They would be flirting with starting a civil war. That is why the actual Constitution put this awesome power with the congress, not Deep State cronies trying to cover up their own misdeeds.
Strzok's karma is making a return visit to bite him in the arse.
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
They would be flirting with starting a civil war. That is why the actual Constitution put this awesome power with the congress, not Deep State cronies trying to cover up their own misdeeds.
That's the entire issue in a nutshell. No evidence yet of acting. But who knows. Everyone has opinions, and everyone has the right to them. Just because you work for the taxpayer doesn't mean you give up that right. But you should have enough sense to keep your personal opinions out of the work environment! What has to be shown is that strzok acted on his opinion. That's going to be very difficult if all we know now is all there is to know.
On the other hand, it's a trivial matter to show that Trump, a taxpayers' employee, acted on his personal opinion, very publicly and in the work environment, when he fired Comey, "because of the Russian thing." We have Trumps word on it! And, amazingly, we also have Trumps word that Rosenstein's memo was just a smoke screen for his (Trump's) intentions: "I was going to fire Comey anyway."* Did that show bias on the Presidents part toward the Russian investigation? Did he act on that bias?
______________
*Does anyone else find it as odd as I do that a guy who has been a party to over 4000 lawsuits (many of them dropped when his bullying didn't work, and he had to retreat with his tail between his legs) doesn't seem to have learned a damn thing from the experience. It seems the only way one can explain this is that he his totally at the mercy of his out of control narcissism.
words in brackets are mine and not part of the original quote from AAAintheBeltway.
So the congress has the power to remove a president from office, not prosecute them for crimes. You’re conflating two different things.
Yeah, no. You don’t know what they know or what they have determined. This is the same scenario with the IG report. I will wait and see rather than take your analysis as always.
If Trump would have lost nobody would know who Strzoks is, or Steele, or ANY Russian meddling in the election. With Hillary president, Trump would be playing golf while this country was headed directly to liberal hell.
The fact the establishment is going after Trump so viciously is only because he won. That is the definition of a WITCH-HUNT.
The fact the establishment is going after Trump so viciously is only because he won. That is the definition of a WITCH-HUNT.
Sorry. If you are prosecutor, extreme bias requires you to recuse or else the whole investigation is tainted. Same for a judge. Even Mueller saw that and got rid of Strzok as soon as he could although Strzoks fingerprints and actions were all over the Hillary and Trump investigations by then so you can't undo the damage just by having Mueller dump him.
In addition the difference in treatment between the two investigations that Strzok worked on- Hillary's and Trump's- provides overwhelming evidence that the aforementioned bias influenced the goals and actions of the investigations. That is beyond dispute at this point.
Also you are stuck on stupid with that old argument about how this is just a matter of every public employee having the right to a political opinion. That worked for a about a week but the subsequent waves of emails and texts released showed a bias and a venom and a willingness to use public authority to accomplish a political goal. "Insurance policies" to be put in place, "meetings in Andy's office to discuss options about Trump," Texting each other and saying "we will stop it." Saying things like "I was in Walmart and could smell the Trump supporters", and "Trump is a loathsome human being."
How would you like to be a black person being investigated by a prosecutor who had already decided that you needed to be stopped and that he can smell your people in Walmart? and was clearly giving you a full throttle investigation when all his white buddies got the hillary version? No. There is the right or public employees to hold political opinions, and then there is a venomous predisposition that negates the legitimacy of the process.
And no, McCabe's argument that he did not need to disclose the 750,000 that his wife got from dem organizations because that is included under his right to have political views on his own time did not fly either. Not sure that -since you are still stuck on stupid on the other issues- that you are still stuck on that too. Most likely you are. Things have advanced a bit since then. You remember McCabe and Lisa Page right? Gone.
And I will wait and see- as always- for when Mueller convicts (not just indicts) Trump on obstruction and collusion (not for some condo deal in Krapistan ten years ago).
You're making a lot of assumptions. Better to wait for some facts to surface. You haven't a clue who strzok was investigating or what his role was on Mueller's team. You do get a lot of mileage out of a vacuum however.
What has to be shown is that strzok acted on his opinion. That's going to be very difficult if all we know now is all there is to know.
Keep hoping. Page, Strzok, and McCabe were all fired or forced out of their jobs based on someone else making some assumptions too- not just me.
And I addressed the issue of Strzok already acting on his bias, in addition to the fact that his level of bias alone was a disqualifying factor. Even Mueller concluded that. So your pretending you did not see the points I made, may help you. Strzok, Mccabe, Page- not so much.
But I acknowledge that you have no good reply there.