Bad news for Loverboy?

[SmokeALib]

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was “cooperative” and "credible" in a closed-door session Friday with select House committee members that lasted nearly five hours.

U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., had been among Page’s harshest critics heading into the session, but he said her cooperation “speaks well of her,” according to the Hill. Lisa Page 'cooperative,' 'credible,' lawmakers say after 5-hour closed-door session
Did loverboys terrible performance testifying spark this? Desire to try to salvage career? IS this the first crack in conspirators silence?

What I read is that her answers were quite the opposite of Strokeoff. Here is what the Dailycaller is reporting:

Congressional leaders have praised the testimony of former FBI agent Lisa Page in recent days and have said that they found her testimony to be very credible as some of them claim she gave a very different account of events than her former lover, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that there were "significant differences" in Page's testimony compared to the testimony given by Strzok and that she gave congressional investigators new information they did not previously have.

"In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative," Ratcliff told reporters on Monday, according to ABC News.

Lisa Page Gave Significantly Different Testimony Than Peter Stzrok, Congressman Says

Strokeoff. That's funny stuff right there!

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

The big deal is Strokeoff was the one who interviewed Hillary in the email scandal. If he has a bias for her, don't you think that would have altered his questioning and reporting of answers?

No, I think people do their jobs and also have political opinions. It was investigated by the IG and no bias was seen in the work product.

There was definitely bias, and the IG is just as corrupt as the FBI. HTF can anybody read those texts and say there was no bias? Ray Charles could see the blatant bias.

How are you not getting this Ray? Yes there was bias in the sense that they didn’t like Trump... so what?! Their work was reviewed and nothing improper was found more than “bad perception” which is why mueller took him off the case.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everybody in the world is bias, that doesn’t mean they are corrupt, liars or unable to execute their jobs

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Actually the ig stated his statements to his investigators did not seem credible, but they couldn’t prove it.

Ok, and based on that you assign guilt?

I have zero loyalty to page or Pete, if they find that those two planted evidence or falsified statements or did something illegal then throw them in jail. But all that was uncovered was two people who thought Trump was an idiot. That isn’t illegal and y’all are trying to make it into something that evidence doesn’t not back up.

I hate to break it to you but most investigators investigate slimeballs and I’d bet anything that most investigators have a biased opinion about many of the slime balls they investigate. Doesn’t mean they are corrupt

So you want to make the comparison of investigators investigating slimebalms to FBI agents investigating a potential POTUS; a guy who never smoked a cigarette, never used recreational narcotics, never took a drink of alcohol in his life?

That's some comparison.

It’s a guy that ran a scortched earth campaign for over a year and hit many hot button issues in a careless and crass way that rubbed millions of people the wrong way. You either love him or you hate him or you tolerate him. Either way, people have opinions of others but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their job. You seem to gloss right over that point.

I did? Well let me make a point to you.

If a judge is scheduled to hear a case where he or she has personal involvement, do they judge the case anyway or do they properly recuse themselves?

There is a reason people with personal involvements are not supposed to be involved with cases where they have an automatic bias.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The big deal is Strokeoff was the one who interviewed Hillary in the email scandal. If he has a bias for her, don't you think that would have altered his questioning and reporting of answers?

No, I think people do their jobs and also have political opinions. It was investigated by the IG and no bias was seen in the work product.

There was definitely bias, and the IG is just as corrupt as the FBI. HTF can anybody read those texts and say there was no bias? Ray Charles could see the blatant bias.

How are you not getting this Ray? Yes there was bias in the sense that they didn’t like Trump... so what?! Their work was reviewed and nothing improper was found more than “bad perception” which is why mueller took him off the case.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everybody in the world is bias, that doesn’t mean they are corrupt, liars or unable to execute their jobs

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

 

[Slade3200]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Ok, and based on that you assign guilt?

I have zero loyalty to page or Pete, if they find that those two planted evidence or falsified statements or did something illegal then throw them in jail. But all that was uncovered was two people who thought Trump was an idiot. That isn’t illegal and y’all are trying to make it into something that evidence doesn’t not back up.

I hate to break it to you but most investigators investigate slimeballs and I’d bet anything that most investigators have a biased opinion about many of the slime balls they investigate. Doesn’t mean they are corrupt

So you want to make the comparison of investigators investigating slimebalms to FBI agents investigating a potential POTUS; a guy who never smoked a cigarette, never used recreational narcotics, never took a drink of alcohol in his life?

That's some comparison.

It’s a guy that ran a scortched earth campaign for over a year and hit many hot button issues in a careless and crass way that rubbed millions of people the wrong way. You either love him or you hate him or you tolerate him. Either way, people have opinions of others but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their job. You seem to gloss right over that point.

I did? Well let me make a point to you.

If a judge is scheduled to hear a case where he or she has personal involvement, do they judge the case anyway or do they properly recuse themselves?

There is a reason people with personal involvements are not supposed to be involved with cases where they have an automatic bias.

You are right, and there are standards to evaluate personal involvement to constitute bias and recusal. This case that we are talking about had no personal involvement. It only became an issue When text messages were made public and then it became a perception issue.

 

[Slade3200]

No, I think people do their jobs and also have political opinions. It was investigated by the IG and no bias was seen in the work product.

There was definitely bias, and the IG is just as corrupt as the FBI. HTF can anybody read those texts and say there was no bias? Ray Charles could see the blatant bias.

How are you not getting this Ray? Yes there was bias in the sense that they didn’t like Trump... so what?! Their work was reviewed and nothing improper was found more than “bad perception” which is why mueller took him off the case.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everybody in the world is bias, that doesn’t mean they are corrupt, liars or unable to execute their jobs

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I have zero loyalty to page or Pete, if they find that those two planted evidence or falsified statements or did something illegal then throw them in jail. But all that was uncovered was two people who thought Trump was an idiot. That isn’t illegal and y’all are trying to make it into something that evidence doesn’t not back up.

I hate to break it to you but most investigators investigate slimeballs and I’d bet anything that most investigators have a biased opinion about many of the slime balls they investigate. Doesn’t mean they are corrupt

So you want to make the comparison of investigators investigating slimebalms to FBI agents investigating a potential POTUS; a guy who never smoked a cigarette, never used recreational narcotics, never took a drink of alcohol in his life?

That's some comparison.

It’s a guy that ran a scortched earth campaign for over a year and hit many hot button issues in a careless and crass way that rubbed millions of people the wrong way. You either love him or you hate him or you tolerate him. Either way, people have opinions of others but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their job. You seem to gloss right over that point.

I did? Well let me make a point to you.

If a judge is scheduled to hear a case where he or she has personal involvement, do they judge the case anyway or do they properly recuse themselves?

There is a reason people with personal involvements are not supposed to be involved with cases where they have an automatic bias.

You are right, and there are standards to evaluate personal involvement to constitute bias and recusal. This case that we are talking about had no personal involvement. It only became an issue When text messages were made public and then it became a perception issue.

So let's say you got called for jury duty next week. As usual, they interview the jurists. The case is about a teacher who supposedly had inappropriate relations with a student. But the defense lawyers find out that your daughter was a victim of a teacher under the same circumstance. Do you believe they would let you seve on that jury even though you don't know the teacher or student involved in the case?

Or let's say that Trump had it out for Hillary, and hired a special prosecutor who hated Hillary, and that prosecutor hired assistants to aid him in the case who also hated Hillary. None of the people ever met Hillary in their life. You would be okay with that, especially if they brought charges against her?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There was definitely bias, and the IG is just as corrupt as the FBI. HTF can anybody read those texts and say there was no bias? Ray Charles could see the blatant bias.

How are you not getting this Ray? Yes there was bias in the sense that they didn’t like Trump... so what?! Their work was reviewed and nothing improper was found more than “bad perception” which is why mueller took him off the case.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everybody in the world is bias, that doesn’t mean they are corrupt, liars or unable to execute their jobs

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

 

[Slade3200]

I have zero loyalty to page or Pete, if they find that those two planted evidence or falsified statements or did something illegal then throw them in jail. But all that was uncovered was two people who thought Trump was an idiot. That isn’t illegal and y’all are trying to make it into something that evidence doesn’t not back up.

I hate to break it to you but most investigators investigate slimeballs and I’d bet anything that most investigators have a biased opinion about many of the slime balls they investigate. Doesn’t mean they are corrupt

So you want to make the comparison of investigators investigating slimebalms to FBI agents investigating a potential POTUS; a guy who never smoked a cigarette, never used recreational narcotics, never took a drink of alcohol in his life?

That's some comparison.

It’s a guy that ran a scortched earth campaign for over a year and hit many hot button issues in a careless and crass way that rubbed millions of people the wrong way. You either love him or you hate him or you tolerate him. Either way, people have opinions of others but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their job. You seem to gloss right over that point.

I did? Well let me make a point to you.

If a judge is scheduled to hear a case where he or she has personal involvement, do they judge the case anyway or do they properly recuse themselves?

There is a reason people with personal involvements are not supposed to be involved with cases where they have an automatic bias.

You are right, and there are standards to evaluate personal involvement to constitute bias and recusal. This case that we are talking about had no personal involvement. It only became an issue When text messages were made public and then it became a perception issue.

So let's say you got called for jury duty next week. As usual, they interview the jurists. The case is about a teacher who supposedly had inappropriate relations with a student. But the defense lawyers find out that your daughter was a victim of a teacher under the same circumstance. Do you believe they would let you seve on that jury even though you don't know the teacher or student involved in the case?

Or let's say that Trump had it out for Hillary, and hired a special prosecutor who hated Hillary, and that prosecutor hired assistants to aid him in the case who also hated Hillary. None of the people ever met Hillary in their life. You would be okay with that, especially if they brought charges against her?

Hillary was investigated for what felt like an eternity by republicans in Congress that had obvious political bias. Do you not remember?

And for your jury analogy, yeah sure there are many reasons that jurors get dismissed, if those conflicts popped up for the FBI agents then they should also be dismissed. But the only issues exposed were two people text messaging and talking shit about a joke of a presidential candidate. I’m sure most of America was texting about how horrible both choices were this election cycle.

 

[Slade3200]

How are you not getting this Ray? Yes there was bias in the sense that they didn’t like Trump... so what?! Their work was reviewed and nothing improper was found more than “bad perception” which is why mueller took him off the case.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everybody in the world is bias, that doesn’t mean they are corrupt, liars or unable to execute their jobs

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

 

[Thinker101]

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

 

[Thinker101]

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

Pete?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

God you are a sucker. What choice did Mueller have than to take him off the case?

So a 14 year old girl accuses you of sexually molesting her. The detective in your city is a guy you went to high school with and he hated your guts every single day; still hates you until this day. You're okay with him making the case against you?

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

This jerk off was in charge of the investigation. His favorite was Hillary who he interviewed. HTF do you prove he was not aggressive enough during the investigation as he otherwise would have been for anybody else?

If he and his whore had any ability to change the election or circumstances afterwards, they would have done it.

 

[Slade3200]

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Actually I’m all my posts I said their opinions of Trump were biased but there wasn’t evidence of bias in their work. There is a difference

 

[Slade3200]

See in that case there is a legit conflict through association. Did these FBI agents know Trump or have a history with him?

Talk about bad comparisons

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

This jerk off was in charge of the investigation. His favorite was Hillary who he interviewed. HTF do you prove he was not aggressive enough during the investigation as he otherwise would have been for anybody else?

If he and his whore had any ability to change the election or circumstances afterwards, they would have done it.

Then why didn’t they leak about the Trump investigation? It surely would have hurt him

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did they hate him just as much as if they did? Read the texts to answer that question.

They thought he was a joke, so did the majority of the voting public. Not liking a person and haveing personal history with somebody are two different things.

But let’s dig a layer deeper. Let’s say they hated Trump... did they do anything illegal with the investigation? What’s the issue? You scared that they might be critical and skeptical of him while they investigate?

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

This jerk off was in charge of the investigation. His favorite was Hillary who he interviewed. HTF do you prove he was not aggressive enough during the investigation as he otherwise would have been for anybody else?

If he and his whore had any ability to change the election or circumstances afterwards, they would have done it.

Then why didn’t they leak about the Trump investigation? It surely would have hurt him

There was nothing to leak. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Erinwltr]

wait where did my post go? Who erased it?

The Deep State.

 

[Vastator]

I was just watching FOX and the guest stated Paige confirmed significant bias among current DOJ employees and Muellers team. Paige is exposing the deep state....

Man... I hope all of the stress caused by this high profile case doesn't exacerbate her depression.

 

[Thinker101]

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Actually I’m all my posts I said their opinions of Trump were biased but there wasn’t evidence of bias in their work. There is a difference

Most, if not all the companies I've worked for really discourage using work devices for anything other than work, and 50,000 bias tweets on a work device pretty much suggests work was affected. Although, I must agree, there is no evidence of any work at all.

 

[hazlnut]

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was “cooperative” and "credible" in a closed-door session Friday with select House committee members that lasted nearly five hours.

U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., had been among Page’s harshest critics heading into the session, but he said her cooperation “speaks well of her,” according to the Hill. Lisa Page 'cooperative,' 'credible,' lawmakers say after 5-hour closed-door session
Did loverboys terrible performance testifying spark this? Desire to try to salvage career? IS this the first crack in conspirators silence?

So you don't even know what she said.

And loverboy wiped the floor with the House GOP cock-us.