• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FBI fires Strzok over anti-Trump texts

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You don't think LE investigators recuse themselves from investigations because of personal biases? You don't think their bosses keep them from investigations because of their biases? Are you fucking stupid? Do you think some prosecutor wants someone testifying with those biases? What you know about investigative standards could fit comfortably on the head of a pin. Your ignorance marches on.

Even Mueller knew enough to kick this asshole to the curb. This idiotic argument about not being able to investigate mob bosses because of dislike is just another example of the TDS driven fucktardedness that permeates this board.

Good job!
 
IJTSSG said:
You don't think LE investigators recuse themselves from investigations because of personal biases? You don't think their bosses keep them from investigations because of their biases? Are you fucking stupid? Do you think some prosecutor wants someone testifying with those biases? What you know about investigative standards could fit comfortably on the head of a pin. Your ignorance marches on.

Even Mueller knew enough to kick this asshole to the curb. This idiotic argument about not being able to investigate mob bosses because of dislike is just another example of the TDS driven fucktardedness that permeates this board.

Good job!
Click to expand...

Apparently you have no fucking idea what you’re taking about because the question here wasn’t if people can be set aside for their bias, it is if someone disliking the target of their investigation is sufficient. It is not and it never has been.

You won’t address the mob boss argument because you can’t and you know it. You talk and rage a lot about things you dont understand.

Good job!
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Actually if an investigator is so biased against a target that he is texting other people in an investigation outside the chain of command he should have the integrity to recuse himself from an investigation. Kind of like DAG Rosenstein being a witness and being in charge of an investigation at the same time. You can include yourself in the group of people that don't know what the word integrity means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity
Click to expand...
How about this. Recusal is proper when you have a vested interest in the outcome. Sessions had a vested interest since he was part of the Trump campaign. Don't you think cops text each other about their distain for criminals all the time? That doesn't cause their recusal from doing their job.

Why do you have such a hard on for this guy??
 
It’s also funny that IJTSSG’s only contributions to this board are basically crazed rants about how much he hates everyone on this board.

If you hate everyone so much then why come here?
 
HomerJS said:
How about this. Recusal is proper when you have a vested interest in the outcome. Sessions had a vested interest since he was part of the Trump campaign. Don't you think cops text each other about their distain for criminals all the time? That doesn't cause their recusal from doing their job.

Why do you have such a hard on for this guy??
Click to expand...

They don’t actually hate him or even care about him. The right (correctly) views the Mueller investigation as an existential threat to Trump so the goal is to discredit it by any means necessary.

Now someone with integrity might argue that it’s more important to not have a criminal for a president than for your party to keep power but conservatives don’t think that way. Party over country.
 
fskimospy said:
It’s also funny that IJTSSG’s only contributions to this board are basically crazed rants about how much he hates everyone on this board.

If you hate everyone so much then why come here?
Click to expand...
and he crowbarred TDS into his defense. That's like if we discussed the new welfare state for farmers, HEY YOU JUST HAVE TDS.
 
HomerJS said:
and he crowbarred TDS into his defense. That's like if we discussed the new welfare state for farmers, HEY YOU JUST HAVE TDS.
Click to expand...

That's dumb too, I agree. What I find weird about him is more basic though, just that he doesn't seem to be here to discuss anything, he's just here to rant about how much he HATES EVERYONE.

I suspect if I went to r/the_donald I would think everyone there was a moron, but that's why I don't go there.
 
Waaaaaaaaa! Somebody is in the echo chamber pointing out our stupidity. Waaaaaaaa!

Pathetic girls. Really pathetic.
 
IJTSSG said:
Waaaaaaaaa! Somebody is in the echo chamber pointing out our stupidity. Waaaaaaaa!

Pathetic girls. Really pathetic.
Click to expand...

Aren't you like 50 or something? hahaha. You're probably one of those people who goes to parties just to bitch and whine the whole time about how much they hate it while your friends and relatives roll their eyes behind your back.

Regardless, I'm just looking out for you. I'm sure there's something else on the internet that will bring you so much more happiness than impotently raging at random people you hate!
 
fskimospy said:
That's dumb too, I agree. What I find weird about him is more basic though, just that he doesn't seem to be here to discuss anything, he's just here to rant about how much he HATES EVERYONE.

I suspect if I went to r/the_donald I would think everyone there was a moron, but that's why I don't go there.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, even those people think the other ones are fucking crazy idiots so its not like they're actually unified. Hell you see it routinely on here where they very often don't even respond to each other because of how regularly they say ridiculously stupid shit that they can't defend the person for while acting like they're all providing some sound unified argument. I also wish people would just ignore them when they're clearly just wanting to derail threads. Say your piece to them and move on.

Have you guys noticed how the conservatives on here are now claiming they have hated Turmp the entire time and are trying to act like they've been critical of him constantly? They're transitioning to trying to save face (and that's exactly why the people going "see you should give them credit" is bullshit, because its all a ploy, that's what assholes do when they fuck up, they try to act like they didn't at all so that they don't suffer any reproach for it; its full on revisionism so they can absolve themselves of their behavior and it is incredibly common among conservatives where they won't even apologize or if pushed will do one - that they will later recant - and expect that to make everything better, even after they go fucking insane and triple down on stupid shit, then they start acting like they never did that and start claiming they were on board with common sense the entire time). They went from claiming that people were being unfairly harsh in criticism of Turmp, to now they will actually say they agree that he's an unhinged piece of shit. But they'll still indirectly defend every aspect that relates to him and try to claim they're not defending him or anything. Just like how certain ones "aren't defending white supremacists" yet they can't stop telling us how BLM and Antifa are worse and other idiotic ways they try to argue ("I'm not defending the KKK, I'm calling into question that they even did the thing people are criticizing them for" yet they do the total opposite when its a black person or minority group and then get mad when people call them on it).
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I believe a lawsuit would hinge on two thing. First, if other employees who committed acts were treated in the same way or if Strzok was singled out for punishment. The second is if the process of termination itself was followed or he was kicked without normal procedures being followed.

If either were true then he has grounds for legal action.
Click to expand...

He wasn't singled out, Lisa Page was part of his little conspiracy, yet she took a less dramatic exit. He has already conned people out of 300k+ dollars on gofundme, if anything he is now a celebrity and will make way more money than he ever did at the FBI.
 
IJTSSG said:
You don't think LE investigators recuse themselves from investigations because of personal biases? You don't think their bosses keep them from investigations because of their biases? Are you fucking stupid? Do you think some prosecutor wants someone testifying with those biases? What you know about investigative standards could fit comfortably on the head of a pin. Your ignorance marches on.

Even Mueller knew enough to kick this asshole to the curb. This idiotic argument about not being able to investigate mob bosses because of dislike is just another example of the TDS driven fucktardedness that permeates this board.

Good job!
Click to expand...

The presonal bias being that you don't like the person you are investigating for child abuse? There would be no one who would ever investigate child abuse if this was the case.

Same with every other crime, investigators are biased against the person they are investigating all the time but does that change the facts collected?

Your problem, kid, is that you can't think.
 
IJTSSG said:
Waaaaaaaaa! Somebody is in the echo chamber pointing out our stupidity. Waaaaaaaa!

Pathetic girls. Really pathetic.
Click to expand...
As long as people are looking out for you I should perhaps tell you that you shouldn't call others girls because it screams sexual insecurity and the fear you aren't attractive to women. Women are moving away from guys that can hoe a row and into metrosexuals that can dance.
 
dyna said:
He wasn't singled out, Lisa Page was part of his little conspiracy, yet she took a less dramatic exit. He has already conned people out of 300k+ dollars on gofundme, if anything he is now a celebrity and will make way more money than he ever did at the FBI.
Click to expand...

To be clear though all evidence indicates that this 'little conspiracy' involved exactly zero actual conspiracy. It never ceases to amaze me that the conspiracy theory that Strzok was conspiring to torpedo Trump's candidacy is apparently not at all disproven by the fact that Strzok could have easily torpedoed Trump's candidacy and did not.
 
fskimospy said:
To be clear though all evidence indicates that this 'little conspiracy' involved exactly zero actual conspiracy. It never ceases to amaze me that the conspiracy theory that Strzok was conspiring to torpedo Trump's candidacy is apparently not at all disproven by the fact that Strzok could have easily torpedoed Trump's candidacy and did not.
Click to expand...

The IG report indicates severe wrongdoing. We don't know how much evidence they have, they won't release those details under the guise of national security/security clearance. For all we know, he could have tried to torpedo it and failed. We do know that he broke the FBI code, that is all the evidence they needed. In my opinion, had the IG report ignored Strzok, his job would have remained secure and I would have agreed based on the texts alone it was a weak reason to fire him.
 
dyna said:
The IG report indicates severe wrongdoing. We don't know how much evidence they have, they won't release those details under the guise of national security/security clearance. For all we know, he could have tried to torpedo it and failed. We do know that he broke the FBI code, that is all the evidence they needed. In my opinion, had the IG report ignored Strzok, his job would have remained secure and I would have agreed based on the texts alone it was a weak reason to fire him.
Click to expand...

What? No it doesn't? Present your case. "We don't know" is not indicative of knowledge in any shape or form...

Look at how dumb you are, you are saying "because we don't know, it could be and thus IT IS".

You would have to dig deep in a mental hospital to find that level of delusional disorder but here you are...
 
Josephus312 said:
What? No it doesn't? Present your case.
Click to expand...

I brought this up earlier in the thread but here is the summary of the Strzok/Page scenario in the summary of the IG report.

The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.
Click to expand...

There are two points made here.

1. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation

This indicates there is more to it and the damage is extreme.

2. goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

Failure of FBI protocol and it is pretty clear it is about as severe as it gets with the way this is worded.
 
dyna said:
The IG report indicates severe wrongdoing. We don't know how much evidence they have, they won't release those details under the guise of national security/security clearance. For all we know, he could have tried to torpedo it and failed. We do know that he broke the FBI code, that is all the evidence they needed. In my opinion, had the IG report ignored Strzok, his job would have remained secure and I would have agreed based on the texts alone it was a weak reason to fire him.
Click to expand...

The IG report explicitly stated that there is no evidence of any sort that Strzok made any improper investigative decisions, meaning they found zero wrongdoing with regards to the investigation itself. While it is logically impossible to prove a negative there is exactly as much evidence that he attempted to torpedo Trump's campaign as there is for any other member of the FBI - zero.

Also, I'm struggling as to how Strzok could try and fail to torpedo Trump's candidacy as all he would need to do is tell someone the investigation existed. It doesn't make any logical sense. So again, the problem with the conspiracy theory is that there's zero evidence of any actual conspiracy happening, haha.
 
dyna said:
I brought this up earlier in the thread but here is the summary of the Strzok/Page scenario in the summary of the IG report.



There are two points made here.

1. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation

This indicates there is more to it and the damage is extreme.

2. goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

Failure of FBI protocol and it is pretty clear it is about as severe as it gets with the way this is worded.
Click to expand...

What the fuck? You are going with conjecture instead of evidence?

What is wrong with your brain?
 
fskimospy said:
The IG report explicitly stated that there is no evidence of any sort that Strzok made any improper investigative decisions, meaning they found zero wrongdoing with regards to the investigation itself. While it is logically impossible to prove a negative there is exactly as much evidence that he attempted to torpedo Trump's campaign as there is for any other member of the FBI - zero.

Also, I'm struggling as to how Strzok could try and fail to torpedo Trump's candidacy as all he would need to do is tell someone the investigation existed. It doesn't make any logical sense. So again, the problem with the conspiracy theory is that there's zero evidence of any actual conspiracy happening, haha.
Click to expand...

It definitely implies that Strzok made all kinds of improper decisions, what it does say and what your trying to tell me is that they didn't find any evidence of it effecting outcomes. Just because Strzok's plan didn't work doesn't mean all is forgiven for him.
 
dyna said:
It definitely implies that Strzok made all kinds of improper decisions, what it does say and what your trying to tell me is that they didn't find any evidence of it effecting outcomes.
Click to expand...

This is what it said:

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.
Click to expand...

Chapter 5 then goes into extensive discussion of what those investigative decisions were and who was making them/advocating for them. Your conspiracy theory now relies on Strzok attempting to engage in prosecutorial misconduct but having other members of the FBI 1) stop him and then 2) in dereliction of their duties not report it. This is ridiculous nonsense. It would also rise to a level of misconduct that the IG would need to report on, yet it is not present.

Just because Strzok's plan didn't work doesn't mean all is forgiven for him.
Click to expand...

Important to reiterate that the 'plan' you are referencing is something for which there is literally zero evidence of. Will you acknowledge this?
 
Josephus312 said:
The presonal bias being that you don't like the person you are investigating for child abuse? There would be no one who would ever investigate child abuse if this was the case.

Same with every other crime, investigators are biased against the person they are investigating all the time but does that change the facts collected?

Your problem, kid, is that you can't think.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. The guy who can’t read and thinks I’m a murderer is critiquing the comprehension abilities of others.

Go back to freerepublic snowflakes, think of your poor feels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top