Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 134

Thread: Peter Strzok

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606

    Default Peter Strzok

    This should be a fun one.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politi...sed/index.html

    "Earlier this month, reports surfaced that special counsel Robert Mueller had removed Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's top Russian counterintelligence experts, from his team after an internal investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general uncovered politically tinged messages exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page."

    Some of the more entertaining quotes:

    "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . "

    "“Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page wrote.

    “I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied."

    This of course was back and forth text messages to the person he was having an extra-martial affair with at the FBI.

    The level of professionalism at the FBI seems to have taken a steep dive. The level of idiocy is pretty amazing too. You'd think that someone at the FBI would realize that his texts could get out and that if he was a key member of the team investigating Trump it wasn't going to end well. He should have said 'oh yeah sorry I can't be a part of this because I'm hopelessly biased.'

    Gee I wonder what other cases this guy has been on?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ousted-...on-email-case/

    "The FBI agent who was removed over allegations of anti-Trump text messages was responsible for softening language about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the FBI's investigation into her private email server, CBS News has confirmed.

    CBS News' Paula Reid reports that Peter Strzok, who led the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state, changed the language in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how Clinton handled classified information, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. Strzok changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." That change in wording has significant legal implications, since "gross negligence" in handling classified information can carry criminal penalties."

    Man I wonder when the house judiciary committee will be calling him up and how quickly he'll be pleading the 5th. The little fucktard hasn't even resigned from the FBI. Time to get the popcorn ready!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Not surprised no one wants to touch this one.

  3. #3
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,494
    Do you think FBI agents lose their right to speech in their private life?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    I have avoided this because I did not want to add to your public embarrassment any further.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Lewk is like a god damn toddler. screaming look at me when everyone ignores his stupid bullshit

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...a-scandal.html
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Do you think FBI agents lose their right to speech in their private life?
    They don't of course however this shows that this guy is completely partisan to a a pretty high level. Though I am curious if you think Mueller was incorrect in removing him from the investigation.

    Given his highly partisan nature I wonder why he pushed to specifically change the verbiage when used to describe Hillary Clinton's actions in the e-mail saga. Gross negligence being a rather good term for what she did.

    So - thoughts? Do you think he'll be pulled up in front of congress to testify and if so do you think he pleads the 5th?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Lewk is like a god damn toddler. screaming look at me when everyone ignores his stupid bullshit

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...a-scandal.html
    Your definition of screaming is bit off.

    An FBI agent corresponding with the person he was having an affair with about weather or not certain Republican candidates are gay, fit for office and/or what 'insurance policies' are needed in case he wins doesn't sound like something we might need to investigate a little further? Considering the amount of leaks that have occurred, the fake dossier and now this, I think its time to clean house and deep probe a lot of these so called public servants.

    If political bias tainted any of these investigations (Clinton e-mail scandal or Russia stuff) what do you think should happen?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Going keep this rolling since Lewk was stupid enough to think he had something so worthwhile here that he felt the need to bump his own bullshit

    https://amp.businessinsider.com/doj-...orized-2017-12
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #9
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    They don't of course however this shows that this guy is completely partisan to a a pretty high level. Though I am curious if you think Mueller was incorrect in removing him from the investigation.

    Given his highly partisan nature I wonder why he pushed to specifically change the verbiage when used to describe Hillary Clinton's actions in the e-mail saga. Gross negligence being a rather good term for what she did.

    So - thoughts? Do you think he'll be pulled up in front of congress to testify and if so do you think he pleads the 5th?
    He's partisan in his private life. Are you becoming a Putin fan now?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Going keep this rolling since Lewk was stupid enough to think he had something so worthwhile here that he felt the need to bump his own bullshit

    https://amp.businessinsider.com/doj-...orized-2017-12
    Yes a highly partisan operative talks about an insurance policy in the event his political enemy gets elected and then brags about how he can 'protect' the country 'on many levels.' To be fair he may just be talking big to the woman he is fucking on the side but it should still be investigated to figure out what exactly he meant.

    The problem with determining if his clear and obvious bias interfered with his work product is that we don't have access to his work product. Private citizens have no way to see if what he was doing was tainted or not, which is why him being called before committee and asked to testify could restore faith in the workings of the FBI. My simple question is if that happens do you think he'll plead the fifth?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    He's partisan in his private life. Are you becoming a Putin fan now?
    Highly partisan, like not at a 'hey I vote Democrat' but to the level of 'TRUMP EATS BABIES HIS CHILDREN ARE DOUCHES, AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID.' Frothing at the mouth liberal who would probably enjoy cordial dinners with Bill Ayers. Which is interesting how this hyper partisan helped 'clear' Hillary Clinton and then ended up on the team to investigate Trump. Interesting doesn't mean he's guilty, that's why there should be an investigation. It would help diminish the cloud of suspicion that many Americans have. Give him an opportunity to share his side in front of the House judiciary committee. I'm just curious if posters here think that might happen and if it does will he plead the 5th?

  12. #12
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    He's partisan in his private life. Are you becoming a Putin fan now?
    Lewk is a constant reminder that the stereotype of modern American "conservatives" (as being Fox-addicted authoritarian Limbaugh-mouthpieces with no character) isn't just fiction or caricature.

    Prominent opinion-shapers are calling for the FBI to be "cleansed" on possibly the largest network in the US, or comparing the FBI to the KGB, or calling for measures that will obstruct Mueller's investigation. Frankly, this is both more worrying and more disgusting than half a million people voting for a predator.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Highly partisan, like not at a 'hey I vote Democrat' but to the level of 'TRUMP EATS BABIES HIS CHILDREN ARE DOUCHES, AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID.' Frothing at the mouth liberal who would probably enjoy cordial dinners with Bill Ayers. Which is interesting how this hyper partisan helped 'clear' Hillary Clinton and then ended up on the team to investigate Trump.
    Lmao.

    Regarding Clinton, Strzok once texted, "I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected." He also referred to Clinton's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, as "self-entitled," and dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders, I - Vt., as an "idiot." Page also called Sanders supporters "idiots." They also both had low opinions of President Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, with Strzok writing it was "wildly offensive" for Holder's portrait to be next to that of iconic Attorney General Elliott Richardson and insisting that a television be turned off when Holder spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

    Page perhaps best summed up their worldview when she texted Strzok during lunch with an unidentified person: "We both hate everyone and everything."
    https://www.salon.com/2017/12/15/why...ge-at-mueller/
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #14
    . Being's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,279
    Weather says it all.
    .

  15. #15
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,494
    Lewk, look up free speech. It lets you say even stupid things. Restrictions for public workers can only apply to public speech. You claimed to support it in the past. Incidentally, go look up what Ken Starr was doing when he was leading an investigation.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Lewk, like the media, has a short memory, which is why he's making such a big deal out of an actual nothing-burger:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politi...ley/index.html

    What, did anyone really think that Comey was tricked into making a statement that had completely different ramifications from the one he really wanted to make?

    Gimme a frickin' break.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #17
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Highly partisan, like not at a 'hey I vote Democrat' but to the level of 'TRUMP EATS BABIES HIS CHILDREN ARE DOUCHES, AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID.' Frothing at the mouth liberal who would probably enjoy cordial dinners with Bill Ayers.
    Lewk, he there's nothing in those texts that differs from what Senator Graham himself, or other Republican senators, have said.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #18
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    'TRUMP EATS BABIES HIS CHILDREN ARE DOUCHES, AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID.'
    At least some of which is untrue.
    If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

  19. #19
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Apparently, contrary to the DOJ's claims, the office of the inspector General was not consulted prior to the texts being released to the press.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #20
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Seems like an equal-opportunities offender; the sort of person who thinks that no matter who his potential boss is they're going to be a moron.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #21
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,494
    Apparently cynics shouldn't be allowed to get government jobs.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Lewk, look up free speech. It lets you say even stupid things. Restrictions for public workers can only apply to public speech. You claimed to support it in the past. Incidentally, go look up what Ken Starr was doing when he was leading an investigation.
    I'm not suggesting the behavior is criminal, only that it is a sign of partisanship which could be leading to biases which is why the language on the Clinton e-mails were softened.

    Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be investigated. Just like depositing a shit ton of money into a bank out of the blue would lead to some red flags going up at a financial institution which could trigger IRS taking a look - all of that is completely legal but it may be a sign of money laundering or tax evasion so an investigation may be warranted.

    That all being said, if he did nothing wrong why did Mueller drop him like a hot potato?

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Lewk, like the media, has a short memory, which is why he's making such a big deal out of an actual nothing-burger:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politi...ley/index.html

    What, did anyone really think that Comey was tricked into making a statement that had completely different ramifications from the one he really wanted to make?

    Gimme a frickin' break.
    "A source familiar with the FBI decision tells CNN that Comey and his FBI colleagues were "playing with the language throughout" the process, but consistently held the belief that they needed to condemn Clinton's handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges."

    And this is the part that has conservatives up in arms. It didn't matter what their investigation would find, the fix was in, they weren't going to push for charges even before their investigation was complete. They didn't even put Clinton under oath or bother to have a transcript of the conversation. That's fucking insane. It was like they desperately wanted to avoid filling (legitimate) charges during election season. They put what they felt was the reputation of the FBI ahead of the law.

  24. #24
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm not suggesting the behavior is criminal, only that it is a sign of partisanship which could be leading to biases which is why the language on the Clinton e-mails were softened.
    How is it partisan when he was negative on Clinton too? If he was negative on Trump but positive for Clinton you might have a point. Though everyone is entitled to a personal belief anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #25
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    "A source familiar with the FBI decision tells CNN that Comey and his FBI colleagues were "playing with the language throughout" the process, but consistently held the belief that they needed to condemn Clinton's handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges."

    And this is the part that has conservatives up in arms. It didn't matter what their investigation would find, the fix was in
    The "process" in question was the process of drafting the statement, not the investigation itself.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  26. #26
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    How is it partisan when he was negative on Clinton too? If he was negative on Trump but positive for Clinton you might have a point. Though everyone is entitled to a personal belief anyway.
    Look at the current Fox-endorsed establishment and tell me if you expect them to understand the concept of professionalism.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    How is it partisan when he was negative on Clinton too? If he was negative on Trump but positive for Clinton you might have a point. Though everyone is entitled to a personal belief anyway.
    It was about a hundred million to zero when it came to Trump va Clinton in his mind. That’s like saying because I have said some negative things about Trump that I am unbiased when it comes to evaluating if a liberal politician broke the law.

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

  28. #28
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,563
    What law do you think he's broken? The fifth is protection from self-incrimination against breaking the law.

    The only person who's broken the law related to this thread is whoever leaked the texts without authorisation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #29
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    It was about a hundred million to zero when it came to Trump va Clinton in his mind. That’s like saying because I have said some negative things about Trump that I am unbiased when it comes to evaluating if a liberal politician broke the law.

    Again, the texts aren’t PROOF he did something wrong. They are an indication he may have done something untoward. So would you like to make a prediction? If he gets called to testify in front of congress, do you think he will plead the 5th or not?
    Having unpopular private political views is untoward? Seriously Lewk? Do you only support free speech and thought for white supremacists? An investigation requires evidence of wrongdoing. Cynical speech is not yet illegal.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Having unpopular private political views is untoward? Seriously Lewk? Do you only support free speech and thought for white supremacists? An investigation requires evidence of wrongdoing. Cynical speech is not yet illegal.
    Investigation != government sanction. Police action or congressional action to investigate does not require evidence of wrong doing. Are you suggesting every single person brought before the judiciary committee is there because of evidence of wrong doing?

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

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

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •