Peter Strzok & Lisa Page
- Thread starter Lucy01
- Start date
That totally goes against what Limbaugh and Hannity have said for years. Why would they lie?
Yes , of course I understand that. And I don't believe there was any "signal" to believe he wasn't able to do the job impartially. Mueller dismissed him as a precautiony measure, it appears.
You guys are embarrassing yourselves with this. First, do we even know that Strzok was reassigned because of the texts? He and Page were reportedly having an affair. Maybe there's more to this than you appreciate.
Second, are you saying it was inconceivable that Republicans would stage a massive freakout over these texts? (Effectively, you'd be arguing it was inconceivable that Republicans would do exactly what they're now doing.) Strzok and Page criticized both Democrats and Republicans, but they supported Clinton over Trump, and that qualifies as a conflict of interest for Republicans. (It can't be a legitimate investigation unless it's conducted by Trump supporters, Republicans argue.) This is nonsense.
Third, even if Strzok acted inappropriately, he's gone because Mueller reassigned him. How could it possibly undermine Mueller's investigation for him to reassign someone who might not have acted impartially?
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, but this is no barrier to your baseless claims.
Except that you're probably misinterpreting the text. Maybe you guys should figure out what the facts are before you start bloviating.
CO forgot his "but I am not a Trump supporter" disclaimer...dodge, deflect, rationalize...but dont support
Nuance isn’t your strength either. I have often supported most of Trump’s policies on this forum. I have never supported his name-calling and disrespect for those who disagree with him or say disagreeable things about him.
Precautionary measure? Precaution as to what? The signaled intended bias would be the answer.
Precaution as to people like Fox and Friends and the right wing doing exactly what they are. Trying to discredit the investigation.
LOL. That’s why he kept it secret?
If Mueller is really taking competent agents off the case because he is worried about Fox and Friends, he ought to be fired.
It’s called being proactive. Instead of covering for them later. As soon as the FBI knew about the texts, these two were reassigned. Which is exactly what should have happened.
There’s not one shred of proof that their political views influenced any of their investigation. None.
Also, it’s also funny that this smear campaign emerges AFTER team Trump knows that Mueller has ALL of the transition team emails. That’s not a coincidence. State media (Fox News) has really amped up the right’s media outlets in these accusations. What’s really sad is that they are trying to tear down the FBI in the process- simply to defend team Trump. Attacking Mueller is beyond the pale, IMO. Look at the man’s service record to this country. It’s beyond reproach.
Perhaps the best evidence that this smear campaign is purely political is to look at Newt Gingrich’s statements. When Mueller was appointed, he was the bee’s knees. Now, he apparently is a vile POS in Newt’s world. It’s ridiculously easy to see what’s happening here. As Mueller and his team get close to the real dirt in the inner circle, the attacks are amped up.
It’s sickening.
Remember, this is the same party that allowed KEN Starr to investigate the Clinton’s for 4-5 years, and his investigation eventually ended up not being about a land deal gone bad, but a damn BJ. Yet, somehow, that was OK and this is not. We’re talking about a foreign power infiltrating and potentially influencing our damn president and his administration. That’s a little more important than a BJ, don’t ya think?
Let Mueller continue to investigate. If actual bias can be shown, then address it at that point. Mueller removing these two was actually a good thing- he’s sensitive to appearances. As he should be. This is a really important investigation, and politics should not factor in. At all.
The hypocrisy of some folks amazes me.
It’s called ethics. Something I learned about in law school. It’s not enough to avoid actual bias, you should also remove anything that could be construed/perceived as bias. It’s amazing that folks defending Trump are attacking Mueller’s team/investigation for not being ethical. That’s what you call “extreme irony”.
C’mon CO. You know this isn’t about being worried about what Fox News would say. It’s about being ethical.
Think about it like this. IF Mueller’s team uncovers damning evidence and lays it all out in his report, why would he want to give ANYONE any ammo to discredit it based on grounds of it being biased?
Distract. Deflect. Discredit. Whatabout. Create false equivalencies. The right has really perfected these techniques in their attacks on this investigation.
For those around when watergate happened, did the pubs largely stay away? Or were their rumblings about dismissing the prosecutor before Nixon did it? I’m curious.
Only if he had evidence that the bias actually affected his duties in the investigation. You’re assuming that it affected the investigation in some way. That’s a leap too far at this point.
Three things.
1. I agree with you, Mueller removed him cuz of ethics.
2. I responded to zeke’s assertion that it was precautionary.
3. Mueller had an affirmative ethical duty to disclose the ethical lapse to the defense because in this instance Strzok’s ethical lapse is exculpatory.
He discussed his political concerns with others. That’s collusion. He didn’t just keep it to himself.
It was precautionary. There were no ethics violations. He was worried about the way it would look to people like you, trying to be dismissive of the investigation, just as Mueller knew would happen. He appears to be a step ahead of everyone and probably a mile ahead of Trump's team.
So far ahead he still has nothing regarding collusion after 8 million spent and countless weeks on the case. Why yes he is way ahead of the DT team. He is so far ahead Trump won't even think about firing him. He has played right into DT's hand. Hell even staunch Dems are now saying Mueller screwed the pooch.
My comments aren't taking a position either way although I do have my own thoughts about the investigation. This place and the nation has been and is currently consumed with this investigation by both sides on the issue.
You mentioned the Newt change of heart on Mueller. Your position is pretty clear on Mueller and the investigation. You seem certain that he will find enough to hang or destroy Trump and that Mueller is above reproach. But.....what if he doesn't find anything noteworthy after what ever the length of time involved happens to be. What if the end result is a few convictions for lying to the feds, tax problems, and other assorted small stuff not directly related to Trump or his admin? Will you personally be satisfied at this point or will you then do a "Newt"? I don't know about you personally but I would think it a safe bet that many now lauding Mueller would viciously turn on him and hell even calling for him to be investigated. That's politics today.
Will you be satisfied with the end report of the Mueller investigation if it goes differently than you wish and anticipate it to?
Like Comey was a great American until he failed to indict Hillary? You mean like that?
Yes, exactly like that. Comey was hot and cold several times for both sides. I suspect if Mueller finds nothing notable and his reports indicate so then many holding him up high and worthy now will be turning on him as many did with Mr. Comey.
Of course all Gov employees have their views on politics. That said, when employees take actions based upon their political beliefs, that is wrong. But of course you know that.
What actions did they take? Fill me in. Did they force Mike Flynn to lie? C’mon, tell me, what action did they take?
I thought that was Hillary and the Russians. Is it getting hard to keep your troll stories straight?
Do you realize you've been playing this character for over three years, now? That is some serious dedication.
For one they changed the wording on the final report re: the HRC email investigation so that it was not stated to be a crime. More than that? An investigation is needed to determine if there was anything other than that.
As far as the Mueller investigation I am a supporter of it too. The thing is there IS an investigation and it will lead to some kind of a conclusion. If Trump is guilty I want to know. I feel the same about HRC, Obama, etc.
My belief is that All of Washington is and has been corrupt for a very long time. All of it it’s time to drain the swamp.
Actually, that was a very necessary change. Because Comey was going to be announcing that there would be no criminal charges, leaving the "grossly negligent" language from the rough draft in the text would have been a huge mistake. It doesn't matter who physically made the change. Once they decided not to pursue charges, they had to come up with a different phrase (because "grossly negligent" has a legal meaning that would have implied criminal charges were appropriate).
That’s what you do when something isn’t a crime. You might not like that there are different standards of criminality for people in high office, but there are and there are practical reasons for this. Certain criteria had to met and they weren’t met. But you keep at it. You’ll get them Duke boys this time.
If I shoot an unarmed person who’s on their knees in a hotel hallway, it’s murder, I’m guilty, and I spend my remaining years in a cage. If a cop does it, not guilty and they lose their job.
See? Different standards depending on who you are.
I believe the point was that it appeared there would be charges given the way it was originally written but was changed. The implication was that a change of mind occurred to not press charges.
That's not only unrealistic, it's also incompatible with testimony on the matter. They decided not to recommend charges, but Comey nevertheless felt Clinton deserved a public rebuke. So they worked on a speech. The rough draft had "grossly negligent" in it, but they wisely changed it because of the legal meaning of the phrase.
They worked on the speech in May? They were complete in May?
Here is the timeline
May 20, 2016. Comey issues draft memo exonerating HRC but includes language indicating she broke the law. Later it is changed.
June 9, 2016. Pres Obama officially endorses HRC while the FBI is still “investigating”. Do you really believe that Pres Obama would publicly endorse HRC if there was any chance she was going to be charged with anything? This told the world nothing was coming down. It was a done deal.
June 28, 2016. Lynch and Bill Clinton have meeting on Lynch’s plane.
July 2, 2016. HRC is “interviewed” by the FBI, no records kept, no recordings made .....this was obviously a check mark that was needed to make it look like the FBI was thorough
July 5, 2016. Comey press conference where he comes down hard on HRC but without recommending charges.
And the American people are to believe that an investigation was throughly completed? right!
I'm not the one claiming it was changed at the last minute; you are. Now you're saying just the opposite, but still it's somehow corrupt for reasons that don't make any sense.
Again, the language needed to be changed, because using the phrase "grossly negligent" to describe someone you are not going to charge with a crime isn't sensible. This isn't a scandal. It's just someone fixing language to make it better and more consistent.
