AndroidAggie

notre dame + yankees wait but why

fair enough i stand corrected about his position in the fbi. hmmmmmm lots of thoughts. i still don't think it's 100% clear cut that he acted because he hates trump. his ends don't justify his means; he is with the fbi and the facts surrounding the trump campaign meeting with the russians, in my estimation, warrants further investigation. i think strzok did deserve to be removed from the mueller investigation and that his bias is clearly in play when he's deciding to not go after the weiner laptop but instead chase trump. in other words, while i probably would've made the same decision, i would hope i'd choose courses of actions based on facts rather than "oh the guy is probably dirty so let's go find dirt" the ends don't justify the means

there's more to the story than what i highlighted: Inspector General Horowitz’s exhaustive review of the Clinton email probe found that “Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker” for the key Clinton email probe decisions — he had a supervisor and others on his team all along. Additionally, Horowitz wrote, Strzok and Page sometimes “advocated for more aggressive investigative measures.” Horowitz did conclude that he didn’t “have confidence” that one Strzok decision — to prioritize the Trump-Russia probe over reviewing new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop — “was free from bias.” But he also couldn’t show that there was bias there. (After all, there are legitimate arguments that pursuing active Russian interference in the final weeks of the election was the right call, and the new Clinton emails turned out to be unimportant when they were reviewed.) so horowitz (understandably and reasonably) had his doubts, but couldn't point to evidence that strzok was a in a position of power in the investigation and abused that position by using poor judgment in the investigation if i'm wrong please correct me

it's my understanding that strzok took part in 2 investigations that are relevant and salient to whether or not he was unjustly animated by personal opinion in favor of or against trump one was of hillary and emails and private servers. during the course of which strzok was determined to have not acted with any out of the ordinary bias. he was not the sole decision maker nor was he in a position internally to induce others under him to do this or that. this was the results of the june OIG report. the other investigation is the ongoing mueller investigation and his involvement there a.) has been cut short thanks to the revelation of his texts back in dec 2017 and b.) the IG's report on whether or not he unduly influenced decisions based on his bias against trump has yet to conclude. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17683566/peter-strzok-fired-fbi-trump-russia

Is that sort of thing normal in a courtroom?

this is textbook propaganda and reader manipulation all of a sudden talking about collusion like it definitely *IS* happening, but it's unnamed hillary linked kremlin and DOJ officials? all the cloak and dagger stuff that plays into the preconceived notion any fool on this board who has zero problems with that linked content is dead to me

see how quietly they accept russian collusion but quickly, without evidence and overt accusation, turn it to being hillary led operation? the standard of evidence is high and strict for testing the claim that trump colluded, but is practically a given when it's hillary yiiiiiikes...

So... Like 4 total?

We didn't know there was anything to investigate until the dossier came to light, so yeah... As a nation we are reacting accordingly. You keep characterizing it as spying, as though. What is the nature of the spying, specifically, and why do you think that's what happened?

So here's the thing Steele wasn't spying in the sense that he had a source with trump. That would cause me alarm. He gathered information, I assume from his network of contacts in the Russian world, on past business dealings between Trump and Russian elements. He also got info on what Trump was trying to do about getting info from the Russians on Hilary. This isn't state craft. Also, the United States isn't acting in a military fashion on the intelligence gained. Which is the whole point of Intel. We are using it supplementarily (if that's a word) in the Mueller investigation So, yes. I am fine with what Steele did and what we are doing about it.

You know how closely we work with the bits, right..? On phone, ignore this post... Stupid board software and stupid user.

What's wrong with trusting the integrity of a former MI6 dude who conducted research? You know how closely we work with the bits, right..?

He's five eyes, so yes.

By him, I would imagine.

Sure they are vetted.