Jump to content

Strzok Testimony

babysdaddy

By babysdaddy
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Swam@Texas
Swam@Texas

For some reason, it's taking more than five minutes for every member of Congress and every American citizen to understand the incredibly simple concept that someone who texted "Fuck Trump" to his mist

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

Just a few general observations: 1) This notion that the FBI is some left-wing cabal is mildly amusing.  The FBI is probably the most Republican agency in the federal government.   2) Underl

Swam@Texas
Swam@Texas

1) They are elected officials with clearly understood adversarial agendas, not law enforcement officials who are tasked with objectively acting on behalf of the American people. 2) So if there wa

Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25843

Posted
Posted
On 7/14/2018 at 10:27 PM, Swam@Texas said:

Completely unrelated to this thread, but you do realize the tapes of Mark Fuhrman using the n-word and disparaging women were all from a screenplay development in which he was asked to audition  to play a corrupt/dirty cop, right? This is the equivalent of claiming Will Ferrell is homophobic based on a scene from "Get Hard" or Steve Carrell is a racist based on what Michael Scott did during "The Office" Diversity Day episode.

 

If you're implying that Furman was reading from a script, you're a lying motherfucker.  

He was telling "war stories" to a writer that was working on a screenplay.  He was a "technical advisor" of a sort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21071

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

If you're implying that Furman was reading from a script, you're a lying motherfucker.  

He was telling "war stories" to a writer that was working on a screenplay.  He was a "technical advisor" of a sort. 

I mean, we know Swam is a lying motherfucker.  I don’t get your if/then statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceHands

DiceHands 349

Posted
Posted (edited)

Whats hilarious is that trump defending morons think the FBI can't be trusted, yet they ask every day for the FBI to help them find the missing emails.

The FBI would be their best friend if they ever found that magical missing server that is supposedly the answer to every question in existence. 

 

Edited by DiceHands
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11358

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I did not see that coming. This is really troubling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.a5f388f64199&tid=sm_fb

i find it extremely troubling. of course the texts were inappropriate personal communication on a public device. however, we cannot expect fbi agents to be completely without political opinion any more than we cannot expect the same out of our armed services. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I did not see that coming. This is really troubling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.a5f388f64199&tid=sm_fb

Eh, he did a bunch of goofy, stupid shit.  Did it affect anything besides the outward appearance of the FBI?  No.  Did he bring scorn on the FBI? Yes.

 

As one-time head of counterintel, he was the top US domestic spy.  He put himself in a very compromising position with the affair.

 

Also, nothing I see directly ties it to "texts."  It seems to be the aggregate of his actions.  The IG report only considered his actions within the context of the Clinton investigation.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45428

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i find it extremely troubling. of course the texts were inappropriate personal communication on a public device. however, we cannot expect fbi agents to be completely without political opinion any more than we cannot expect the same out of our armed services. 

To put a finer point on it, is there any public office or position of public service for which we demand apolitical robots?  We don't for SCOTUS.  We obviously don't for either the executive or legislative branches, prosecutors and the like (DA, etc.), military, street cops, etc.  There is no chance top brass at CIA/NSA/FBI has zero political opinion (GHW Bush, Mueller, etc.).  

It's just not realistic.  Yeah, Strzok fucked up, not for having opinions, but for  (a) making it look like he might not be able to remain objective despite his opinions and (b) failing to avoid dipping his pen in company ink.

 

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15327

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i find it extremely troubling. of course the texts were inappropriate personal communication on a public device. however, we cannot expect fbi agents to be completely without political opinion any more than we cannot expect the same out of our armed services. 

Not only can we not expect it; we have an entire amendment to the Constitution protecting it.  It's actually the first one.

No--federal employees do not have to be apolitical.  And they damned sure and shit don't have to toe the party line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

You people are missing the point.  It's not that he was texting political opinions that got him fired.  It is that he was texting political opinions over the subject of an investigation he was heading that got him fired.  As long as said agents weren't involved with the Hillary investigation there wouldn't be anything wrong with them sending anti-Hillary texts.  If Strzok were not involved with the Trump investigation the texts wouldn't have been a big deal.  Any texts like this made by investigators during an investigation are going to be brought up in the trial by the defense's attorneys and would risk any evidence gathered by that investigator to be rendered inadmissible.  That is why he was fired..

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45428

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Any texts like this made by investigators during an investigation are going to be brought up in the trial by the defense's attorneys and would risk any evidence gathered by that investigator to be rendered inadmissible.  That is why he was fired..

I'd like to hear some surlytorney opinions on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22571

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

You people are missing the point.  It's not that he was texting political opinions that got him fired.  It is that he was texting political opinions over the subject of an investigation he was heading that got him fired.  As long as said agents weren't involved with the Hillary investigation there wouldn't be anything wrong with them sending anti-Hillary texts.  If Strzok were not involved with the Trump investigation the texts wouldn't have been a big deal.  Any texts like this made by investigators during an investigation are going to be brought up in the trial by the defense's attorneys and would risk any evidence gathered by that investigator to be rendered inadmissible.  That is why he was fired..

To be clear, Strzok spent at most a few months on the Trump case.  Anything that has transpired since the Summer of 2017 has nothing to do with him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4026

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You mean the guy who refused to answer if he had planted evidence and who perjured himself?  That guy?

Beat me to it. To compare Strzok to fucking Fuhrman, a guy who was caught gleefully bragging on tape how he "framed/beat up niggers," gloated about some pretty horrific incidents on his record, including a few dozen claims of brutality, is just flat out dishonest. I'm not even going to say "intellectually dishonest," it's just flat out fucking lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89304

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I would bet my life against anyone else's that if we could review all personal texts sent between agents on their official FBI phones during the 2016 campaign then we'd find more than a few that are anti-Hillary. Let's see them all. 

You Know that it would be NOTHING but them Texting their LOVERS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

Government.

I can't believe it took them this long to fire.

Biased investigation - you're fired.

Appearance of biased investigation - you're fired.

And yes, life isn't fair.  I'm sure if you looked at everyone's texts you'd have 100 new cases of apparent bias.  But he got caught in the cross hairs.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Government.

I can't believe it took them this long to fire.

Biased investigation - you're fired.

Appearance of biased investigation - you're fired.

And yes, life isn't fair.  I'm sure if you looked at everyone's texts you'd have 100 new cases of apparent bias.  But he got caught in the cross hairs.

 

When I was in  law school in the late 80s, early 90s and the economy wasn't so great, the FBI was an option many people were considering.  But they were known to do extensive background checking (so does the Texas bar), with an emphasis on party habits.  They were known to polygraph over drug usage, drinking, and other personal behavior and the whole thing was quite intimidating and rumors swirled as to what exactly would disqualify one.  They seemed quite concerned with "character" above reproach, particularly as concerned appearances rather than substance.

 

Granted, that's been almost 30 years, but I doubt a whole lot has changed.  I'd think fucking a co-worker, particularly while married, would be quite fatal to one's FBI career, particularly once it became public knowledge (I'm sure cover-ups and ignoring all but the most obvious are par for the course for more senior leadership).

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45428

Posted
Posted

I grew up with a gal whose Dad was the local FBI field agent.  Man, I had a thing for her.  She ended up fucking the married track coach most of our senior year, dealing coke all over central Missouri (including to cops), and now is a jailer in western Missouri.  She and her Dad are raving hard-core Trumpkins who spew about morals 24/7.

Just a data point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18487

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

You people are missing the point.  It's not that he was texting political opinions that got him fired.  It is that he was texting political opinions over the subject of an investigation he was heading that got him fired.  As long as said agents weren't involved with the Hillary investigation there wouldn't be anything wrong with them sending anti-Hillary texts.  If Strzok were not involved with the Trump investigation the texts wouldn't have been a big deal.  Any texts like this made by investigators during an investigation are going to be brought up in the trial by the defense's attorneys and would risk any evidence gathered by that investigator to be rendered inadmissible.  That is why he was fired..

The same thing was happening with agents who were investigating Clinton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25843

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i find it extremely troubling. of course the texts were inappropriate personal communication on a public device. however, we cannot expect fbi agents to be completely without political opinion any more than we cannot expect the same out of our armed services. 

Trey Gowdy investigated Hillary for years.  I wonder what his texts looked like.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25843

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

When I was in  law school in the late 80s, early 90s and the economy wasn't so great, the FBI was an option many people were considering.  But they were known to do extensive background checking (so does the Texas bar), with an emphasis on party habits.  They were known to polygraph over drug usage, drinking, and other personal behavior and the whole thing was quite intimidating and rumors swirled as to what exactly would disqualify one.  They seemed quite concerned with "character" above reproach, particularly as concerned appearances rather than substance.

 

Granted, that's been almost 30 years, but I doubt a whole lot has changed.  I'd think fucking a co-worker, particularly while married, would be quite fatal to one's FBI career, particularly once it became public knowledge (I'm sure cover-ups and ignoring all but the most obvious are par for the course for more senior leadership).

That's why a disproportionate number of FBI/CIA are Mormons.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17407

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

You people are missing the point.  It's not that he was texting political opinions that got him fired.  It is that he was texting political opinions over the subject of an investigation he was heading that got him fired.  As long as said agents weren't involved with the Hillary investigation there wouldn't be anything wrong with them sending anti-Hillary texts.  If Strzok were not involved with the Trump investigation the texts wouldn't have been a big deal.  Any texts like this made by investigators during an investigation are going to be brought up in the trial by the defense's attorneys and would risk any evidence gathered by that investigator to be rendered inadmissible.  That is why he was fired..

What's the basis to exclude evidence? Are you under the impression that the guys investigating drug lords or murders don't have negative opinions about them? I'm not aware of any constitutional right to have the people investigating you to believe you are an upstanding individual. I mean fuck, do you want the cops to only investigate people they think are innocent? Does that make any sense to you?

Sure, those negative opinions could potentially be used by the defense on cross to discredit the investigator. But absent some constitutional violation, the evidence gathered isn't going to be rendered inadmissible. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What's the basis to exclude evidence? Are you under the impression that the guys investigating drug lords or murders don't have negative opinions about them? I'm not aware of any constitutional right to have the people investigating you to believe you are an upstanding individual. I mean fuck, do you want the cops to only investigate people they think are innocent? Does that make any sense to you?

Sure, those negative opinions could potentially be used by the defense on cross to discredit the investigator. But absent some constitutional violation, the evidence gathered isn't going to be rendered inadmissible. 

Very much this.

"Hey Brisketexan, we want you to investigate this Snidely Whiplash fella."

Brisketexan:

"Okay, will do, boss."  [investigation commences]

"Holy crap, our surveillance just captured images of Snidely Whiplash tying Penelope to the railroad tracks!"

hqdefault.jpg

Brisketexan note to one of his fellow agents: "Snidely Whiplash is scum, and we need to take this guy DOWN!"

 

Trumpkins: "Brisketexan needs to be fired and the investigation needs to be tossed out because of Brisketexan's obvious bias!"

 

That's how this shit works in Trumpland.  Which is a land of fucking insanity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Very much this.

"Hey Brisketexan, we want you to investigate this Snidely Whiplash fella."

Brisketexan:

"Okay, will do, boss."  [investigation commences]

"Holy crap, our surveillance just captured images of Snidely Whiplash tying Penelope to the railroad tracks!"

hqdefault.jpg

Brisketexan note to one of his fellow agents: "Snidely Whiplash is scum, and we need to take this guy DOWN!"

 

Trumpkins: "Brisketexan needs to be fired and the investigation needs to be tossed out because of Brisketexan's obvious bias!"

 

That's how this shit works in Trumpland.  Which is a land of fucking insanity.

Always knew you were an "obstructionist democrat."  👹👹

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What's the basis to exclude evidence? Are you under the impression that the guys investigating drug lords or murders don't have negative opinions about them? I'm not aware of any constitutional right to have the people investigating you to believe you are an upstanding individual. I mean fuck, do you want the cops to only investigate people they think are innocent? Does that make any sense to you?

Sure, those negative opinions could potentially be used by the defense on cross to discredit the investigator. But absent some constitutional violation, the evidence gathered isn't going to be rendered inadmissible. 

I think Strozk's texts were more of the general disdain for Trump, not that he was or was not innocent of a crime.  I can't believe this idiot is going to be President, He's going to be the ruin of the country sort of thing.  That general, non-crime related opinion is a little more relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17407

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think Strozk's texts were more of the general disdain for Trump, not that he was or was not innocent of a crime.  I can't believe this idiot is going to be President, He's going to be the ruin of the country sort of thing.  That general, non-crime related opinion is a little more relevant.

I didn't say his opinions wouldn't be relevant in a trial. They very well could be (although I could see a judge excluding them for having their relevance outweighed by unfair prejudice). That still doesn't result in evidence of the investigation being inadmissible absent some concrete constitutional violation. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't say his opinions wouldn't be relevant in a trial. They very well could be (although I could see a judge excluding them for having their relevance outweighed by unfair prejudice). That still doesn't result in evidence of the investigation being inadmissible absent some concrete constitutional violation. 

It’s a stepping stone to theories of fabrication and what not.  Provides a motive.  So it might not be an admissibility issue, but it would be an argument to discredit potions of the investigation.   It weakens the prosecution.  Nip it at the bud. 

 

I was more reacting to your and Brisket’s reaction “you want the fbi investigating people they think are innocent?” which seemed to imply a belief that the texts in question were discussions of the guilt of the crime being investigated, which would would be perfectly normal.  I didn’t think they were (although I can’t really be bothered to look it up).  I thought they were just texts discussing Trump’s shittiness.  You don’t want those floating around.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15327

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It’s a stepping stone to theories of fabrication and what not.  Provides a motive.  So it might not be an admissibility issue, but it would be an argument to discredit potions of the investigation.   It weakens the prosecution.  Nip it at the bud. 

 

I was more reacting to your and Brisket’s reaction “you want the fbi investigating people they think are innocent?” which seemed to imply a belief that the texts in question were discussions of the guilt of the crime being investigated, which would would be perfectly normal.  I didn’t think they were (although I can’t really be bothered to look it up).  I thought they were just texts discussing Trump’s shittiness.  You don’t want those floating around.  

You're not going to get those into evidence.

Unless you have a sting operation, the investigator didn't personally see anything.  The investigator only uncovered evidence/witnesses that reflect the commission of a crime.  So the credibility of the investigator doesn't make any fact more or less likely, and is thus irrelevant.

The exception to that is the Fuhrman scenario, in which the investigator is accused of having planted evidence.  In that scenario, the credibility of the investigator is an issue.  But I don't think anybody has accused Strzok of planting evidence (and I'm not sure how it would even be possible for him to do so, given the nature of the possible crimes).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17407

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It’s a stepping stone to theories of fabrication and what not.  Provides a motive.  So it might not be an admissibility issue, but it would be an argument to discredit potions of the investigation.   It weakens the prosecution.  Nip it at the bud. 

 

I was more reacting to your and Brisket’s reaction “you want the fbi investigating people they think are innocent?” which seemed to imply a belief that the texts in question were discussions of the guilt of the crime being investigated, which would would be perfectly normal.  I didn’t think they were (although I can’t really be bothered to look it up).  I thought they were just texts discussing Trump’s shittiness.  You don’t want those floating around.  

I don't see the distinction between texts saying this is a terrible person and this is a terrible person particularly because of the crimes I'm investigating. The very fact that the person is ostensibly a criminal of bad moral character, likely means he is bad in other aspects of life as well. I agree that both those opinions could weaken the prosecution if allowed into evidence.  But I don't think there is anything legally important about the distinction between the two. I also think that absent some evidence that the investigation itself was tainted, most judges wouldn't allow that stuff into evidence (of course I don't practice criminal law, so I could be wrong). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Very much this.

"Hey Brisketexan, we want you to investigate this Snidely Whiplash fella."

Brisketexan:

"Okay, will do, boss."  [investigation commences]

"Holy crap, our surveillance just captured images of Snidely Whiplash tying Penelope to the railroad tracks!"

hqdefault.jpg

Brisketexan note to one of his fellow agents: "Snidely Whiplash is scum, and we need to take this guy DOWN!"

 

Trumpkins: "Brisketexan needs to be fired and the investigation needs to be tossed out because of Brisketexan's obvious bias!"

 

That's how this shit works in Trumpland.  Which is a land of fucking insanity.

Nice.  You blowing Sour Diesel or Some gorilla Glue ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...