Page 1 of 1
Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:40 am
by flockofseagulls104
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:23 am
by Bob78164
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t care whether investigators have political views. That’s inevitable. I do care when investigators allow their political views to affect their decision making.
And it looks like that’s the case with the decision to fire Strzok. My understanding is that the FBI’s professional responsibility unit recommended a suspension but that the Deputy Director, a political appointee, overruled the recommendation. It sounds to me like a reprisal for anti-Donny views.
So there are three questions that need answering. First, what were the grounds for firing Strzok? Second, how has the FBI historically treated similar issues? Third, what process was used to make the decision?
Under the circumstances, a Congessional investigation is obviously appropriate. But the current head of the House Oversight Committee sees it as his job to protect the President, and that obviously makes him incapable of doing his job. The only way to fix that problem is to install a different Chair, one who understands the difference between oversight and cheerleading, and that will require a Democratic majority in the House. I’ll take one in the Senate as well. —Bob
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:55 am
by Bob Juch
Bob78164 wrote:As I mentioned earlier, I don’t care whether investigators have political views. That’s inevitable. I do care when investigators allow their political views to affect their decision making.
And it looks like that’s the case with the decision to fire Strzok. My understanding is that the FBI’s professional responsibility unit recommended a suspension but that the Deputy Director, a political appointee, overruled the recommendation. It sounds to me like a reprisal for anti-Donny views.
So there are three questions that need answering. First, what were the grounds for firing Strzok? Second, how has the FBI historically treated similar issues? Third, what process was used to make the decision?
Under the circumstances, a Congressional investigation is obviously appropriate. But the current head of the House Oversight Committee sees it as his job to protect the President, and that obviously makes him incapable of doing his job. The only way to fix that problem is to install a different Chair, one who understands the difference between oversight and cheerleading, and that will require a Democratic majority in the House. I’ll take one in the Senate as well. —Bob
That committee has made a lot of oversights.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:56 am
by silverscreenselect
I'm just waiting on the Republicans in Congress to demand an investigation of those FBI agents that Rudy Giuliani admits fed him information.
Or how about checking the texts and e-mails of every agent investigating Hillary over the years to see signs of anti-Hillary bias.
And waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:36 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:As I mentioned earlier, I don’t care whether investigators have political views. That’s inevitable. I do care when investigators allow their political views to affect their decision making.
And it looks like that’s the case with the decision to fire Strzok. My understanding is that the FBI’s professional responsibility unit recommended a suspension but that the Deputy Director, a political appointee, overruled the recommendation. It sounds to me like a reprisal for anti-Donny views.
So there are three questions that need answering. First, what were the grounds for firing Strzok? Second, how has the FBI historically treated similar issues? Third, what process was used to make the decision?
Under the circumstances, a Congessional investigation is obviously appropriate. But the current head of the House Oversight Committee sees it as his job to protect the President, and that obviously makes him incapable of doing his job. The only way to fix that problem is to install a different Chair, one who understands the difference between oversight and cheerleading, and that will require a Democratic majority in the House. I’ll take one in the Senate as well. —Bob
Wow, the lengths you will go to justify your hypocrisy is astounding. Strzok didn't allow his STRONG bias to affect his decisions, even though there are emails that strongly suggest he did. Just the fact that he shared these prejudices with his mistress would be grounds for firing in the private sector. But the decision to fire him for that was a dastardly deed. And, so, we need yet another investigation.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:43 pm
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just the fact that he shared these prejudices with his mistress would be grounds for firing in the private sector.
If everyone who posted an ugly or off-color e-mail or text message in the private sector to a fellow employee was fired, most businesses would be severely understaffed.
Do you really think that there weren't any anti-Hillary e-mails or texts sent around the FBI at any time during the investigation of her?
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:44 pm
by Bob78164
This episode
is part of the reason that Bob Goodlatte’s son will vote for his father’s Democratic opponent in his father’s reelection race this year. Goodlatte is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. —Bob
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:55 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:As I mentioned earlier, I don’t care whether investigators have political views. That’s inevitable. I do care when investigators allow their political views to affect their decision making.
And it looks like that’s the case with the decision to fire Strzok. My understanding is that the FBI’s professional responsibility unit recommended a suspension but that the Deputy Director, a political appointee, overruled the recommendation. It sounds to me like a reprisal for anti-Donny views.
So there are three questions that need answering. First, what were the grounds for firing Strzok? Second, how has the FBI historically treated similar issues? Third, what process was used to make the decision?
Under the circumstances, a Congessional investigation is obviously appropriate. But the current head of the House Oversight Committee sees it as his job to protect the President, and that obviously makes him incapable of doing his job. The only way to fix that problem is to install a different Chair, one who understands the difference between oversight and cheerleading, and that will require a Democratic majority in the House. I’ll take one in the Senate as well. —Bob
Wow, the lengths you will go to justify your hypocrisy is astounding. Strzok didn't allow his STRONG bias to affect his decisions, even though there are emails that strongly suggest he did. Just the fact that he shared these prejudices with his mistress would be grounds for firing in the private sector. But the decision to fire him for that was a dastardly deed. And, so, we need yet another investigation.
You’re being incoherent here. Almost all private-sector employment is at-will, which means you don’t need a reason to fire someone and you’re perfectly free to fire an employee just because you don’t like his politics. But we really don’t want any cop being fired just because Comrade Donny and his handlers don’t like his politics or the possibility that Comrade Donny has handlers. And yet all three of the top people investigating that possibility have now been fired via the direct intervention of political appointees who owe Donny their jobs.
If something like this were happening in a Democratic administration you’d be screaming for a Congressional investigation. I want a Congress that understands the difference between oversight and using your position to protect the Administration, right or wrong. The only way we’re going to get one is with a Democratic majority. And then we’ll start finding out just what Donny has been hiding with the help of his Congessional enablers and the useful idiots who support them for no better reason than their party label. —Bob
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:16 pm
by flockofseagulls104
I want a Congress that understands the difference between oversight and using your position to protect the Administration, right or wrong. The only way we’re going to get one is with a Democratic majority.
That is the most laughable statement that has ever been posted on this bored. Possibly anywhere. Congratulations, bob-tel!!!
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:28 am
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:
Do you really think that there weren't any anti-Hillary e-mails or texts sent around the FBI at any time during the investigation of her?
Not by those assigned to investigate her.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:33 am
by silverscreenselect
BackInTex wrote:silverscreenselect wrote:
Do you really think that there weren't any anti-Hillary e-mails or texts sent around the FBI at any time during the investigation of her?
Not by those assigned to investigate her.
And how do you know?
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:48 am
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:BackInTex wrote:silverscreenselect wrote:
Do you really think that there weren't any anti-Hillary e-mails or texts sent around the FBI at any time during the investigation of her?
Not by those assigned to investigate her.
And how do you know?
I’m an expert on the subject. I’m never wrong.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:25 am
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:BackInTex wrote:silverscreenselect wrote:
Do you really think that there weren't any anti-Hillary e-mails or texts sent around the FBI at any time during the investigation of her?
Not by those assigned to investigate her.
And how do you know?
Do you really think that if there were anti-Hillary emails or texts when she was "
being investigated" that CNN would not be talking about it 24-7? That's how I know.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:20 am
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:silverscreenselect wrote:BackInTex wrote:
Not by those assigned to investigate her.
And how do you know?
Do you really think that if there were anti-Hillary emails or texts when she was "
being investigated" that CNN would not be talking about it 24-7? That's how I know.
Just like Guccifer 2.0 released embarrassing e-mails from Donny’s campaign at the same time he released embarrassing e-mails from the Democrats?
Congress wasn’t trying to find information making the investigation of Secretary Clinton unpopular. In contrast, we’ve heard from his own mouth that the Chair of the House Oversight Committee sees it as his job to protect (rather than oversee) Donny. Comey overshared after the investigation concluded because he was afraid that if he didn’t, anti-Clinton agents within the investigation would leak. That, to me, is an example of biases actually affecting actions. You can’t name a single example of Strzok’s politics affecting his investigative decisions, and you can’t name a single example of ANYONE from Mueller’s investigation leaking anything at all.. —Bob
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:05 am
by silverscreenselect
Bob78164 wrote: You can’t name a single example of Strzok’s politics affecting his investigative decisions, and you can’t name a single example of ANYONE from Mueller’s investigation leaking anything at all.. —Bob
Whereas Rudy Giuliani has admitted that "loyal" FBI agents leaked information to him about the progress of the Clinton investigation.
Re: Peter Strzok FINALLY fired
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:06 pm
by tlynn78
