Peter Strzok

[Lewkowski]

How is it partisan when he was negative on Clinton too? If he was negative on Trump but positive for Clinton you might have a point. Though everyone is entitled to a personal belief anyway.

It was about a hundred million to zero when it came to Trump va Clinton in his mind. That’s like saying because I have said some negative things about Trump that I am unbiased when it comes to evaluating if a liberal politician broke the law.

Again, the texts aren’t PROOF he did something wrong. They are an indication he may have done something untoward. So would you like to make a prediction? If he gets called to testify in front of congress, do you think he will plead the 5th or not?

[Loki]

It was about a hundred million to zero when it came to Trump va Clinton in his mind. That’s like saying because I have said some negative things about Trump that I am unbiased when it comes to evaluating if a liberal politician broke the law.

Again, the texts aren’t PROOF he did something wrong. They are an indication he may have done something untoward. So would you like to make a prediction? If he gets called to testify in front of congress, do you think he will plead the 5th or not?

Having unpopular private political views is untoward? Seriously Lewk? Do you only support free speech and thought for white supremacists? An investigation requires evidence of wrongdoing. Cynical speech is not yet illegal.

[Lewkowski]

Having unpopular private political views is untoward? Seriously Lewk? Do you only support free speech and thought for white supremacists? An investigation requires evidence of wrongdoing. Cynical speech is not yet illegal.

Investigation != government sanction. Police action or congressional action to investigate does not require evidence of wrong doing. Are you suggesting every single person brought before the judiciary committee is there because of evidence of wrong doing?

Just like if someone makes a legal purchase for bomb making supplies they can be investigated even if there is no proof they have done anything wrong. The facts warrant review.

1. The guy is very partisan.
2. Due to his behavior (the texts) he was removed from an investigation
3. He was influential in another case where the outcome is suspect (Clinton is guilty of gross negligence)

All of these mean he *may* have done something untoward.

[LittleFuzzy]

Investigation != government sanction. Police action or congressional action to investigate does not require evidence of wrong doing.

Actually yes, they both do. Typically, the direct evidence of wrong-doing is that an already committed wrong has already been uncovered. The police investigating a crime that has been committed, a congressional investigation looking into, say, confirmed attempts by a foreign power to manipulate a US election. You need a predicated act of wrong-doing to base an investigation on. You can't know where an investigation might lead, what other acts might be uncovered in the course of it and also pursued, but you need that first wrong-doing to start.

[Lewkowski]

Actually yes, they both do. Typically, the direct evidence of wrong-doing is that an already committed wrong has already been uncovered. The police investigating a crime that has been committed, a congressional investigation looking into, say, confirmed attempts by a foreign power to manipulate a US election. You need a predicated act of wrong-doing to base an investigation on. You can't know where an investigation might lead, what other acts might be uncovered in the course of it and also pursued, but you need that first wrong-doing to start.

No you don't. Show me where it says Congress can't pull up whoever the hell they want in front of committee.

[LittleFuzzy]

No you don't. Show me where it says Congress can't pull up whoever the hell they want in front of committee.

You're getting confused, Lewk. You talked about a Congressional investigation and I replied on the same topic. Now you're talking about any committee meeting of any kind whatsoever. That's not the same topic. You show me where Congress has launched an investigation despite lacking any predicating wrong to prompt such an investigation in the first place.

[Lewkowski]

Let’s make it even more simple.

Mueller removed him. Binary situation here.

A. It was appropriate to remove him.
B. It was inappropriate to remove him.

A or B?

[Aimless]

Let’s make it even more simple.

Mueller removed him. Binary situation here.

A. It was appropriate to remove him.
B. It was inappropriate to remove him.

A or B?

Both A and B.

[Lewkowski]

Both A and B.

Let me guess you voted for John Kerry

[Aimless]

Let me guess you voted for John Kerry

It was appropriate to remove him from the investigation in order to avoid problems with the appearance of bias that may be highlighted by people who don't respect freedom of speech or the professionalism in organizations such as the FBI. It was inappropriate to throw him to the wolves before the matter was properly dealt with in an internal investigation, because his privately discussed opinions are perfectly legal.

Not long ago, the FBI was described as "Trumpland" by an agent, and multiple internal sources described a deep-seated bias, within the agency, against Clinton. By your reasoning, this bias should cast doubt on any investigation into Clinton's actions that may lead to an indictment. Is that what you're trying to argue?

[Aimless]

Again, the texts aren’t PROOF he did something wrong. They are an indication he may have done something untoward.

Yeah this sounds like it's totally in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. I swear Lewk it's almost as if you're turning into an alt-right caricature of a liberal.

[Lewkowski]

Yeah this sounds like it's totally in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. I swear Lewk it's almost as if you're turning into an alt-right caricature of a liberal.

We have freedom of speech, you can say 9/11 was right and proper and jihad is cool. But if you do, you should have a closer look taken at you. Would you agree? Because again, an investigation is not a government sanction. If you are jailed, fined etc that is government sanction.

[Aimless]

We have freedom of speech, you can say 9/11 was right and proper and jihad is cool. But if you do, you should have a closer look taken at you. Would you agree? Because again, an investigation is not a government sanction. If you are jailed, fined etc that is government sanction.

Would you like to be investigated for endorsing rape, physical abuse/torture and murder? Because--like terrorism and violent jihad--those, too, are illegal things. Thinking that Trump is a fucking idiot, however, is not.