• 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.

Please tell me you guys are watching this!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This entire thing is a massive crock of shit anyway. Does a defense lawyer actually like child rapists? Wife beaters? Doubtful. Does he have to represent his client? Yup. Was the Benghazi investigation and actual investigation? Did Pin Head Gowdy have to turn over his personal text messages going into and during that trial? Could he sit in front of an under oath testimony that he conducted his investigation under absolute and non-partisan bias free means? Would he be willing to turn in his personal messages going into this hearing today to prove that he's an hones and non-biased investigator?
 
soundforbjt said:
I think it was Goodlatte (SP?), he rattled off names of people who were on the investigation and how much they donated to Hillary or Obama, it was 9 out of 16 investigators who donated to Dems. I didn't hear the final words by him since I was getting my mail at the time.
Click to expand...

Chabot from Ohio.
 
Oh boy here we go. We now have another Republican insinuating that the FBI is stocked full of biased agents. Another traitor trying to delegitimize an American institution.
 
Amused said:
Note:

Trump supporters are strangely silent during the hearings.

They have to wait to get their talking points from Hannity... and for time to pass before they can start twisting reality.
Click to expand...
Too busy circle jerking conservative sites where they can high five how much of an asshole each GOP rep is and call that victory.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol! Strzok just schooled him by using his example against him by explaining that judges ask jurors if they can put their biases aside not if they have any biases.
Click to expand...
That's because righties have no idea of the concept doing your job. Jurors and many professionals put their biases aside everyday.

There are almost no people who do not have any biases.
 
HomerJS said:
That's because righties have no idea of the concept doing your job. Jurors and many professionals put their biases aside everyday.

There are almost no people who do not have any biases.
Click to expand...

Apparently those people can put their biases aside but not strzok. Apparently people can't fathom Strozk being able to put his biases aside.
 
Did he ever get around to directly addressing his use of government devices while on the job for his anti Trump messages? I haven't watched the whole hearing so far.

I think I'm mostly liberal so I hope he can explain that part well. It has something to do with in the past he talked about a "fine line" between expressing personal opinions and injecting bias into an investigation. That was brought up by a Republican earlier in the hearing.
 
ivwshane said:
Apparently those people can put their biases aside but not strzok. Apparently people can't fathom Strozk being able to put his biases aside.
Click to expand...
If a credibly accused serial killer came into an emergency room doctor would try to save their life. It's called putting aside your biases.

People who can't put aside their biases to do their job are pharmacists who won't dispense birth control.
 
PlanetJosh said:
Did he ever get around to directly addressing his use of government devices while on the job for his anti Trump messages? I haven't watched the whole hearing so far.

I think I'm mostly liberal so I hope he can explain that part well. It has something to do with in the past he talked about a "fine line" between expressing personal opinions and injecting bias into an investigation. That was brought up by a Republican earlier in the hearing.
Click to expand...

I don't recall but I haven't seen the whole testimony but I had the same question.


From what I gather, it doesn't sound like using the work phone for personal matters was prohibited.
 
PlanetJosh said:
Did he ever get around to directly addressing his use of government devices while on the job for his anti Trump messages? I haven't watched the whole hearing so far.

I think I'm mostly liberal so I hope he can explain that part well. It has something to do with in the past he talked about a "fine line" between expressing personal opinions and injecting bias into an investigation. That was brought up by a Republican earlier in the hearing.
Click to expand...
Rules do allow the occasional use of government devices for personal reasons. Sending anti-Trump text messages during the investigation was inappropriate because of appearances whether it was his device or the governments.
 
Amused said:
Note:

The GOP is not accusing the FBI of fabricating evidence. Just not liking Trump and allowing the further implication to be planted with no proof. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

Gohmert accused Strzok of lying under oath, with no evidence, then tried not to let Strzok respond, and was roundly criticized for it. So then he went for the gutter, something about "you're looking at me with that straight smug face while you're lying, and I have to wonder if that's the same face you showed your wife white you were cheating on her!"
 
HomerJS said:
Rules do allow the occasional use of government devices for personal reasons. Sending anti-Trump text messages during the investigation was inappropriate because of appearances whether it was his device or the governments.
Click to expand...

What's ridiculous is he could spend millions upon millions of dark money to Dem candidates' PACs, and it's all protected free speech. But damn, send a few text messages and look at the furor!!
 
ivwshane said:
Lol! Strzok just schooled him by using his example against him by explaining that judges ask jurors if they can put their biases aside not if they have any biases.
Click to expand...

Yup, he's correct. Everyone has a viewpoint which can in theory bias them one way or another especially when politics is involved. Which doesn't mean they can't set it aside and do their jobs. The problem with most conservatives is that their own partisan bias is so strong they just project it onto others, and assume no democrat would ever do his job properly when politics is involved.

And also, an investigator isn't a juror. Juries are the arbiters of guilt or incident. If a case built by investigators is a bad one, we have a jury and a judge to later act as gate keepers.

Watched part of it this morning before leaving for work. Strzok is no dummy.
 
ivwshane said:
Oh boy here we go. We now have another Republican insinuating that the FBI is stocked full of biased agents. Another traitor trying to delegitimize an American institution.
Click to expand...


PlanetJosh said:
Did he ever get around to directly addressing his use of government devices while on the job for his anti Trump messages? I haven't watched the whole hearing so far.

I think I'm mostly liberal so I hope he can explain that part well. It has something to do with in the past he talked about a "fine line" between expressing personal opinions and injecting bias into an investigation. That was brought up by a Republican earlier in the hearing.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that govt devices are widely used for personal messaging on a daily basis. I'm also sure that anybody who wanted to hide anything would do it like Pruitt rather than Strzok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top