding of the republicans on that committee. A disgraceful performance and in the end the only thing they were able to give their "base" was "his demeanor and disrespect". Not a shred of evidence of his supposed "fixing" any investigation, just disgusting innuendo and character assassination.

Using the republicans criteria for having such strong convictions of guilt on his part, It seems trump really is a traitor and its not even necessary to assassinate his character because he doesn't have enough to be worth the effort.

 

Still 4. HARRASSMENT, BAITING, TAUNTING American Eye Sea Even Russian had more tact then these Canadian trolls

 

Those that dish it out but can't take it are snowflake cowards. But I get your point. Its okay to bait and taunt a group, but not an individual. Sometimes with some of the rrrwff' around here, I just can't resist a deserved shot.

Keep up the anti troll patrol. Its a good look for you.

 

And that's an amazing feat, considering you later admitted that you hand't watched it.

I have said many times that I'm a non-partisan Democrat. And I have demonstrated it by basing my opinions on facts, and making sure I research those facts before I use them in a discussion. I have a distinct ideology, but I am profoundly anti-ideologue. Ideology should never trump "doing the right thing".

Are some issues heartfelt to me? You bet they are! And how passionate I am about dishonesty in a Congress trying to hide the crimes that their President has committed is nothing compared to my passion against abuse of children ordered by the President, or him allowing a foreign nation to attack us with impunity.

I don't. I find the majority of them, in both parties, to be very ethical. Can't vouch for competence, though. But I never assume that anybody is corrupt unless there is evidence. However, I had never seen so much evidence of corruption as we have seen in this administration. Even so, there are still many people in the Republican Party with whom I profoundly disagree with, but are most definitely honest. The large majority. Just probably not the majority of those currently in leadership positions.

As I said, I have no interest in Strzok as a person. However, I do hope you are aware that, not only was he not allowed to answer the questions related to the ongoing investigation, but also committee members had been made aware of this by Strzok's superiors. So it was completely unethical to badger him to obtain those answers.

Other than that, I feel that a truly independent person would not just.... say.... that somebody is "devoid of morality, consience or ethics" and a "sociopath" without giving any reason, basis or example of such actions. So you must forgive me but, at this point, you have yet to demonstrate the "independence" you claim to have.

If nothing else, please explain why questions about an ongoing investigation would be "a legitimate inquiry". What is it they need to know that can't wait until the investigation is over.

Include in your answer why you believe that what happened the last time authorities gave Congress confidential information about this investigation would not happen again. I remind you: last time the first thing the Committee chair did was run to the White House to improperly transmit the confidential information about the investigation to the person who was being investigated. If this was the reason why the FBI decided to not allow Strzok to disclose what he knew, do you not think it was a valid motive?

Yes. But I have explained my "way". You have yet to explain yours.