Bad news for Loverboy?

[Thinker101]

i didn't know trump was the one under investigation.

At this point I would be surprised if he wasn’t

find me a link somewhere that says he is. i'm in to learn and change my thoughts.

I don’t need links, I can just point to a few facts. If they are investigating Obstruction of Justice then Trump would be the subject. When they find several members of the campaign lying about connections with the Russians, including Trumps son then any goodninbestigator is going to dig into what they lied about, why they lied, and who know about it. Trump was found to have written a cover up statement for his sons meeting with the Russians, so of course Trump is being looked at. Again, this is all just my observation.

Slow down champ, so what is it facts or just your observation?

Both... are you having a hard time following? What do you need me to explain for you?

Yes I am, you're jumping around like a fricken loon. One sentence you want to point out facts, next sentence it becomes observations. Better yet, don't even bother responding, not interested in discussing anything with some fricken dumbass.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t know about you but if I was in charge of an investigation I would hire the best talent and look for people who will question and be skeptical. Y’all are acting like Trump should have a bunch of his friends investigating him. We saw how the house committees investigation went. It was a joke.

And you're acting like his enemies should be investigating him.
Which is exactly whats happening.

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

Of course they wouldn't. Why would you try to do something harmful to a person you hate? Most people don't think like that now do they in your world?

You are taking text messages that talk shit on a joke of a presidential candidate and using that as evidence that they broke the law to corrupt an investigation. Despite the fact that it was investigated by the IG and no wrong doing was found. Wake up Ray, you are connecting too many invisible dots

Then why did Lisa say that the text messages meant exactly what they said? Stroke-off tried to say those messages were misconstrued, and she says the exact opposite. This is the Duh question: which one do you believe?

After all, only one is telling the truth.

Does the name Mark Fuhrman ring a bell? He was the detective that testified in the OJ trial. His testimony was considered not credible because of racist things he said in his past. No evidence that his racial opinions interfered with his investigation, just that he held those views.

And you failed to answer my earlier question if you would approve of detective investigating you or an immediate family member who had a hatred for you or them. If you tell me you wouldn't care, then I would have to say everything you posted was a lie, because it's only human nature to be suspicious of nefarious practices if somebody has it out for you. Nobody in their right mind would want that.

I don’t have an explaination, I didn’t watch the testimonies but I thought that Page testified behind closed doors so how are you getting this information?

 

[Slade3200]

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

We had 1 russian lawyer let in by obamas DOJ meet with trumps team 1 time n thats 2 plus years of investigations on trump. So all the current investigations started out with a lot less to go on.

We have no clue what evidence Mueller has but much more has been leaked or revealed than just what you wrote.

Yep but again i said what started the investigation.

Strozk having dozens of "hate" txts gives you a frame ofvmind

Strozk working to reduce how hillaries crimeis phrased which determines charges or not?

A tad more there than "sure ill take dirt on hillary" OF WHICH she was actively paying countries for dirt on trump.

Wrong for them, research for her.

Come on Ice you are usually much more objective than that. One guy changing a word doesn’t determine an indictment. One man who dislikes a presidential confidante does not have the power to start an investigation with no cause. An investigation btw that is still on going without his involvement.

The Russians committed crimes with their election meddling. People who may have helped them are complicate in that crime. You can’t compare that to Hillary’s campaign paying a third party for oppo research. It’s not intellectually honest.

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

 

[Slade3200]

At this point I would be surprised if he wasn’t

find me a link somewhere that says he is. i'm in to learn and change my thoughts.

I don’t need links, I can just point to a few facts. If they are investigating Obstruction of Justice then Trump would be the subject. When they find several members of the campaign lying about connections with the Russians, including Trumps son then any goodninbestigator is going to dig into what they lied about, why they lied, and who know about it. Trump was found to have written a cover up statement for his sons meeting with the Russians, so of course Trump is being looked at. Again, this is all just my observation.

Slow down champ, so what is it facts or just your observation?

Both... are you having a hard time following? What do you need me to explain for you?

Yes I am, you're jumping around like a fricken loon. One sentence you want to point out facts, next sentence it becomes observations. Better yet, don't even bother responding, not interested in discussing anything with some fricken dumbass.

If you don’t understamd how I can state facts and then my observations of those facts then I can’t help ya.

 

[iceberg]

We had 1 russian lawyer let in by obamas DOJ meet with trumps team 1 time n thats 2 plus years of investigations on trump. So all the current investigations started out with a lot less to go on.

We have no clue what evidence Mueller has but much more has been leaked or revealed than just what you wrote.

Yep but again i said what started the investigation.

Strozk having dozens of "hate" txts gives you a frame ofvmind

Strozk working to reduce how hillaries crimeis phrased which determines charges or not?

A tad more there than "sure ill take dirt on hillary" OF WHICH she was actively paying countries for dirt on trump.

Wrong for them, research for her.

Come on Ice you are usually much more objective than that. One guy changing a word doesn’t determine an indictment. One man who dislikes a presidential confidante does not have the power to start an investigation with no cause. An investigation btw that is still on going without his involvement.

The Russians committed crimes with their election meddling. People who may have helped them are complicate in that crime. You can’t compare that to Hillary’s campaign paying a third party for oppo research. It’s not intellectually honest.

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And you're acting like his enemies should be investigating him.
Which is exactly whats happening.

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

Of course they wouldn't. Why would you try to do something harmful to a person you hate? Most people don't think like that now do they in your world?

You are taking text messages that talk shit on a joke of a presidential candidate and using that as evidence that they broke the law to corrupt an investigation. Despite the fact that it was investigated by the IG and no wrong doing was found. Wake up Ray, you are connecting too many invisible dots

Then why did Lisa say that the text messages meant exactly what they said? Stroke-off tried to say those messages were misconstrued, and she says the exact opposite. This is the Duh question: which one do you believe?

After all, only one is telling the truth.

Does the name Mark Fuhrman ring a bell? He was the detective that testified in the OJ trial. His testimony was considered not credible because of racist things he said in his past. No evidence that his racial opinions interfered with his investigation, just that he held those views.

And you failed to answer my earlier question if you would approve of detective investigating you or an immediate family member who had a hatred for you or them. If you tell me you wouldn't care, then I would have to say everything you posted was a lie, because it's only human nature to be suspicious of nefarious practices if somebody has it out for you. Nobody in their right mind would want that.

I don’t have an explaination, I didn’t watch the testimonies but I thought that Page testified behind closed doors so how are you getting this information?

Seriously?
Let me help since you seem to be Google impaired.

Type in the little box: "Lisa Page testimony" then click enter.

 

[Slade3200]

We have no clue what evidence Mueller has but much more has been leaked or revealed than just what you wrote.

Yep but again i said what started the investigation.

Strozk having dozens of "hate" txts gives you a frame ofvmind

Strozk working to reduce how hillaries crimeis phrased which determines charges or not?

A tad more there than "sure ill take dirt on hillary" OF WHICH she was actively paying countries for dirt on trump.

Wrong for them, research for her.

Come on Ice you are usually much more objective than that. One guy changing a word doesn’t determine an indictment. One man who dislikes a presidential confidante does not have the power to start an investigation with no cause. An investigation btw that is still on going without his involvement.

The Russians committed crimes with their election meddling. People who may have helped them are complicate in that crime. You can’t compare that to Hillary’s campaign paying a third party for oppo research. It’s not intellectually honest.

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

 

[Slade3200]

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

Of course they wouldn't. Why would you try to do something harmful to a person you hate? Most people don't think like that now do they in your world?

You are taking text messages that talk shit on a joke of a presidential candidate and using that as evidence that they broke the law to corrupt an investigation. Despite the fact that it was investigated by the IG and no wrong doing was found. Wake up Ray, you are connecting too many invisible dots

Then why did Lisa say that the text messages meant exactly what they said? Stroke-off tried to say those messages were misconstrued, and she says the exact opposite. This is the Duh question: which one do you believe?

After all, only one is telling the truth.

Does the name Mark Fuhrman ring a bell? He was the detective that testified in the OJ trial. His testimony was considered not credible because of racist things he said in his past. No evidence that his racial opinions interfered with his investigation, just that he held those views.

And you failed to answer my earlier question if you would approve of detective investigating you or an immediate family member who had a hatred for you or them. If you tell me you wouldn't care, then I would have to say everything you posted was a lie, because it's only human nature to be suspicious of nefarious practices if somebody has it out for you. Nobody in their right mind would want that.

I don’t have an explaination, I didn’t watch the testimonies but I thought that Page testified behind closed doors so how are you getting this information?

Seriously?
Let me help since you seem to be Google impaired.

Type in the little box: "Lisa Page testimony" then click enter.

I just did. No transcript or video. It was behind closed doors so all the intel you got are from partisan reports. You consider that credible?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course they wouldn't. Why would you try to do something harmful to a person you hate? Most people don't think like that now do they in your world?

You are taking text messages that talk shit on a joke of a presidential candidate and using that as evidence that they broke the law to corrupt an investigation. Despite the fact that it was investigated by the IG and no wrong doing was found. Wake up Ray, you are connecting too many invisible dots

Then why did Lisa say that the text messages meant exactly what they said? Stroke-off tried to say those messages were misconstrued, and she says the exact opposite. This is the Duh question: which one do you believe?

After all, only one is telling the truth.

Does the name Mark Fuhrman ring a bell? He was the detective that testified in the OJ trial. His testimony was considered not credible because of racist things he said in his past. No evidence that his racial opinions interfered with his investigation, just that he held those views.

And you failed to answer my earlier question if you would approve of detective investigating you or an immediate family member who had a hatred for you or them. If you tell me you wouldn't care, then I would have to say everything you posted was a lie, because it's only human nature to be suspicious of nefarious practices if somebody has it out for you. Nobody in their right mind would want that.

I don’t have an explaination, I didn’t watch the testimonies but I thought that Page testified behind closed doors so how are you getting this information?

Seriously?
Let me help since you seem to be Google impaired.

Type in the little box: "Lisa Page testimony" then click enter.

I just did. No transcript or video. It was behind closed doors so all the intel you got are from partisan reports. You consider that credible?

You might want get your Google looked at.
I think it's broken.

Congressman: Lisa Page Admits Her Texts 'Mean Exactly What They Say'

Republicans say they have new leads after interview with former FBI lawyer

 

[iceberg]

Yep but again i said what started the investigation.

Strozk having dozens of "hate" txts gives you a frame ofvmind

Strozk working to reduce how hillaries crimeis phrased which determines charges or not?

A tad more there than "sure ill take dirt on hillary" OF WHICH she was actively paying countries for dirt on trump.

Wrong for them, research for her.

Come on Ice you are usually much more objective than that. One guy changing a word doesn’t determine an indictment. One man who dislikes a presidential confidante does not have the power to start an investigation with no cause. An investigation btw that is still on going without his involvement.

The Russians committed crimes with their election meddling. People who may have helped them are complicate in that crime. You can’t compare that to Hillary’s campaign paying a third party for oppo research. It’s not intellectually honest.

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

 

[Slade3200]

Come on Ice you are usually much more objective than that. One guy changing a word doesn’t determine an indictment. One man who dislikes a presidential confidante does not have the power to start an investigation with no cause. An investigation btw that is still on going without his involvement.

The Russians committed crimes with their election meddling. People who may have helped them are complicate in that crime. You can’t compare that to Hillary’s campaign paying a third party for oppo research. It’s not intellectually honest.

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

 

[iceberg]

Did we not establish gross neg WAS PUNISHABLE?

If so then changing a few words is huge.

As hillary says, words matter.

And what did they do to the election itself?

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah if her actions were criminal than those words were appropriate if they weren’t criminal then they should have been changed. One guy didn’t determine if she was guilty or not by changing two words, that’s not how it works.

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

 

[jc456]

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

this fk?

 

[iceberg]

How do you know what he did? I sure dont. Just saying his bias was an issue when he gad ANY input in changing the words.

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

 

[jc456]

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

 

[Slade3200]

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

We’ve been talking on this board for a while. Would you say that I hate Trump with a passion?

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="Slade3200, post: 20398564, member: 56533"]

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

We’ve been talking on this board for a while. Would you say that I hate Trump with a passion?[/QUOTE]

 

[iceberg]

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

i'm just gonna take a guess that the text messages mean what they say.

We’ve been talking on this board for a while. Would you say that I hate Trump with a passion?

dunno. never saw ballistic posts from you like strozk. you do tend to be more balanced than most and that's one huge reason i love our conversations.

we just live in a very emotional time right now and people are hot and heavy to do what they *feel* is right.

strozk is on hillarys investigation
the text is altered to the point where we go from "must prosecute" to "no all clear"

that is a huge flag to me but as you say the IG looked into it and sooner or later we need to stop pushing til we get what we want as the only acceptable outcome. so while i feel he let his bias get in the way, it was ruled otherwise and my agreeing or not won't change a thing. he's off the case and getting paperwork up the ass for awhile now so it really doesn't matter moving forward but i hope we do keep cleaning things up and working to back all away from the ledge where only extremes are valid viewpoints anymore. myself included.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Everybody is bias to a degree. I actually don’t see it as a problem at all if there are some people who are super skeptics during an investigation as long as they don’t have personal conflicts. They are part of a TEAM who are there to investigate, they should be motivated to get their target. If he did something off book during the course of the investigation then fire him or arrest him. All you have are some text messages talking shit about Trump. Do you know how many millions of people talked shit about Trump during the campaign?

quite a few actually.

now how many of those had the chance to alter how we interpreted what hillary did?

Again, if they did something that can’t be justified through proper procedure then they should be held accountable. There was an investigation into this by the IG and he found nothing. This is the guy that spent weeks/months looking at the actual evidence. Don’t you think that’s a little more credible than the media spin and piece meal information that we the puppets get?

don't listen to a lot of media spin and try to simply focus on the facts i do know.

strzok hates trump. passionately.
strzok had influence in hillary's investigation. i don't think he should have and was removed when it was known.

if the fbi didn't think it would or did impact how he did his job, he likely would not have been removed.

i've not said much else either way because that is speculation at this point and pointless to me. i think it affected his decisions in how he handled hillary, you don't seem to think so.

not sure what else we can do here.

Good point, we can’t do anything. My point is simply that text messages don’t prove much. How do you know he hated Trump with a passion? What if they were laughing about it as they flirted and talked shit on Trump over text message? There is so little that we know and a ton of different possibilities. What we do have is a review on his job performance and nothing improper was found. The appearance of impropriety from the public release of his text messages got him demoted but that’s it. So I don’t know what else there is to say.

this fk?

Looks like he's making eyes at some homo in a gay bar.