Former Army Ranger-FBI Hero Slaps Republican Buffoons Silly

[OODA_Loop]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

 

[Seawytch]

A former US Army Ranger and a current FBI Agent made complete fools and buffoons out of many of the top Republican leaders of the House of Representatives while being attacked unmercifully during a Hearing.

In a comical display of ignorance and show of support for the corrupt Presidents of both America and Russia, the traitorous Republican hacks bombarded the Army Veteran and FBI Agent with every sleazy tactic imaginable trying to give conspiracy theories and outright lies some sort of validity. As it turned out, the agent, with a significant amount of help from Democrats attending the hearing, was able to ***** slap the Republican buffoons silly.

A clear message of how President Trump had been helped in his election to the Presidency by Russian meddling was the only real major accomplishment of the backfired Republican-inspired hearing. Perhaps a lesson that hero Army Ranger veterans who become warriors in the wars against terrorism, drug cartels and organized crime syndicates may not be good targets for the political hack Republican House members to go after was also learned.

Yeah, it was funny as hell alright, like when Gomert ***** slapped your boy on his honesty and fidelity to his wife. Now the child expects everyone to just take his word he wasn't biased, how'd that work for his wife?


.

OK, did you see the movie, "A Few Good Men"? The scene in the bar where Kevin Bacon tells Tom Cruise he can't bring a credible case, and Cruise is so frustrated, but he can't answer, and in his fury he just HAS to say something, so he yells at the departing Bacon..."You're a lousy baseball player, Jack!"

That's what Gohmert did. He had no credible comment and he HAS to vent, so he brings up something unrelated to to the subject just to hurt Strzok.

It goes directly to Strozk's credibility. Of course you knew that already.


.

So you're saying an affair means you have no credibility?

Hidden affairs in that dudes business can cost him his clearance and his job, it leaves him open to blackmail. It was ongoing while all the texts were flying, he got outed by the IG.


.

Like hidden affairs with porn stars where you pay them hush money?

 

[Camp]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

 

[Thinker101]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Seems one would have to determine there was bias before determining whether anything affected the investigation.
Going from "negligent" to "extremely careless" sure sounds like evidence of bias.

 

[Thinker101]

Yeah, it was funny as hell alright, like when Gomert ***** slapped your boy on his honesty and fidelity to his wife. Now the child expects everyone to just take his word he wasn't biased, how'd that work for his wife?


.

OK, did you see the movie, "A Few Good Men"? The scene in the bar where Kevin Bacon tells Tom Cruise he can't bring a credible case, and Cruise is so frustrated, but he can't answer, and in his fury he just HAS to say something, so he yells at the departing Bacon..."You're a lousy baseball player, Jack!"

That's what Gohmert did. He had no credible comment and he HAS to vent, so he brings up something unrelated to to the subject just to hurt Strzok.

It goes directly to Strozk's credibility. Of course you knew that already.


.

So you're saying an affair means you have no credibility?

Hidden affairs in that dudes business can cost him his clearance and his job, it leaves him open to blackmail. It was ongoing while all the texts were flying, he got outed by the IG.


.

Like hidden affairs with porn stars where you pay them hush money?

We'll have to get a ruling from an expert on that one. How about from Bill Clinton?

 

[Seawytch]

It's also obvious that high ranking officials at the FBI used their power to attempt to sway an American election. THAT concerns me far more than the Russians trying to sow discord in our elections and it should concern you as well!

How did they do that? We didn't find out that the Trump campaign was even under investigation until after the election.

Unless you're referring to Comey's stunt with Huma's emails...then you're correct...the FBI did sway the election...away from Hillary and to the benefit of Trump.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

Then your claim of no evidence cant be accurate.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, did you see the movie, "A Few Good Men"? The scene in the bar where Kevin Bacon tells Tom Cruise he can't bring a credible case, and Cruise is so frustrated, but he can't answer, and in his fury he just HAS to say something, so he yells at the departing Bacon..."You're a lousy baseball player, Jack!"

That's what Gohmert did. He had no credible comment and he HAS to vent, so he brings up something unrelated to to the subject just to hurt Strzok.

It goes directly to Strozk's credibility. Of course you knew that already.


.

So you're saying an affair means you have no credibility?

Hidden affairs in that dudes business can cost him his clearance and his job, it leaves him open to blackmail. It was ongoing while all the texts were flying, he got outed by the IG.


.

Like hidden affairs with porn stars where you pay them hush money?

We'll have to get a ruling from an expert on that one. How about from Bill Clinton?

Which porn stars did he pay off because he was ******* her while his wife was pregnant?

 

[Camp]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Seems one would have to determine there was bias before determining whether anything affected the investigation.
Going from "negligent" to "extremely careless" sure sounds like evidence of bias.

Well, they had all day to make a determination and failed. Now the hearing is old news and goes down as one of the most clownish and embarrassing days in Republican House Congressional history.

 

[Thinker101]

It goes directly to Strozk's credibility. Of course you knew that already.


.

So you're saying an affair means you have no credibility?

Hidden affairs in that dudes business can cost him his clearance and his job, it leaves him open to blackmail. It was ongoing while all the texts were flying, he got outed by the IG.


.

Like hidden affairs with porn stars where you pay them hush money?

We'll have to get a ruling from an expert on that one. How about from Bill Clinton?

Which porn stars did he pay off because he was ******* her while his wife was pregnant?

Gee, where do you draw the line, with a porn star, or having a pregnant wife, or cheating over 11 times (that we know of)...dumbass.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Seems one would have to determine there was bias before determining whether anything affected the investigation.
Going from "negligent" to "extremely careless" sure sounds like evidence of bias.

Well, they had all day to make a determination and failed. Now the hearing is old news and goes down as one of the most clownish and embarrassing days in Republican House Congressional history.

You said they didn't have all the evidence ?

 

[Thinker101]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Seems one would have to determine there was bias before determining whether anything affected the investigation.
Going from "negligent" to "extremely careless" sure sounds like evidence of bias.

Well, they had all day to make a determination and failed. Now the hearing is old news and goes down as one of the most clownish and embarrassing days in Republican House Congressional history.

Really?! Sounds like you're ready to throw in the towel. This is hardly over.

 

[jc456]

A former US Army Ranger and a current FBI Agent made complete fools and buffoons out of many of the top Republican leaders of the House of Representatives while being attacked unmercifully during a Hearing.

In a comical display of ignorance and show of support for the corrupt Presidents of both America and Russia, the traitorous Republican hacks bombarded the Army Veteran and FBI Agent with every sleazy tactic imaginable trying to give conspiracy theories and outright lies some sort of validity. As it turned out, the agent, with a significant amount of help from Democrats attending the hearing, was able to ***** slap the Republican buffoons silly.

A clear message of how President Trump had been helped in his election to the Presidency by Russian meddling was the only real major accomplishment of the backfired Republican-inspired hearing. Perhaps a lesson that hero Army Ranger veterans who become warriors in the wars against terrorism, drug cartels and organized crime syndicates may not be good targets for the political hack Republican House members to go after was also learned.

I saw a traitor and a criminal! Carry on!

 

[Camp]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

Then your claim of no evidence cant be accurate.

Evidence of a crime and evidence of bias by investigators are two different things.
Surely you know that?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[OODA_Loop]

Evidence of a crime and evidence of bias by investigators are two different things.

You determine bias by actions shown by the evidence,

If evidence is being withheld ,as it is, you cant say no bias.

 

[jc456]

You first have to believe Clinton was extremely careless in order to believe Strozk had no bias.

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

Then your claim of no evidence cant be accurate.

Evidence of a crime and evidence of bias by investigators are two different things.
Surely you know that?

Nope obstructing an election is a crime

 

[Camp]

Question is not whether he had a bias or not. Question is whether it affected the investigation. No evidence was provided or shown to have substantiated that claim. Since the Republican mission was to establish that claim and failed to do so, they were in fact, ***** slapped and shamed.

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

Then your claim of no evidence cant be accurate.

Evidence of a crime and evidence of bias by investigators are two different things.

You determine bias by actions shown by the evidence,

If evidence is being withheld ,as it is, you cant say no bias.

In other words, you can not provide an example of an FBI investigation ever turning over evidence of an ongoing investigation to a House Committee to prove your claims.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Have the FBI released all of the evidence to the Oversight Committee?

Of course not. Why should they? The investigation is still active and releasing evidence like that is unheard of. Maybe you can provide an example of when this has ever been done.

Then your claim of no evidence cant be accurate.

Evidence of a crime and evidence of bias by investigators are two different things.

You determine bias by actions shown by the evidence,

If evidence is being withheld ,as it is, you cant say no bias.

In other words, you can not provide an example of an FBI investigation ever turning over evidence of an ongoing investigation to a House Committee to prove your claims.

They have already turned over evidence in this investigation....just not all of it.

 

[Seawytch]

So you're saying an affair means you have no credibility?

Hidden affairs in that dudes business can cost him his clearance and his job, it leaves him open to blackmail. It was ongoing while all the texts were flying, he got outed by the IG.


.

Like hidden affairs with porn stars where you pay them hush money?

We'll have to get a ruling from an expert on that one. How about from Bill Clinton?

Which porn stars did he pay off because he was ******* her while his wife was pregnant?

Gee, where do you draw the line, with a porn star, or having a pregnant wife, or cheating over 11 times (that we know of)...dumbass.

I don't know...where does the party of "family values" that pursued Bill Clinton to hell and back again over his affairs draw the line? Oh, that's right they don't have a line when it's their cereal adulterer doing the *******. The line only existed for Clinton.