Please tell me you guys are watching this!

[fskimospy]

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.

As I've said from the beginning the idea that investigators would have no opinions about those they are investigating is ludicrous. Is the expectation that FBI investigators don't think one way or the other about a murderous mob boss they are going after? That in The Silence of the Lambs Starling was supposed to feel indifferent as to Buffalo Bill? I would imagine disliking the people they investigate is the rule rather than the exception as...well...investigating unsavory people is kind of the job.

 

[Thebobo]

I like how they pointed out if that Strzok really wanted to prevent trump from winning the election he would of leaked that there was an investigation going on of trump. He knew about a year before the election and he never did.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol @ the ace Ventura reference.

 

[UNCjigga]

Gowdy should just resign now. He is retiring anyways, why disgrace yourself on the way out?

In order to secure his next job, US Court of Appeals or Justice Dept or some such. He still needs to be appointed, and I bet the donor class was pissed when he started defending Mueller and the FBI a few months ago.

And yes, the irony is not lost on me that such a biased Congress critter might be allowed to rule from the bench.

 

[Thebobo]

Trey is grasping at thin air.

 

[ivwshane]

Gowdy looks like if Stewart from family guy had his head rotated.

 

[pauldun170]

"The fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look I would engage with in a family member who I have acknowledged hurting, goes more to a discussion about your character and what you stand for and what is going inside you."

"Sir, did you not, was it not intelligible?" Strzok asked when Issa asked him to repeat one message. "You just want to hear it, for me to repeat it? Okay sir. Sure, happy to indulge you."

 

[Thebobo]

lol "the wiener"

 

[woolfe9998]

As I've said from the beginning the idea that investigators would have no opinions about those they are investigating is ludicrous. Is the expectation that FBI investigators don't think one way or the other about a murderous mob boss they are going after? That in The Silence of the Lambs Starling was supposed to feel indifferent as to Buffalo Bill? I would imagine disliking the people they investigate is the rule rather than the exception as...well...investigating unsavory people is kind of the job.

Yep, and it's particularly absurd when it comes to the POTUS, any POTUS actually. Could they adequately staff a team of investigators by using only those who have no opinion on Trump? Which guy would that be? I'm thinking maybe the guy in the mail room who sniffs glue in his off time. That guy might not have an opinion.

Oh that's right, I forgot. It now appears that conservatives think it's just A-OK if an investigator has a favorable opinion of Trump. It's only the negative opinions that could actually affect their work.

Don't know if you've seen any of this hearing, but it's a total bloodbath for the GOP. It's going to be one to remember. Too bad most people will never watch it.

 

[woolfe9998]

This is how a person of principle defends himself:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ok-defends-anti-trump-texts-gowdy-sot-vpx.cnn

 

[hal2kilo]

Trey is grasping at thin air.

There was something in the back of my mind, every time I saw Trey. You nailed it. Of course Morning Joe without glasses is a similar sight. Dang can't find the link.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, and it's particularly absurd when it comes to the POTUS, any POTUS actually. Could they adequately staff a team of investigators by using only those who have no opinion on Trump? Which guy would that be? I'm thinking maybe the guy in the mail room who sniffs glue in his off time. That guy might not have an opinion.

Oh that's right, I forgot. It now appears that conservatives think it's just A-OK if an investigator has a favorable opinion of Trump. It's only the negative opinions that could actually affect their work.

Don't know if you've seen any of this hearing, but it's a total bloodbath for the GOP. It's going to be one to remember. Too bad most people will never watch it.

I have not seen any of the hearing outside of Strzok and Gohmert's exchange, which I very much enjoyed. The total contempt Strzok has for that guy and Gohmert's infantile attempts to call him names and then prevent him from responding were both pretty great to watch.

 

[Younigue]

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.

And Mueller removed him for that very reason.

 

[Younigue]

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.

And Manafort.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have not seen any of the hearing outside of Strzok and Gohmert's exchange, which I very much enjoyed. The total contempt Strzok has for that guy and Gohmert's infantile attempts to call him names and then prevent him from responding were both pretty great to watch.

Yeah, LOL at Gohmert getting all sanctimonious about Stryok's affair when he supports an admitted serial adulterer as POTUS. If absolutely anything positive comes out of this Trump fiasco, can we PLEASE at least be spared having to listen to republicans moralize about people's sexual behavior. Apparently not.

 

[Younigue]

Trey is grasping at thin air.

Any one up for a banjo duel?

 

[ivwshane]

And Mueller removed him for that very reason.

And he did so, well before the public heard about the text messages.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, LOL at Gohmert getting all sanctimonious about Stryok's affair when he supports an admitted serial adulterer as POTUS. If absolutely anything positive comes out of this Trump fiasco, can we PLEASE at least be spared having to listen to republicans moralize about people's sexual behavior. Apparently not.

Yes, you would think that enthusiastically supporting a serial adulterer and admitted sex offender would preclude someone from using sexual morality to attack someone else's character. It seems to me that Republicans have taken one lesson from Trump strongly to heart, that shame and feelings of hypocrisy are inconvenient impediments to getting what you want and if you just ignore them your supporters will too.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Any one up for a banjo duel?

You sure got a purdy mouth...

 

[Younigue]

And he did so well before the public heard about the text message.

Exactly.

I'm a bit dubious of planetjosh's suggestion that he's mostly liberal. He's got a flavor about him that I find suspect in his inquiries about Strzok's testimony. Is it just me?

 

[Younigue]

You sure got a purdy mouth...

Whatchu "squealing" 'bout?

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly.

I'm a bit dubious of planetjosh's suggestion that he's mostly liberal. He's got a flavor about him that I find suspect in his inquiries about Strzok's testimony. Is it just me?

Honestly, who cares what his political leanings are? If he were truly biased against Trump he could have singlehandedly destroyed his campaign. He didn’t.

 

[Younigue]

Honestly, who cares what his political leanings are? If he were truly biased against Trump he could have singlehandedly destroyed his campaign. He didn’t.

I was speaking of a poster but as for Strzok? I don't care what his political leanings are. I care that he did his job and I trust that he did. I also support Mueller for removing him because his investigation can't afford any distractions. Cut to this very hearing. Strzok is making the GOP look stupid and it's a joy to see though the effort could have been next to none to achieve the same thing. They're opening their mouths and nothing but stupid is coming out.

 

[umbrella39]

What I am hearing on the Internet from hardcore Republican Trump supporters:

You can't trust any cop to do their job.

Now that's not what they are actually saying, but it's what they are saying today.

If THIS agent can can let his opinions, politics, morals, values, or religion cloud this investigation then ALL cops have now been indicted as not being able to perform their duties because What Ifs... (even though having bias and letting it affect an agents duties in and FBI investigation such as this would be impossible to cover up in all the layers of their checks, balances, oversight, etc)

Republicans are always so confused on whether or not they support authority/police. Only when it suits their narrative...

They approve when a cop shoots a black guy in the back who was running away... that's a good shoot... but the next day they are busily working to take away cops benefits and pensions because ummmm… Union pigs bad...

 

[PlanetJosh]

I had a natural inclination to think maybe he knew he could get famous someday by making his anti Trump messages. And then write a book about all this after a certain number of years have passed after leaving a government agency to be able to legally write it. And then he could buy the mansion he wants.

But that seems to be just a conspiracy theory on my part after reading that it's not that uncommon to use govt phones to express personal opinions.