Former Mueller team member Peter Strzok exchanged hundreds of anti-Trump texts prior to dismissal. Concerning?

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ad1x2
Edited 7 months, 1 day ago

Poll: Former Mueller team member Peter Strzok exchanged hundreds of anti-Trump texts prior to dismissal. Concerning? (23 votes)

It's a nothingburger. It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump does not compromise the investigation. 65%
It's not a nothingburger and it should be investigated to ensure he didn't let his political opinion cross the line into influencing the investigation. 35%

For those that have not heard of Peter Strzok, he was one of the members of Robert Mueller’s team that was investigating the possibility of President Trump’s team colluding with the Russian government in order to help Trump get elected. He also helped draft the exoneration letter former FBI Director James Comey used to clear Hillary Clinton from her private server charges last year, to include changing the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," according to an article from CNN.

Recently, it came to light that he was dismissed from Mueller's team due to a series of anti-Trump and pro-Hillary texts that were exchanged between him and a woman named Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer, on government phones. The two were allegedly involved in an affair, and the messages were allegedly exchanged on their government phones to keep details of the affair off of their personal phones.

While it was not surprising that some people showed dread regards to Trump having a chance of winning the election, with one of the comments stating "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 - 0," one particular comment that got extra attention was a text that mentioned an ”insurance policy.” That particular comment has people asking questions on what was meant by having "insurance" against a Trump presidency.

Different media outlets are covering it in various ways. The Washington Post recently posted an article stating that the text exchanges between the two were just part of the cover story for the affair between Strzok and Page. Fox News published the actual text exchanges and had a few opinion pieces about whether or not there was a conspiracy.

Vox posted an article seemingly exonerating Strzok from any wrongdoing and warning that the scandal could derail the Russian collusion investigation because it gives Republican lawmakers ammunition to claim bias. Far-right Breitbart posted an article highlighting Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan drilling FBI Director Christopher Wray to see whether or not Strzok was responsible for using the Russia dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on people close to Trump during the election.

What do you think? Do you think that there is nothing to see here and Trump supporters are trying to make it out to be more than it really is to distract from the investigation? Or do you think that Strzok could bring serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation?

Avatar image for joebones5000
#1 Edited by joebones5000 (1810 posts) -

Nothing concerning at all. It's not like anything this guy does or says makes any of Trump's team less guilty.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#2 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

Lol, here comes the campaign to de-ligitimize Mueller's investigation. I was wondering how long it would take until the Trump cronies began their campaign.

Avatar image for Nick3306
#3 Posted by Nick3306 (3411 posts) -

Since they have to find actual evidence, it doesn't matter a whole lot what the opinions of some of the people are unless they were pro trump and trying to conceal evidence. He was dismissed in the end anyway.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#4 Posted by ad1x2 (6847 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Lol, here comes the campaign to de-ligitimize Mueller's investigation. I was wondering how long it would take until the Trump cronies began their campaign.

I'm sure nothing will come out of this that would seriously derail the investigation, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked at all. Just like people are stating that Trump shouldn't interfere with the Mueller investigation if he really claims to be innocent, Strzok shouldn't mind being looked at to make sure his contributions to both the Russian investigation and the Clinton email server investigation were were beyond reproach if he didn't do anything wrong.

Avatar image for kittennose
#5 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

Mostly I think the major story should be that the FBI puts people this stupid into positions of power and authority. I mean seriously, using FBI work phones to hide your secrets? That is like calling the cops because you tried to buy drugs and got scammed levels of stupid. Using work phones to talk political trash is silly enough, but FBI work phones? I am starting to wonder if DC has as much cocaine as Hollywood, the city seems full of people who think like teenagers.

Avatar image for Treflis
#6 Posted by Treflis (13488 posts) -

Where is the option of "It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump likely does not compromise the investigation. But they probably should do a internal investigation just to be sure" ?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#7 Edited by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

I'm sure nothing will come out of this that would seriously derail the investigation, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked at all. Just like people are stating that Trump shouldn't interfere with the Mueller investigation if he really claims to be innocent, Strzok shouldn't mind being looked at to make sure his contributions to both the Russian investigation and the Clinton email server investigation were were beyond reproach if he didn't do anything wrong.

Nothing really to ask, to be honest. At least in this particular case. The guy was dismissed and that's that. Logic should tell you it's in the best interest of the investigation to operate with the utmost integrity for their own sake and possibly, the sake of the country. Hence why he was immediately fired.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#8 Posted by PraetorianMan (1901 posts) -

It would have been worrying if this guy was still on the investigation, but he’s not. Reassigning him elsewhere was completely appropriate.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#9 Edited by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

This just seems like a straw to grasp at to try and discredit Mueller

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

Any excuse necessary to defend the right's fool.

Avatar image for sonicare
#11 Posted by sonicare (56099 posts) -

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

Avatar image for kittennose
#13 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#14 Edited by KungfuKitten (25464 posts) -

If you've got nothing to fear you've got nothing to hide. lol Right back at ya.

@LJS9502_basic That is you being a little exceptional, I bet. About 5% of people can be somewhat impartial in a role of power, and 99% thinks they can be before they are tested.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
#15 Posted by Drunk_PI (2671 posts) -

Integrity is overrated when the other side treats the whole thing as a zero-sum game.

Avatar image for comeonman
#16 Posted by ComeOnMan (100 posts) -

Not sure it taints the Mueller probe, given that Mueller kicked him off the team when he found out about the guy.

But, I would like this guy checked out. If he and any of his buddies at the FBI tried to influence the outcome of an election, or hatched a plot to, in effect, overturn the outcome of the election, he, and anyone else involved, need to be punished. I'm especially interested in what the "insurance policy" comment was about, and whether or not the Russia/Fusion GPS dossier was used to get a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign/transition.

Hopefully there is enough integrity left in our federal law enforcement and justice officials to get the truth out about all the bad actors, on both sides.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#17 Posted by mattbbpl (15515 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: Not sure why your comment is getting so much flack. Such compartmentalization isn't difficult.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#18 Posted by ad1x2 (6847 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

While I am sure that you would try to put your dislike of Trump aside to be a fair person in the investigation, you have to remember that we are being asked to trust the integrity of a man that was only caught because he was using his government issued cell phone to cover up an affair.

Nothing will probably come out of it, but if everyone puts their biases aside, it probably wouldn't look good for him if it involved anyone else.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#19 Edited by joebones5000 (1810 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

While I am sure that you would try to put your dislike of Trump aside to be a fair person in the investigation, you have to remember that we are being asked to trust the integrity of a man that was only caught because he was using his government issued cell phone to cover up an affair.

Nothing will probably come out of it, but if everyone puts their biases aside, it probably wouldn't look good for him if it involved anyone else.

This guy was removed from the team. What's the problem? He has nothing to do with the investigation.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose: I guess that means you can't be impartial. Not everyone is like you.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#21 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

While I am sure that you would try to put your dislike of Trump aside to be a fair person in the investigation, you have to remember that we are being asked to trust the integrity of a man that was only caught because he was using his government issued cell phone to cover up an affair.

Nothing will probably come out of it, but if everyone puts their biases aside, it probably wouldn't look good for him if it involved anyone else.

That's a big stretch there. While I think if you want to have an affair you should just end the first relationship that doesn't mean that in other areas of one's life they don't have the moral compass to do the right thing. It's a bad analogy to compare those two things as equal.

And he's gone so this is a big nothing story. It appears as an excuse to end the investigation...........and it certainly shouldn't.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#22 Posted by comp_atkins (34982 posts) -

he was removed from the investigation as he should be.

beyond that the investigation should continue.

Avatar image for kittennose
#23 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@kittennose: I guess that means you can't be impartial. Not everyone is like you.

Nope, it is my reaction to a claim that you are an example of objectivity. Heck even if it wasn't silly at face value, the idea that you can trust people's objectivity because they say "Well I don't think I treat people I dislike unfairly." is is just comically doofy. That is the kind of credulity you expect people to grow out of when they find out the shocking truth about Santa.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#24 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@kittennose: I guess that means you can't be impartial. Not everyone is like you.

Nope, it is my reaction to a claim that you are an example of objectivity. Heck even if it wasn't silly at face value, the idea that you can trust people's objectivity because they say "Well I don't think I treat people I dislike unfairly." is is just comically doofy. That is the kind of credulity you expect people to grow out of when they find out the shocking truth about Santa.

Well that just means you're making assumptions about someone you know nothing about. Which shows ignorance.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#25 Edited by ad1x2 (6847 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

Yeah. I have employers I don't particularly like but I am fair in their evaluations. Likewise I have some I do like.....also fair in their evaluations. So it can be done.

While I am sure that you would try to put your dislike of Trump aside to be a fair person in the investigation, you have to remember that we are being asked to trust the integrity of a man that was only caught because he was using his government issued cell phone to cover up an affair.

Nothing will probably come out of it, but if everyone puts their biases aside, it probably wouldn't look good for him if it involved anyone else.

That's a big stretch there. While I think if you want to have an affair you should just end the first relationship that doesn't mean that in other areas of one's life they don't have the moral compass to do the right thing. It's a bad analogy to compare those two things as equal.

And he's gone so this is a big nothing story. It appears as an excuse to end the investigation...........and it certainly shouldn't.

I actually want the investigation into Russian collusion to continue. If the investigation was abruptly halted, then it will just make people think that it is part of a coverup and people will hit the streets protesting. If Trump is innocent, then let the evidence show that he is innocent, and if he is guilty, then let’s do the right thing and take appropriate action, to include removal from office and criminal charges for any laws that were broken.

But at the same time, people are in denial if they think they would say it would be a total waste of time to look into possible conflicts of interest if the tables were turned. If it was some FBI agent calling Hillary Clinton “Killary,” posting how he can’t wait to see her behind bars, etc. while praising Trump and talking about how he’s draining the swamp, I seriously doubt the majority of the people calling this a nothingburger would say that he doesn’t need to be investigated no matter how long ago he was dismissed.

Sometimes, all of us have to step back and be objective, instead of being so blinded by hatred that we don’t consider the consequences of looking the other way with possible bias. I wasn’t saying that him having an affair was a sign that he can’t be trusted to be impartial, I was saying that the affair is enough to make some people question if he is willing to compromise his integrity.

Also, for some people that totally despise Trump, to them, the right thing may be to get him impeached by any means necessary even if it involves not-so-legal means versus letting him stay in power and causing something they consider unacceptable to happen. I am not saying that Strzok did do something unethical or illegal , but if no investigation is done, then the question will always hang out there whether or not something unethical or illegal took place.

Avatar image for kittennose
#26 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@kittennose said:

Nope, it is my reaction to a claim that you are an example of objectivity. Heck even if it wasn't silly at face value, the idea that you can trust people's objectivity because they say "Well I don't think I treat people I dislike unfairly." is is just comically doofy. That is the kind of credulity you expect people to grow out of when they find out the shocking truth about Santa.

Well that just means you're making assumptions about someone you know nothing about. Which shows ignorance.

Refusing to take a stranger at their word when they claim to be virtuous isn't an example of making an assumption. Particularly if the topic of conversation is how such virtues are pretty rare. They are just someone randomly claiming they are above the checks and balances put in place specifically to address the fact the fact that people trick themselves into believing they are unbiased.

I mean heck, the fact that you think strangers shouldn't point and laugh in such circumstances is a pretty good example of how bias can warp your thinking. That is like someone standing up at a huckster convention and proclaiming they are they ones that can sell you a life changing product for three easy payments of twenty nine ninety five. Then looking about all shocked when people roll their eyes.

Avatar image for horgen
#27 Posted by Horgen (117700 posts) -

@Treflis said:

Where is the option of "It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump likely does not compromise the investigation. But they probably should do a internal investigation just to be sure" ?

Please refrain from posting anything that resembles common sense. Such behaviour is to be discouraged. Recommend daily consumption of Fox & Friend and making Breitbart news your primary news source.

I hope the paragraph is dripping with sarcasm. Oh hey

Anyhow it is up to FBI judge this and I understand they have already moved him away from this investigation.

Avatar image for Mercenary848
#28 Posted by Mercenary848 (11563 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@LJS9502_basic: Not sure why your comment is getting so much flack. Such compartmentalization isn't difficult.

It is for narrow minded republicans/conservatives.

Avatar image for tryit
#29 Posted by TryIt (8024 posts) -

@kittennose said:

Mostly I think the major story should be that the FBI puts people this stupid into positions of power and authority. I mean seriously, using FBI work phones to hide your secrets? That is like calling the cops because you tried to buy drugs and got scammed levels of stupid. Using work phones to talk political trash is silly enough, but FBI work phones? I am starting to wonder if DC has as much cocaine as Hollywood, the city seems full of people who think like teenagers.

oh for the love of god the former CEO of Exxon and current Security of State called Trump a 'moron'

jesus people.

but yes, the news story is worthy of paying attention to, one person doesnt represent the entire investigation but it is something that should be addressed

Avatar image for kittennose
#30 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -
@Mercenary848 said:

It is for narrow minded republicans/conservatives.

Do you realize how ironic this sentence is, given that the topic is non-partisanship? Please tell me more about how your hidebound political enemies fail to realize how easy it is to put aside political differences and trust in your objectivity. =P

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#31 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@kittennose said:

Nope, it is my reaction to a claim that you are an example of objectivity. Heck even if it wasn't silly at face value, the idea that you can trust people's objectivity because they say "Well I don't think I treat people I dislike unfairly." is is just comically doofy. That is the kind of credulity you expect people to grow out of when they find out the shocking truth about Santa.

Well that just means you're making assumptions about someone you know nothing about. Which shows ignorance.

Refusing to take a stranger at their word when they claim to be virtuous isn't an example of making an assumption. Particularly if the topic of conversation is how such virtues are pretty rare. They are just someone randomly claiming they are above the checks and balances put in place specifically to address the fact the fact that people trick themselves into believing they are unbiased.

I mean heck, the fact that you think strangers shouldn't point and laugh in such circumstances is a pretty good example of how bias can warp your thinking. That is like someone standing up at a huckster convention and proclaiming they are they ones that can sell you a life changing product for three easy payments of twenty nine ninety five. Then looking about all shocked when people roll their eyes.

I find that people who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act. So stop projecting your inadequacies on others.

Avatar image for kittennose
#32 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

I find that people who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act. So stop projecting your inadequacies on others.

Do you really not see the irony in the above? You claim people act a specific way twice in two sentences. I on the other hand did not make claims about people acting specific ways. I talked about credulity.

You also stop me from having conversations with others to tell me they are trolling. If you sincerely believed this sentiment, wouldn't that make you a troll?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#33 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

I find that people who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act. So stop projecting your inadequacies on others.

Do you really not see the irony in the above? You claim people act a specific way twice in two sentences. I on the other hand did not make claims about people acting specific ways. I talked about credulity.

You also stop me from having conversations with others to tell me they are trolling. If you sincerely believed this sentiment, wouldn't that make you a troll?

No I stated an observation. Nonetheless the fact that you are projecting an action pretty much means how you think. I did not assume how you act. I read it. From you. Also...incorrect use of the term irony.

Avatar image for kittennose
#34 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

No I stated an observation. Nonetheless the fact that you are projecting an action pretty much means how you think. I did not assume how you act. I read it. From you. Also...incorrect use of the term irony.

Claim number one: "People who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act." If you can't understand why this is a claim about how people act then you should be learning English, not correcting it.

Claim number two: "So stop projecting your inadequacies on others." That is another claim about people acting a specific way. You can't claim someone is projecting inadequacies without claiming a person is acting in a specific way. Projection is a very specific kind of action. So yeah, you made two claims about people acting a specific way in response to a post that made zero. It instead talked about credulity.

Still curious how calling other people out for trolling doesn't make you a troll given this sentiment BTW.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#35 Edited by MirkoS77 (13041 posts) -

Both sides should be equally open to investigation given just cause. I personally believe the Right is latching onto this and blowing it up far bigger than it actually is in their attempt to undermine Mueller and his team's integrity. It doesn't surprise me in the least that some in our intelligence agencies harbor resentment and dislike of Trump and his administration considering the way they've been treated. Then when Trump and co get it back in their face they get all huffy and scream partiality and bias.

What a bunch of hypocritical crybabies.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#36 Posted by Jacanuk (14698 posts) -

@Treflis said:

Where is the option of "It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump likely does not compromise the investigation. But they probably should do a internal investigation just to be sure" ?

Almost agree here.

Of course there should be a internal investigation to make sure there is no bias.

But on other hand it´s Trump so the popular opinion is to hate the guy, so can you really find anyone who can be unbiased.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

No I stated an observation. Nonetheless the fact that you are projecting an action pretty much means how you think. I did not assume how you act. I read it. From you. Also...incorrect use of the term irony.

Claim number one: "People who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act." If you can't understand why this is a claim about how people act then you should be learning English, not correcting it.

Claim number two: "So stop projecting your inadequacies on others." That is another claim about people acting a specific way. You can't claim someone is projecting inadequacies without claiming a person is acting in a specific way. Projection is a very specific kind of action. So yeah, you made two claims about people acting a specific way in response to a post that made zero. It instead talked about credulity.

Still curious how calling other people out for trolling doesn't make you a troll given this sentiment BTW.

I did not make a claim about an individual. I read their posts which speaks to their philosophy/ideology/pattern of behavior. That is different than you making an assumption on what I"d do at work with nothing for evidence.

Apples and oranges. If you don't want people to infer what you believe then don't open your mouth/type and hit submit.

It's that simple.

My observations were based on YOU. If you can't see the difference then communicative is not for you.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#38 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@Treflis said:

Where is the option of "It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump likely does not compromise the investigation. But they probably should do a internal investigation just to be sure" ?

Almost agree here.

Of course there should be a internal investigation to make sure there is no bias.

But on other hand it´s Trump so the popular opinion is to hate the guy, so can you really find anyone who can be unbiased.

You can like/dislike someone and still be unbiased in your work. Perhaps you can't and that's why you find it un-achievable?

Avatar image for kittennose
#39 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

I did not make a claim about an individual. I read their posts which speaks to their philosophy/ideology/pattern of behavior. That is different than you making an assumption on what I"d do at work with nothing for evidence.

Apples and oranges. If you don't want people to infer what you believe then don't open your mouth/type and hit submit.

It's that simple.

My observations were based on YOU. If you can't see the difference then communicative is not for you.

First off I did not make an assumption 'on what you would do at work'. That never happened. I laughed at your claim, because it was silly. That isn't the same as drawing a conclusion. In fact, it is a refusal to draw a conclusion. If you can't see the difference then communicative is not for you.

Now that that is out of the way: Your evidence is forum posts, and your post count is straight up crazy. If forum posts paints such a detailed picture of a person's philosophy/ideology/pattern of behavior, then wouldn't your philosophy/ideology/pattern of behavior be 100 times clearer then mine? Why are forum posts apples for me and oranges for you? Is it because you are so unbiased?

You also need to look up the word claim. If you think an assertion you have no ability to or intention of verifying is not a claim, then there was a fundamental miscommunicative between you and the dictionary. =P

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#40 Posted by Jacanuk (14698 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Treflis said:

Where is the option of "It's perfectly normal for someone to have a political opinion, and his dislike of Trump likely does not compromise the investigation. But they probably should do a internal investigation just to be sure" ?

Almost agree here.

Of course there should be a internal investigation to make sure there is no bias.

But on other hand it´s Trump so the popular opinion is to hate the guy, so can you really find anyone who can be unbiased.

You can like/dislike someone and still be unbiased in your work. Perhaps you can't and that's why you find it un-achievable?

Some may be able to do that but i highly doubt someone who send hundreds of anti-trump messages is able to be unbiased

Pretty much the same deal with a bunch of people in here, Trump could cure cancer and you guys would still say it was bad.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#41 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:

Almost agree here.

Of course there should be a internal investigation to make sure there is no bias.

But on other hand it´s Trump so the popular opinion is to hate the guy, so can you really find anyone who can be unbiased.

You can like/dislike someone and still be unbiased in your work. Perhaps you can't and that's why you find it un-achievable?

Some may be able to do that but i highly doubt someone who send hundreds of anti-trump messages is able to be unbiased

Pretty much the same deal with a bunch of people in here, Trump could cure cancer and you guys would still say it was bad.

Having a personal dislike does not mean one has not professional integrity. It's merely rightists trying to derail the investigation because it's getting too close for comfort.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#42 Posted by Jacanuk (14698 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:

Almost agree here.

Of course there should be a internal investigation to make sure there is no bias.

But on other hand it´s Trump so the popular opinion is to hate the guy, so can you really find anyone who can be unbiased.

You can like/dislike someone and still be unbiased in your work. Perhaps you can't and that's why you find it un-achievable?

Some may be able to do that but i highly doubt someone who send hundreds of anti-trump messages is able to be unbiased

Pretty much the same deal with a bunch of people in here, Trump could cure cancer and you guys would still say it was bad.

Having a personal dislike does not mean one has not professional integrity. It's merely rightists trying to derail the investigation because it's getting too close for comfort.

Of course it is.

And Santa Claus is real and lives on the Northpole.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#43 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Having a personal dislike does not mean one has not professional integrity. It's merely rightists trying to derail the investigation because it's getting too close for comfort.

Of course it is.

And Santa Claus is real and lives on the Northpole.

That just tells us you cannot separate personal from professional...........I doubt any of us needed that reinforcement though.

Avatar image for kittennose
#44 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:

Of course it is.

And Santa Claus is real and lives on the Northpole.

That just tells us you cannot separate personal from professional...........I doubt any of us needed that reinforcement though.

I find that people who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act. So stop projecting your inadequacies on others. = P

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163950 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:

Of course it is.

And Santa Claus is real and lives on the Northpole.

That just tells us you cannot separate personal from professional...........I doubt any of us needed that reinforcement though.

I find that people who claim people act a specific way do so because that's how they act. So stop projecting your inadequacies on others. = P

I know you're trolling but you really are having problems understanding that presenting your ideology to readers here means they aren't projecting. Hint: they're reading your words. Hang in there.........you'll get it some day.

Avatar image for kittennose
#46 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

I know you're trolling but you really are having problems understanding that presenting your ideology to readers here means they aren't projecting. Hint: they're reading your words. Hang in there.........you'll get it some day.

Well that just means you're making assumptions about someone you know nothing about. Which shows ignorance. =P

The fact that you argued the full circle in one page of one thread is just so silly ^-^

Avatar image for drlostrib
#47 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

Seems Rosenstein's cool with it, even as Republican committee members try to throw the whole investigation under the bus

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia-republican-campaign.html

Avatar image for n64dd
#48 Posted by N64DD (10067 posts) -

@drlostrib said:

Seems Rosenstein's cool with it, even as Republican committee members try to throw the whole investigation under the bus

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia-republican-campaign.html

Mueller is a traitor to his country.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#49 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@n64dd said:
@drlostrib said:

Seems Rosenstein's cool with it, even as Republican committee members try to throw the whole investigation under the bus

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia-republican-campaign.html

Mueller is a traitor to his country.

because...?

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#50 Posted by Ish_basic (4838 posts) -

@sonicare said:

Well, think objectively. Is that someone who could be impartial?

yes. Put it this way. These FBI agents also investigate child pornography and terrorism, and the latter with a 99% conviction rate. Do you think those FBI agents are sifting through kiddy porn and dead bodies thinking happy thoughts about the people they have in custody? Of course not. Yet you don't hear about these guys winning appeals on the "i don't think that guy liked me very much" defense.

Evidence has to stand on its own and no one person really has control over the decisions in an investigation. None of these congressmen are interested in how the FBI actively works to filter out bias within an investigation, because if you start talking about all the checks, then it's harder to push your deep state narrative. These congressional panels are a joke. Trey Gowdy pushed the Benghazi investigations on longer than Pearl Harbor or 9/11...three years...but seven months on this and he wants to move on. Yeah, the FBI doesn't have those kinds of investigative biases.

This same individual actually spoke out against charging Flynn, but let's just selectively review his history so as to not disturb the bubble.