Peter Strzok

[Lewkowski]

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

Investigation != government sanction. Police action or congressional action to investigate does not require evidence of wrong doing.

Actually yes, they both do. Typically, the direct evidence of wrong-doing is that an already committed wrong has already been uncovered. The police investigating a crime that has been committed, a congressional investigation looking into, say, confirmed attempts by a foreign power to manipulate a US election. You need a predicated act of wrong-doing to base an investigation on. You can't know where an investigation might lead, what other acts might be uncovered in the course of it and also pursued, but you need that first wrong-doing to start.

[Lewkowski]

Actually yes, they both do. Typically, the direct evidence of wrong-doing is that an already committed wrong has already been uncovered. The police investigating a crime that has been committed, a congressional investigation looking into, say, confirmed attempts by a foreign power to manipulate a US election. You need a predicated act of wrong-doing to base an investigation on. You can't know where an investigation might lead, what other acts might be uncovered in the course of it and also pursued, but you need that first wrong-doing to start.

No you don't. Show me where it says Congress can't pull up whoever the hell they want in front of committee.

[LittleFuzzy]

No you don't. Show me where it says Congress can't pull up whoever the hell they want in front of committee.

You're getting confused, Lewk. You talked about a Congressional investigation and I replied on the same topic. Now you're talking about any committee meeting of any kind whatsoever. That's not the same topic. You show me where Congress has launched an investigation despite lacking any predicating wrong to prompt such an investigation in the first place.