McCabe fired Strzok to protect the investigation

[Value Buy]

Looks like McCabe made a personal decision to protect the Mueller investigation at all cost when he knew Strzok and others were out to destroy Trump from the very beginning. He fired Strzok to keep the investigation going. Media got it incorrect again because they reported Mueller fired him. Evidently not.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccabe-says-he-made-the-decision-to-remove-strzok-from-mueller-team-transcript/ar-AABGvfS?li=BBnb7Kz

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 9:01:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Looks like McCabe made a personal decision to protect the Mueller investigation at all cost when he knew Strzok and others were out to destroy Trump from the very beginning. He fired Strzok to keep the investigation going. Media got it incorrect again because they reported Mueller fired him. Evidently not.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccabe-says-he-made-the-decision-to-remove-strzok-from-mueller-team-transcript/ar-AABGvfS?li=BBnb7Kz

your spin does not faithfully recount what McCabe said.

has FOX reviewed your resume?

[happyhoix]

Wow, the article says McCabe fired Strzok because he thought it wasn't appropriate to have someone under investigation for saying shit about Trump to be involved in that investigation. Nothing about 'destroying Trump.'

Unless you read it with magical Trumpian goggles I guess, then who knows what the fuck it says.

[swamp]

Isn't that what you're supposed to do, remove someone from an investigation if it appears they have a bias?  

[happyhoix]

In the normal world, yes.

In Trumplandia, it's proof of a deep state conspiracy.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 10:38:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

Isn't that what you're supposed to do, remove someone from an investigation if it appears they have a bias?  

if you are a professional, yes.

if you are a partisan hack, no.

[swamp]

Aww, you think I'm a professional.  How sweet!!!! 

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 13:19:01 GMT -5 swamp said:

Aww, you think I'm a professional.  How sweet!!!! 

I don't know much about you.  but I do know a few things about McCabe and Strzok.

I have no reason to believe you are NOT a professional, tho.

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2019 10:19:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2019 9:01:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Looks like McCabe made a personal decision to protect the Mueller investigation at all cost when he knew Strzok and others were out to destroy Trump from the very beginning. He fired Strzok to keep the investigation going. Media got it incorrect again because they reported Mueller fired him. Evidently not.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccabe-says-he-made-the-decision-to-remove-strzok-from-mueller-team-transcript/ar-AABGvfS?li=BBnb7Kz

your spin does not faithfully recount what McCabe said.

has FOX reviewed your resume?

Yes,it does.
from the article:
McCabe told lawmakers that on July 27, 2017, he was contacted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office.

“They said they had a very important matter for me to review and they needed me to come across the street and talk to them that day, which was unusual,” McCabe explained. “I made the decision to remove him from the investigation that evening.”

McCabe explained that after meeting with Horowitz, he “met with a very small group” of his “fellow leaders.”

“We discussed Peter’s reassignment, and we discussed where we would place him,” McCabe said.

“What I knew at that point was that the inspector general was investigating Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page for potential political bias,” McCabe said. “And simply the existence of that investigation I felt was — could place in jeopardy the work of the special counsel’s team, and I did not — I could not possibly take that risk.”

[billisonboard]

May 21, 2019 17:15:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 10:19:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your spin does not faithfully recount what McCabe said.

has FOX reviewed your resume?

Yes,it does.
from the article:
McCabe told lawmakers that on July 27, 2017, he was contacted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office.

“They said they had a very important matter for me to review and they needed me to come across the street and talk to them that day, which was unusual,” McCabe explained. “I made the decision to remove him from the investigation that evening.”

McCabe explained that after meeting with Horowitz, he “met with a very small group” of his “fellow leaders.”

“We discussed Peter’s reassignment, and we discussed where we would place him,” McCabe said.

“What I knew at that point was that the inspector general was investigating Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page for potential political bias,” McCabe said. “And simply the existence of that investigation I felt was — could place in jeopardy the work of the special counsel’s team, and I did not — I could not possibly take that risk.”

Here is what you said:

May 21, 2019 9:01:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

... he knew Strzok and others were out to destroy Trump from the very beginning. ...

Nothing you quoted is even close.

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2019 17:22:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 21, 2019 17:15:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Yes,it does.
from the article:
McCabe told lawmakers that on July 27, 2017, he was contacted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office.

“They said they had a very important matter for me to review and they needed me to come across the street and talk to them that day, which was unusual,” McCabe explained. “I made the decision to remove him from the investigation that evening.”

McCabe explained that after meeting with Horowitz, he “met with a very small group” of his “fellow leaders.”

“We discussed Peter’s reassignment, and we discussed where we would place him,” McCabe said.

“What I knew at that point was that the inspector general was investigating Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page for potential political bias,” McCabe said. “And simply the existence of that investigation I felt was — could place in jeopardy the work of the special counsel’s team, and I did not — I could not possibly take that risk.”

Here is what you said:

May 21, 2019 9:01:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

... he knew Strzok and others were out to destroy Trump from the very beginning. ...

Nothing you quoted is even close.

He did what he had to do to protect "the integrity of the investigation" in his eyes. Unfortunately there was no integrity in the investigation.

[billisonboard]

May 21, 2019 17:26:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:22:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is what you said:
Nothing you quoted is even close.

He did what he had to do to protect "the integrity of the investigation" in his eyes. Unfortunately there was no integrity in the investigation.

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 21, 2019 17:26:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

He did what he had to do to protect "the integrity of the investigation" in his eyes. Unfortunately there was no integrity in the investigation.

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

[billisonboard]

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

Perhaps. Seems to be something sadly lacking in people these days. Spin seems to be more important to some.

[NastyWoman]

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

Since you said that twice please back it up with facts. (you know things that actually happened and are verifiable (=are be supported by actual evidence))

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 17:15:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 10:19:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your spin does not faithfully recount what McCabe said.

has FOX reviewed your resume?

Yes,it does.

dude. I can read.

there is no indication from the article that he was out to get Trump.

that is your hallucinogenic Trumposphere overriding what used to be your common sense.

can YOU read?

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 17:26:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:22:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is what you said:
Nothing you quoted is even close.

He did what he had to do to protect "the integrity of the investigation" in his eyes. Unfortunately there was no integrity in the investigation.

oh really?

so, I guess that means Trump is guilty of collusion?

that's good to know.

please make up your mind who you want to attack, and stick to it.

pretty please?

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

if so, this article undermines that case considerably.

can't you see that?

[oped]

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

Except outside review said they didn’t..

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perhaps. But we aren't discussing the integrity of the investigation.

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

The 'two members' bitched about the president in private communications. That's it.  There is zero evidence they did anything to 'taint' the investigation at all, but their boss didn't want their work to be second guessed so he removed them from the investigation.

[tallguy]

May 22, 2019 7:00:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 21, 2019 17:31:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

There was obviously a super lack of integrity by at least two members who tainted the investigation from day one.

The 'two members' bitched about the president in private communications. That's it.  There is zero evidence they did anything to 'taint' the investigation at all, but their boss didn't want their work to be second guessed so he removed them from the investigation.

THAT is what integrity is.  Something the Trump family, the Trump administration, and Trump supporters know nothing about.

Even the appearance of impropriety gets handled properly, whether there is anything of substance or not.  With Trump, actual corruption and criminality gets ignored, at best, or generally encouraged. 

[djAdvocate]

I wish I could post with the concision of tallguy. he said more in one post than I did in three.