SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[happyhoix]

Oh NO! Even more bad news!

Senate intelligence committee 'unequivocally' upheld the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia developed a 'clear preference' for Donald trump and sought to help him win the White House.

Directly repudiates the House's intelligence committee (and Donald Trump) who consistently rejected assertions that Moscow tried to help Trump.

How horrible is it that the Senate intelligence committee has been overrun by deep state operatives who will stop at nothing to make Trump look bad?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-panel-upholds-finding-that-russia-backed-trump-contradicting-house/ar-AAzxDpO

Looks like the Trump Train might be derailing...

[Tennesseer]

Jul 3, 2018 15:12:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting how Benghazi died a quiet death shortly after November 2016, isn't it?

it is a shame that it didn't last until this guy got convicted:

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/benghazi-attacks-khattala-sentence.html

that would have been good for a momentary ironic chuckle.

oh, and what the fuck is Trey Gowdy, the guy who busted Clinton's balls for 2.5 years resulting in ZERO charges and ZERO convictions, doing pushing Mueller to finish an investigation after only ONE year?

that guy is a complete disgrace.

It [Benghazi] would still be out here if we could use size37, XXXXX-L font in flashing chartreuse surrounded with red, whit, and blue fireworks.

[Opti]

I think I read that same article Happy. I don't think it will derail the Trump train. Only proof of collusion will do that. Trump is pretty much legendary now for how well he can ignore reality and pretend everything is the way he wants it to be. He'll keep fooling his base IMO because neither of them want to acknowledge what happened.

Because even if Trump didn't collude with Russia, it hurts his victim/triumpher over great odds story. And he hates when he can't sell his narrative even when he knows its BS. Acknowledging Russia may have helped him win the election, would hurt his massive ego. And the egos of those who like seeing him as a in control strong authoritarian.

Sadly it will likely remain that only those of us not enamored with leaders of the authoritarian mode will feel vindicated and unsurprised. The others will likely latch on to whatever flim flam sparkly Trump speaks to distract or explain. I'd love to be wrong on the latter, but I expect I am not.

[tallguy]

You really do have to be almost criminally stupid to believe a word out of the man's mouth.  Unfortunately, the American public as a whole is not known for being particularly bright.

[OldCoyote]

Jul 3, 2018 21:27:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think I read that same article Happy. I don't think it will derail the Trump train. Only proof of collusion will do that. Trump is pretty much legendary now for how well he can ignore reality and pretend everything is the way he wants it to be. He'll keep fooling his base IMO because neither of them want to acknowledge what happened.

Because even if Trump didn't collude with Russia, it hurts his victim/triumpher over great odds story. And he hates when he can't sell his narrative even when he knows its BS. Acknowledging Russia may have helped him win the election, would hurt his massive ego. And the egos of those who like seeing him as a in control strong authoritarian.

Sadly it will likely remain that only those of us not enamored with leaders of the authoritarian mode will feel vindicated and unsurprised. The others will likely latch on to whatever flim flam sparkly Trump speaks to distract or explain. I'd love to be wrong on the latter, but I expect I am not.

Which one of you voted for Trump because of something the Russians did?

No seriously, I want to hear from some one that posts here that something, that was presented somewhere , news, media, facebook, that were going to vote for Hillary,

but because of something they heard, or saw, caused them to vote for Trump instead.

What was it they heard or saw?

[Opti]

Jul 3, 2018 22:23:01 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 3, 2018 21:27:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think I read that same article Happy. I don't think it will derail the Trump train. Only proof of collusion will do that. Trump is pretty much legendary now for how well he can ignore reality and pretend everything is the way he wants it to be. He'll keep fooling his base IMO because neither of them want to acknowledge what happened.

Because even if Trump didn't collude with Russia, it hurts his victim/triumpher over great odds story. And he hates when he can't sell his narrative even when he knows its BS. Acknowledging Russia may have helped him win the election, would hurt his massive ego. And the egos of those who like seeing him as a in control strong authoritarian.

Sadly it will likely remain that only those of us not enamored with leaders of the authoritarian mode will feel vindicated and unsurprised. The others will likely latch on to whatever flim flam sparkly Trump speaks to distract or explain. I'd love to be wrong on the latter, but I expect I am not.

Which one of you voted for Trump because of something the Russians did?

No seriously, I want to hear from some one that posts here that something, that was presented somewhere , news, media, facebook, that were going to vote for Hillary,

but because of something they heard, or saw, caused them to vote for Trump instead.

What was it they heard or saw?

AS, you have posted this in the past I believe, and the question is useless here as it was before. The people who were swayed do not post on this board and probably don't post on YMAM or anywhere for that matter. The people who were swayed are probably those who generally aren't that politically involved or aware, but were/are users of social media like FB.

Just because you won't ever get an answer to your question here on this board, does not mean it didn't happen. This is a small board compared to the US population and is self selecting. We have not had people posting who are independents and decide on the President in the last moment who rarely if ever follow politics. Plus, we here as a whole do not even know which posts and ads on social media were done by Russians. They didn't identify as Russian. The classified part of the report may have that info, but is unlikely it will be shared with the public. You may have loved some Russian ads or posts, but you may never have proof to know you did so.

[Opti]

AS, if I asked here on the boards how illegals voted, and got no answer ... would it be reasonable to assume illegals didn't exist at all simply because I got no answer on this board?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2018 22:23:01 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 3, 2018 21:27:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think I read that same article Happy. I don't think it will derail the Trump train. Only proof of collusion will do that. Trump is pretty much legendary now for how well he can ignore reality and pretend everything is the way he wants it to be. He'll keep fooling his base IMO because neither of them want to acknowledge what happened.

Because even if Trump didn't collude with Russia, it hurts his victim/triumpher over great odds story. And he hates when he can't sell his narrative even when he knows its BS. Acknowledging Russia may have helped him win the election, would hurt his massive ego. And the egos of those who like seeing him as a in control strong authoritarian.

Sadly it will likely remain that only those of us not enamored with leaders of the authoritarian mode will feel vindicated and unsurprised. The others will likely latch on to whatever flim flam sparkly Trump speaks to distract or explain. I'd love to be wrong on the latter, but I expect I am not.

Which one of you voted for Trump because of something the Russians did?

No seriously, I want to hear from some one that posts here that something, that was presented somewhere , news, media, facebook, that were going to vote for Hillary,

but because of something they heard, or saw, caused them to vote for Trump instead.

What was it they heard or saw?

it's not too much of a stretch to say that every person that voted for Trump was influenced by the Russian operation, given it's reach.  but if you want to see some of the ads, they are in this article:

www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

[happyhoix]

Jul 3, 2018 22:23:01 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 3, 2018 21:27:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think I read that same article Happy. I don't think it will derail the Trump train. Only proof of collusion will do that. Trump is pretty much legendary now for how well he can ignore reality and pretend everything is the way he wants it to be. He'll keep fooling his base IMO because neither of them want to acknowledge what happened.

Because even if Trump didn't collude with Russia, it hurts his victim/triumpher over great odds story. And he hates when he can't sell his narrative even when he knows its BS. Acknowledging Russia may have helped him win the election, would hurt his massive ego. And the egos of those who like seeing him as a in control strong authoritarian.

Sadly it will likely remain that only those of us not enamored with leaders of the authoritarian mode will feel vindicated and unsurprised. The others will likely latch on to whatever flim flam sparkly Trump speaks to distract or explain. I'd love to be wrong on the latter, but I expect I am not.

Which one of you voted for Trump because of something the Russians did?

No seriously, I want to hear from some one that posts here that something, that was presented somewhere , news, media, facebook, that were going to vote for Hillary,

but because of something they heard, or saw, caused them to vote for Trump instead.

What was it they heard or saw?

You realize that the articles the Russians posted on Facebook did not begin 'Dear American public' and end "sincerely, your Russian friends"  - right?

For instance, during the last election, one coworker kept posting racist shit on Facebook. As I reserve Facebook for looking at the beautiful babies of my relatives and kitten videos, I unfriended her, but not before one particularly memorable article she posted that claimed Muslim immigrants were bringing a new, untreatable, fatal disease with them into this country, because they are so 'dirty.' I don't remember what organization published that story, and if it was one that we since found out was created by the Russians, but we do know that they dumped a lot of made up stories that were anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-black (and also, anti-white) all in an effort to cause the US population to turn against each other, and frighten the Trump voters to motivate them to vote for Trump.

How much did that one particular nasty article influence my co-worker into voting for Trump? Not something that can be quantified into percentages and numbers.  Doesn't mean it didn't have an effect.

[djAdvocate]

what the Russians did was the equivalent of dropping a large turd into the swimming pool.  did it get noticed?  did it cause people to leave the pool?  who knows.  i don't.  i wasn't in the pool to begin with.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Jul 4, 2018 14:26:26 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 3, 2018 22:23:01 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Which one of you voted for Trump because of something the Russians did?

No seriously, I want to hear from some one that posts here that something, that was presented somewhere , news, media, facebook, that were going to vote for Hillary,

but because of something they heard, or saw, caused them to vote for Trump instead.

What was it they heard or saw?

You realize that the articles the Russians posted on Facebook did not begin 'Dear American public' and end "sincerely, your Russian friends"  - right?

For instance, during the last election, one coworker kept posting racist shit on Facebook. As I reserve Facebook for looking at the beautiful babies of my relatives and kitten videos, I unfriended her, but not before one particularly memorable article she posted that claimed Muslim immigrants were bringing a new, untreatable, fatal disease with them into this country, because they are so 'dirty.' I don't remember what organization published that story, and if it was one that we since found out was created by the Russians, but we do know that they dumped a lot of made up stories that were anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-black (and also, anti-white) all in an effort to cause the US population to turn against each other, and frighten the Trump voters to motivate them to vote for Trump.

How much did that one particular nasty article influence my co-worker into voting for Trump? Not something that can be quantified into percentages and numbers.  Doesn't mean it didn't have an effect.

and aside from that, many people when they develop opinions do not alter it even if the basis for the formation of the opinion is shown to be false: their opinions are cemented and remain unchanged.

In fact it seems that there are some people who think that never altering their views makes them seem that they are always right -  and that never acknowledging having been influenced by false information means that they weren't influenced by it.
 
it isn't pleasant to be hoodwinked, but it is far better to own it when it happens, and learn how to better evaluate information in the future.

of course there are those who knowingly promote the false information spread by others because they feel it serves their own ends. 

So - it is kind of funny really for someone to think that asking a question like "were you influenced by this false information?" would provide anything meaningful about how they were influenced.

[Tennesseer]

Why Trump's inauguration money is a major part of Mueller's Russia investigation

What happened at Donald Trump’s inauguration 18 months ago, and why does special counsel Robert Mueller appear to be so interested in it?

Last week, ABC News’s Matthew Mosk and John Santucci reported that several wealthy Russians were “granted unusual access” to Trump inauguration parties back in January 2017 — and that Mueller was seeking to find out why.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of Mueller’s interest in the inauguration. Back in April, CNN reported that the special counsel was investigating “whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and inauguration” — and had even questioned some oligarchs directly.

Aticle link here: Why Trump's inauguration money is a major part of Mueller's Russia investigation

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Jul 5, 2018 13:21:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Why Trump's inauguration money is a major part of Mueller's Russia investigation

What happened at Donald Trump’s inauguration 18 months ago, and why does special counsel Robert Mueller appear to be so interested in it?

Last week, ABC News’s Matthew Mosk and John Santucci reported that several wealthy Russians were “granted unusual access” to Trump inauguration parties back in January 2017 — and that Mueller was seeking to find out why.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of Mueller’s interest in the inauguration. Back in April, CNN reported that the special counsel was investigating “whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and inauguration” — and had even questioned some oligarchs directly.

Aticle link here: Why Trump's inauguration money is a major part of Mueller's Russia investigation

Psst...I think someone started a new thread with this??

[OldCoyote]

thehill.com/hilltv/rising/395776-memos-detail-fbis-hurry-the-f-up-pressure-to-probe-trump-campaign

Coming closer to connecting the dots showing Collusion by the FBI!

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2018 10:52:37 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

thehill.com/hilltv/rising/395776-memos-detail-fbis-hurry-the-f-up-pressure-to-probe-trump-campaign

Coming closer to connecting the dots showing Collusion by the FBI!

My takeaway was that there was a concern that a person who might be susceptible to undue influence by foreign powers was a candidate for POTUS and therefore there was an urgent need for investigation.

[dondub]

Some observations from today's Congressional grilling of Agent Strozk;

1. Strozk more than held his own against the venal witch hunters from the right.

2. Tennesee Congressman Duncan is a doofus. He's leaving though and will probably be replaced by someone worse. Tenneseer?

3. Trey Gowdy, starring once again in a losing role, is what we call out here a PAB...punk ass bitch. And what's with that hair and face scruff combo? Is he in alt band?

4. Congresswoman Jackson Lee from Texas was concise and impressive and made the righties look like jerkwads.

5. I enjoyed how Congressman Nadler kept bringing up Bannon's refusal to testify after receiving a subpoena when Gowdy and Goodlatte couldn't handle Strozk's refusal to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation based on advice from FBI counsel. Gowdy really PABbed that one.

[happyhoix]

Jul 12, 2018 13:06:18 GMT -5 dondub said:

Some observations from today's Congressional grilling of Agent Strozk;

1. Strozk more than held his own against the venal witch hunters from the right.

2. Tennesee Congressman Duncan is a doofus. He's leaving though and will probably be replaced by someone worse. Tenneseer?

3. Trey Gowdy, starring once again in a losing role, is what we call out here a PAB...punk ass bitch. And what's with that hair and face scruff combo? Is he in alt band?

4. Congresswoman Jackson Lee from Texas was concise and impressive and made the righties look like jerkwads.

5. I enjoyed how Congressman Nadler kept bringing up Bannon's refusal to testify after receiving a subpoena when Gowdy and Goodlatte couldn't handle Strozk's refusal to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation based on advice from FBI counsel. Gowdy really PABbed that one.

What a shit show. Must have been like two mules fighting over a turnip. #MAGA.  All that drama staged so the folks back home can see that their GOP reps are rabidly pro-Trump.

My favorite part was where the GOP threatened to hold Strzok in contempt for not detailing his part in the Russian investigation - Strzok said he couldn't because it was part of an ongoing investigation.

But on the other hand, when the Dems said they were going to release the transcript of Strzok's initial closed door testimony (because the GOP had been leaking cherry picked statements from that testimony in an effort to make Strzok look bad) the GOP then decided THAT testimony can't be released because the investigation is ongoing.

As for Duncan being a doofus - well, as a Southerner, I feel obligated to point out the South is not the only part of the country with it's share of doofuses. (doofi?)

[Tennesseer]

Jul 12, 2018 13:06:18 GMT -5 dondub said:

Some observations from today's Congressional grilling of Agent Strozk;

1. Strozk more than held his own against the venal witch hunters from the right.

2. Tennesee Congressman Duncan is a doofus. He's leaving though and will probably be replaced by someone worse. Tenneseer?

3. Trey Gowdy, starring once again in a losing role, is what we call out here a PAB...punk ass bitch. And what's with that hair and face scruff combo? Is he in alt band?

4. Congresswoman Jackson Lee from Texas was concise and impressive and made the righties look like jerkwads.

5. I enjoyed how Congressman Nadler kept bringing up Bannon's refusal to testify after receiving a subpoena when Gowdy and Goodlatte couldn't handle Strozk's refusal to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation based on advice from FBI counsel. Gowdy really PABbed that one.

Cannot tell you a thing about Duncan. His district is in Knoxville (east Tennessee-another world), a six hour plus drive away for me. But because Tennessee is a republican state, another republican will get his seat.

SS/DD.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 12, 2018 13:06:18 GMT -5 dondub said:

Some observations from today's Congressional grilling of Agent Strozk;

1. Strozk more than held his own against the venal witch hunters from the right.

2. Tennesee Congressman Duncan is a doofus. He's leaving though and will probably be replaced by someone worse. Tenneseer?

3. Trey Gowdy, starring once again in a losing role, is what we call out here a PAB...punk ass bitch. And what's with that hair and face scruff combo? Is he in alt band?

4. Congresswoman Jackson Lee from Texas was concise and impressive and made the righties look like jerkwads.

5. I enjoyed how Congressman Nadler kept bringing up Bannon's refusal to testify after receiving a subpoena when Gowdy and Goodlatte couldn't handle Strozk's refusal to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation based on advice from FBI counsel. Gowdy really PABbed that one.

seriously.  i am so tired of that weenie.  i can't wait until he is on the outside looking in.  and it WILL happen.

edit: if these idiots think that Strozk is going to be their punching bag, they are fools.  this is a bag that punches back, and punches hard.  the assumption that Strozk was acting out of anything other than concern for this nation was wrong.  but when you are in a closet full of people yelling the same bullcrap, it is probably hard to hear that.  raiding his private cell texts (an act of questionable legality), CHERRY PICKING THEM, and making those comments PUBLIC pissed him off- and rightly so.  i would be on fire if i were him.  this is a guy who has given his life to public service, and to be made into a villan for something he could reasonable assume was a private correspondence of little import is both horrifying and wrong, imo.  i hope that he causes the assholes that made this an issue nothing short of misery.

[dondub]

When Goodlatte called for a recess they showed Strozk. He had a wicked smile on that said 'I kicked your ass you dumb fucks'. Similar to what Hillary did to Gowdy in her 11 hour grilling.

[happyhoix]

I can't get past Louie Gohmert's comment:

“When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/7-key-moments-from-peter-strzok%E2%80%99s-wild-hearing/ar-AAzZaJB

Seriously, with our current president, the head of Gohmert's party, having a history with serial wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and the ones he just banged or pawed in passing, Gohmert thought it was a good idea to go there with Strozk? 

I did like how the dems brought in visuals at the end of the hearing to show how many people have been indicted/convicted so far in the Mueller investigation, to contrast with this GOP Barney Fife fixation on a mid level FBI guy's emails.

 

[Opti]

I'm not surprised by Gohmert's comment, because this is a planned circus with the only purpose is to deflect from the President. And I disagree with the NJ rep in the article. This very much is a Benghazi investigation, in that it is not a search for the truth, but a public planned smear campaign of an individual.

[OldCoyote]

Jul 13, 2018 7:20:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I can't get past Louie Gohmert's comment:

“When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/7-key-moments-from-peter-strzok%E2%80%99s-wild-hearing/ar-AAzZaJB

Seriously, with our current president, the head of Gohmert's party, having a history with serial wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and the ones he just banged or pawed in passing, Gohmert thought it was a good idea to go there with Strozk? 

I did like how the dems brought in visuals at the end of the hearing to show how many people have been indicted/convicted so far in the Mueller investigation, to contrast with this GOP Barney Fife fixation on a mid level FBI guy's emails.

 

Holy Crap, where do I even start here!!

mid level FBI guy,, Some one starting with the FBI would be ,,,,,,, Sub-terrain??

Now, Why??   Why is Strozk having to testify in the first place?  It is because this "Guy" as you put it, is a piece of crap!!!  Yea, one of our finest law enforcement personal!!

Screws around on his wife,, probably on the job,,  IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, texts.

Most of the people around him have "Retired, quit. been fired or resigned"   He is in great company,, these are our finest law enforcement people ,,

It's OK if someone else has done it??

We have hundreds of other agents that are not having to testify before Congress, why because they were not Screwing around on their other, being extremely biased in their jobs,

Now lying before Congress on the real reason for his ,,,,"QUOTES"

[Opti]

<p>"Now, Why?? Why is Strozk having to testify in the first place? It is because this "Guy" as you put it, is a piece of crap!!! Yea, one of our finest law enforcement personal!!<br><br><strong>Screws around on his wife,, probably on the job,, IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, texts."</strong></p><p><br></p><p>I don't think he's a piece of crap, but he's made questionable personal decisions. I disagree with you that personal bias translates to professional bias. I've had bosses I really didn't like. But I did the work and kept my head down. </p><p>The bolded sentence is also completely true of Trump. I have been wondering how I would feel if it turned out a Democratic candidate used a foreign power to get elected. I would be very sad especially if I had endured 8 years of the opposition in power. I do know I wouldn't buy into a BS cover story just to enable me to think my candidate didn't put the US at risk simply to get elected. </p>

[Tennesseer]

[djAdvocate]

Jul 13, 2018 7:20:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I can't get past Louie Gohmert's comment:

“When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/7-key-moments-from-peter-strzok%E2%80%99s-wild-hearing/ar-AAzZaJB

Seriously, with our current president, the head of Gohmert's party, having a history with serial wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and the ones he just banged or pawed in passing, Gohmert thought it was a good idea to go there with Strozk? 

I did like how the dems brought in visuals at the end of the hearing to show how many people have been indicted/convicted so far in the Mueller investigation, to contrast with this GOP Barney Fife fixation on a mid level FBI guy's emails.

he's another guy whose kidneys should be served with fauva beans, a nice chianti, and a side of asparagus.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 13, 2018 8:50:21 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 13, 2018 7:20:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I can't get past Louie Gohmert's comment:

“When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/7-key-moments-from-peter-strzok%E2%80%99s-wild-hearing/ar-AAzZaJB

Seriously, with our current president, the head of Gohmert's party, having a history with serial wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and the ones he just banged or pawed in passing, Gohmert thought it was a good idea to go there with Strozk? 

I did like how the dems brought in visuals at the end of the hearing to show how many people have been indicted/convicted so far in the Mueller investigation, to contrast with this GOP Barney Fife fixation on a mid level FBI guy's emails.

Holy Crap, where do I even start here!!

mid level FBI guy,, Some one starting with the FBI would be ,,,,,,, Sub-terrain??

Now, Why??   Why is Strozk having to testify in the first place?  It is because this "Guy" as you put it, is a piece of crap!!!  Yea, one of our finest law enforcement personal!!

Screws around on his wife,, probably on the job,,  IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, texts.

no, it is you that are wrong.  this guy was at the top of his game when he was fired.  and although he said some controversial stuff (which was his main fault) there is ZERO evidence of bias in his work.

this is precisely the mistake that Republicans make ALL THE TIME.  they assume that people can't separate their private feelings from their work.  this is absurd.  but you guys really seem to believe it.

IE: i think tobacco companies suck.  i contribute money to campaigns run against them.  but when the call comes from RJR, i don't refuse it.  that is because i run a business.  that business has workers that need things to do in order to get paid.  i am not going to let my PERSONAL BIASES undermine my work.

besides, and this is crucial: why WOULDN'T a person be PERSONALLY biased against Trump?  MANY PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM, INCLUDING SOME ON THIS VERY BOARD are also PERSONALLY biased against him.  but, like Strzok (probably), it didn't stop them from voting for him.  Trump is pretty clearly an asshole.  everyone knows it by now.  but sometimes assholes are effective leaders.  not in this case, but sometimes.

[happyhoix]

Jul 13, 2018 8:50:21 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 13, 2018 7:20:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I can't get past Louie Gohmert's comment:

“When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife's eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/7-key-moments-from-peter-strzok%E2%80%99s-wild-hearing/ar-AAzZaJB

Seriously, with our current president, the head of Gohmert's party, having a history with serial wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and the ones he just banged or pawed in passing, Gohmert thought it was a good idea to go there with Strozk? 

I did like how the dems brought in visuals at the end of the hearing to show how many people have been indicted/convicted so far in the Mueller investigation, to contrast with this GOP Barney Fife fixation on a mid level FBI guy's emails.

 

Holy Crap, where do I even start here!!

mid level FBI guy,, Some one starting with the FBI would be ,,,,,,, Sub-terrain??

Now, Why??   Why is Strozk having to testify in the first place?  It is because this "Guy" as you put it, is a piece of crap!!!  Yea, one of our finest law enforcement personal!!

Screws around on his wife,, probably on the job,, IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, textsScrews around on his wife,, probably on the job,,  IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, texts.

Most of the people around him have "Retired, quit. been fired or resigned"   He is in great company,, these are our finest law enforcement people ,,

It's OK if someone else has done it??

We have hundreds of other agents that are not having to testify before Congress, why because they were not Screwing around on their other, being extremely biased in their jobs,

Now lying before Congress on the real reason for his ,,,,"QUOTES"

 

Screws around on his wife,, probably on the job  Sorry, the GOP has permanently lost it's moral high ground by electing their current POTUS. Used to be, Clinton was the dirty nasty POTUS because he groped an intern in his office. Now we have double digit numbers of women coming forward to make the claim they had affairs with Trump - and that's not including his habit of cheating on each of his 3 wives. So - you aren't allowed to lift your nose and swoon from the shame of it when anyone else in the public eye cheats on his wife. Not ever again - or at least not until another dem POTUS comes along and does something even worse than what Trump has done (although truly, I'm not sure what that would be. Bestiality? Sex with children?  

IS extremely biased in his work, backed up completely by his emails ,, texts 100% untrue. The FBI held an internal investigation and determined that yes, this agent was biased and yes, he should have not mailed these kinds of emails to his girl friend (and they're ultimately going to fire him) but they determined he did NOT show any bias on the job.

I'm sure you can understand how it's possible to hate someone, even a co-worker or boss, and yet still perform your job professionally. The FBI used to pride itself on being non-partisan (before Trump shit all over it to try to deflect attention away from the Muller investigation).  This isn't my own opinion, these are the official findings of their investigation, and unless you want to jump on the dark hole/black hat conspiracy bullshit with the rest of the Brietbart fan boys and declare every single employee of the DOJ completely tainted and anti-Trump, you'll realize that the FBI takes itself pretty seriously when investigating it's own activity.

Here's from your buddies at FOX:

“There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions…,” the report read. “Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.”

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/inspector-general-refers-five-fbi-employees-for-investigation-over-hostile-political-messages.html

[swamp]

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-rosenstein-expected-to-announce-new-indictment-by-mueller/2018/07/13/bc565582-86a9-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.df7e6ca0918f

Russians indicted for hacking the election. 

[thyme4change]

A reporter said the Senators behaved undignified and childish. He said both sides got into it.