Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

pokerider

Peter Strzok hearing

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

:facepalm: You're trying to become a lawyer and you think this hearing is proper?

 

 

Holy shit, was Gohmert drunk? He was slurring and couldn't even pronounce words correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

 

Holy shit, was Gohmert drunk? He was slurring and couldn't even pronounce words correctly. 

I know, right? The whole thing is a huge McCarthy style clusterphuck.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

 

Holy shit, was Gohmert drunk? He was slurring and couldn't even pronounce words correctly. 

No. He is just a phucking moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boise fan said:

I know, right? The whole thing is a huge McCarthy style clusterphuck.

I just got to the part where he called Strzok a liar, and then asked him how many times he lied to his wife about his affair. Then he didn't even want Strzok to respond. What a piece of shit. Good God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, retrofade said:

 

Holy shit, was Gohmert drunk? He was slurring and couldn't even pronounce words correctly. 

Mother of God I wanted to dick slap that traitorous piece of shit.

Not with my average dick tho, but rather with one of those giant, 7-foot long sperm whale schlongs... the kind that require two hands and a lot of upper body strength to swing against someone's grill.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even get what the point of this crap is to be honest. The GOP wants to grandstand. They ask questions, and then talk all over the responses and tell the "witness" to be quiet. You saw it with Strzok today, and with Rosenstein and Wray a few weeks ago. They don't care about the truth, they just want to talk shit about people under the guise of an "investigation," nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I don't even get what the point of this crap is to be honest. The GOP wants to grandstand. They ask questions, and then talk all over the responses and tell the "witness" to be quiet. You saw it with Strzok today, and with Rosenstein and Wray a few weeks ago. They don't care about the truth, they just want to talk shit about people under the guise of an "investigation," nothing more. 

I defy anyone to read Rosenstien's appointment of special counsel and tell me how attempting to undermine it is anything but treasonous.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I don't even get what the point of this crap is to be honest. The GOP wants to grandstand. They ask questions, and then talk all over the responses and tell the "witness" to be quiet. You saw it with Strzok today, and with Rosenstein and Wray a few weeks ago. They don't care about the truth, they just want to talk shit about people under the guise of an "investigation," nothing more. 

That's a big part of why it reminds me of McCarthy.  These clowns have an agenda before they begin speaking.  The irony is they are arguing about bias, while they ignore their own bias before their questioning begins. 

And they aren't interested in Strzok's answers, unless he traps himself.  It's all grandstanding to, I guess, make them look tough for the GOP nutjobs who support this kind of crap?

I'm sure there are a few on this board that would champion this style of questioning.  Some are Libertarians.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

Holy shit, was Gohmert drunk? He was slurring and couldn't even pronounce words correctly. 

I wouldn't expect anything else from a Tea Party guy who attended law school at Baylor.

And I'm sure he was a helluva lawyer. At 2:02 to 4:12 before the guy from R.I. finally objected, Gohmert didn't ask a single question. Instead all he did was pontificate about what a despicable character he thinks Strzok is. Had it been in a court of law, Strzok's lawyer would have objected as "argumentative" or "badgering the witness" or some such thing within 10 seconds and the judge would have sustained the objection. Had Gohmert persisted, the judge would have admonished him to cut it out. Had Gohmert still persisted, the judge would have threatened to sanction him.

But beyond all that, when Gohmer ("Golly gee, Sergeant Carter!") finally DID ask a question, it was something about whether Strzok asked "Hillary" something and then when Strozok tried to answer, the Texas dumbass interrupted multiple times to say he hadn't asked a question. Again, if it had been a court of law Strzok's counsel would have objected and the judge would have asked the court reporter to read back what Congressman Pyle said and then admonished him again to refrain from speaking while Strzok answered it as would have been his right.

I swear to God that Gohmert just might possibly be as effing dumb as Gavin Nunes.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, retrofade said:

They've already investigated all of this already. This is an investigation of the investigation of the investigation at this point.

I am curious as to what Trump aide I said that about. I seem to recall mocking Cohen for taking the fifth because Trump had previously said that the only people who take the fifth are guilty. 

Who cares what type of investigation it is only a partisan hypocrite would take the position congress doesn't have the legal right of oversight and then only because of politics.

This happens with both sides but you acting like congress is being unreasonable to ask questions of a member of the executive branch is just hyper partisanship.

Since as you say this is an investigation of an investigation what do they have to hide?   They would seem to only have to hide their bad intentions and motives because as you said this is old news.   Even your excuse makes you look dumb.

If everything is normal and nothing is wrong this is old news as you claim, answer the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pokebball said:

Lisa Page is on deck

Closed Hearing, though there is no reason WHY she should be treated differently than her "we'll stop him" co-consporator.

 

Disgusting bias inside what is supposed to be an FBI with integrity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I defy anyone to read Rosenstien's appointment of special counsel and tell me how attempting to undermine it is anything but treasonous.

We should all table that word, "treason" and cut the hyperbole.

 

Do we have any idea just how difficult it is to convict someone of treason or sedition? Nearly impossible.

Aaron Burr ran a damn attempted coups of the Southern US, and even with all of the indisputable evidence, he couldn't be convicted.

 

Treason just isnt realistic in any way for anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s extremely troubling is these two highly biased people were front row center in the investigation of Hillary Clinton and Trumps campaign. Comments something to the effect of  “we will stop him” and the “insurance policy” are at the least highly unprofessional and border on trying to manipulate an election. People like this have no business working for the FBI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, soupslam1 said:

What’s extremely troubling is these two highly biased people were front row center in the investigation of Hillary Clinton and Trumps campaign. Comments something to the effect of  “we will stop him” and the “insurance policy” are at the least highly unprofessional and border on trying to manipulate an election. People like this have no business working for the FBI. 

If Strzok wanted to influence or manipulate an election, he could have leaked that they were investigating potential links between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pokerider said:

Democrats are actively trying to protect Strzok and using procedural outbursts to delay hearing.  

That's pretty damn amazing if you ask me.  Dems clearly only are worried about the law when it benefits them.  Strzok wasn't some Obama cabinet member or a disgraced Democratic candidate, he's was an FBI senior level official.  The fact the Dems would try to help him at all sends a huge message.  

What law did Strzok break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...