Peter Strzok

[Lewkowski]

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?

[RandBlade]

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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

[Loki]

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.

[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.

[Lewkowski]

Let’s make it even more simple.

Mueller removed him. Binary situation here.

A. It was appropriate to remove him.
B. It was inappropriate to remove him.

A or B?

[Aimless]

Let’s make it even more simple.

Mueller removed him. Binary situation here.

A. It was appropriate to remove him.
B. It was inappropriate to remove him.

A or B?

Both A and B.

[Lewkowski]

Both A and B.

Let me guess you voted for John Kerry

[Aimless]

Again, the texts aren’t PROOF he did something wrong. They are an indication he may have done something untoward.

Yeah this sounds like it's totally in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. I swear Lewk it's almost as if you're turning into an alt-right caricature of a liberal.

[Lewkowski]

Yeah this sounds like it's totally in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. I swear Lewk it's almost as if you're turning into an alt-right caricature of a liberal.

We have freedom of speech, you can say 9/11 was right and proper and jihad is cool. But if you do, you should have a closer look taken at you. Would you agree? Because again, an investigation is not a government sanction. If you are jailed, fined etc that is government sanction.

[Aimless]

We have freedom of speech, you can say 9/11 was right and proper and jihad is cool. But if you do, you should have a closer look taken at you. Would you agree? Because again, an investigation is not a government sanction. If you are jailed, fined etc that is government sanction.

Would you like to be investigated for endorsing rape, physical abuse/torture and murder? Because--like terrorism and violent jihad--those, too, are illegal things. Thinking that Trump is a fucking idiot, however, is not.