Strzok To Testify Before Congress; No Immunity, Will Not Invoke 5th Amendment

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I haven't been in any punctuation marks at all.

I'll ask again - what did Strozk do, "by corrupt means", to "follow through" with his plan to "stop Trump".

Mueller threw him in the FBI basement for no reason. A wronged man.

I don't think he was wronged. The FBI transferred him off the Mueller probe because of optics, and they made the right call.

His optics. Got a link?

This is common sense. Do you require a link to think for yourself?

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Mueller threw him in the FBI basement for no reason. A wronged man.

I don't think he was wronged. The FBI transferred him off the Mueller probe because of optics, and they made the right call.

His optics. Got a link?

This is common sense. Do you require a link to think for yourself?

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

 

[skye]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

I know .... that piece of scum is up to his neck in it...

We will see what is his next step...like I said....popcorn is ready.



"The Department of Justice’s IG report revealed Thursday that Strozk texted his mistress and colleague Lisa Page assurances they would stop Trump from becoming president."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think he was wronged. The FBI transferred him off the Mueller probe because of optics, and they made the right call.

His optics. Got a link?

This is common sense. Do you require a link to think for yourself?

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

 

[task0778]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

I don't think Strzok belongs to any union. People that high up are management types that can be fired for situations like this where there's no proof of illegal activity but there is for making the FBI look biased and unprofessional. At least I hope so, it's hard to believe the FBI Director doesn't have the authority to do just that if he deems it necessary. I looked in vain for anything written about that, no luck so far.

 

[Aba Incieni]

His optics. Got a link?

This is common sense. Do you require a link to think for yourself?

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

So the texts caused the...bad optics.

No wonder Mueller threw him in the dungeon. Because of his texts. They caused...bad optics.

lol

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

I don't think Strzok belongs to any union. People that high up are management types that can be fired for situations like this where there's no proof of illegal activity but there is for making the FBI look biased and unprofessional. At least I hope so, it's hard to believe the FBI Director doesn't have the authority to do just that if he deems it necessary. I looked in vain for anything written about that, no luck so far.

He's an agent, not management. A high-ranking agent, but an agent.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is common sense. Do you require a link to think for yourself?

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

So the texts caused the...bad optics.

No wonder Mueller threw him in the dungeon. Because of his texts. They caused...bad optics.

lol

"The Dungeon".

You guys are soo dramatic.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

So the texts caused the...bad optics.

No wonder Mueller threw him in the dungeon. Because of his texts. They caused...bad optics.

lol

"The Dungeon".

You guys are soo dramatic.

Bad optics. haha. Scream at the sky when you say it.

 

[idb]

Hey it's your thought lol.

Bad optics. How so?

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

So the texts caused the...bad optics.

No wonder Mueller threw him in the dungeon. Because of his texts. They caused...bad optics.

lol

"The Dungeon".

You guys are soo dramatic.

It's under a pizza joint.

 

[skye]

BREAKIN NEWS for ya

The lovers from Hell have flipped!

 

[Aba Incieni]

BREAKIN NEWS for ya

The lovers from Hell have flipped!

They were merely following orders.

 

[skye]

BREAKIN NEWS for ya

The lovers from Hell have flipped!

They were merely following orders.

haaaaaaaaaaaa I know!

 

[MisterBeale]

How is it bad optics? See every post made by a conservative on this board in the last six months.

Hey, again it's your quote.

Explain yourself between rouge applications and giggling fits.

Are you saying you don't understand what I mean by "bad optics"?

Strozk was transferred from Mueller's investigation when the texts became known because Mueller knew that fuckwits like yourself would endlessly whine about it.

So the texts caused the...bad optics.

No wonder Mueller threw him in the dungeon. Because of his texts. They caused...bad optics.

lol

"The Dungeon".

You guys are soo dramatic.

Bad optics. haha. Scream at the sky when you say it.

You nailed him.

Talk about the department circling the wagons. It wouldn't surprise me to find out our neighborly mod. has friends in the agency himself.



How else could you explain him playing so coy?

 

[task0778]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

I don't think Strzok belongs to any union. People that high up are management types that can be fired for situations like this where there's no proof of illegal activity but there is for making the FBI look biased and unprofessional. At least I hope so, it's hard to believe the FBI Director doesn't have the authority to do just that if he deems it necessary. I looked in vain for anything written about that, no luck so far.

He's an agent, not management. A high-ranking agent, but an agent.

He was the Head of the FBI's Counterespionage Division. He led the investigation into the Hillary email scandal, and I think the Russian collusion investigation too. They don't put some ordinary rank and file schmuck in charge of stuff like that. Let me tell you something, division chiefs anywhere in gov't service are SES (executive positions). He is definitely management.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

I don't think Strzok belongs to any union. People that high up are management types that can be fired for situations like this where there's no proof of illegal activity but there is for making the FBI look biased and unprofessional. At least I hope so, it's hard to believe the FBI Director doesn't have the authority to do just that if he deems it necessary. I looked in vain for anything written about that, no luck so far.

He's an agent, not management. A high-ranking agent, but an agent.

He was the Head of the FBI's Counterespionage Division. He led the investigation into the Hillary email scandal, and I think the Russian collusion investigation too. They don't put some ordinary rank and file schmuck in charge of stuff like that. Let me tell you something, division chiefs anywhere in gov't service are SES (executive positions). He is definitely management.

From what I understand (limited), investigative division chiefs are SACs (Special Agent in Charge).

Which is still an agent designation, not a management one.

 

[Care4all]

Strzok did nothing criminal is the point.

If a high ranking FBI agent had texted to a high ranking FBI lawyer: Hillary won't be president, right? RIGHT? ......No, no she won't. We'll stop her.

Would you still say they did nothing wrong?

It's horrible the way they were talking to each other about President Trump because some of it happened after the time the FBI opened an investigation on the Russian interference and the possible Trump campaign team, witting or unwitting involvement!

Not that what the two said to each other about candidate Trump was not said by millions of US Citizens every day of the week, during that campaign time period....

as example:

ME: He's not going to win, right? Right?

MY SISTER: No! No, we will stop him!!!

It's a perfectly normal conversation, and the No! We will stop him! Between my sister and me, could simply mean we, as in Democrats, will stop him from winning by: increasing our focus on our democratic ''get out to vote'' programs, for us...talk to more of our own personal friends and coworkers to make certain they are voting, DNC increased advertising, donate more to the campaign, or any number of things that we could do to stop Trump from winning....

BUT, coming from those two, and under the circumstance of they being FBI investigators, looks bad, and warranted the Inspector General looking in to whether decisions in their investigation process were done in some partisan or nefarious way.

And the IG did thoroughly look in to every decision the investigative team made... and could not find any nefarious or partisan actions on how the investigation of the case was handled by Strzok/Page....

 

[task0778]

My question is why Strzok didn't get fired bringing discredit to the FBI.

Because "bringing discredit to the FBI" is a vague statement, and FBI agents are protected by their pseudo-union.

I don't think Strzok belongs to any union. People that high up are management types that can be fired for situations like this where there's no proof of illegal activity but there is for making the FBI look biased and unprofessional. At least I hope so, it's hard to believe the FBI Director doesn't have the authority to do just that if he deems it necessary. I looked in vain for anything written about that, no luck so far.

He's an agent, not management. A high-ranking agent, but an agent.

He was the Head of the FBI's Counterespionage Division. He led the investigation into the Hillary email scandal, and I think the Russian collusion investigation too. They don't put some ordinary rank and file schmuck in charge of stuff like that. Let me tell you something, division chiefs anywhere in gov't service are SES (executive positions). He is definitely management.

From what I understand (limited), investigative division chiefs are SACs (Special Agent in Charge).

Which is still an agent designation, not a management one.

The OIG Report (page iii) identifies Strzok as "FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok". That is a management position. Nowhere in or out of the Report is he identified as a SAC, nor is there a reference anywhere to membership in a union as a reason why he has not been fired.

 

[task0778]

Strzok did nothing criminal is the point.

If a high ranking FBI agent had texted to a high ranking FBI lawyer: Hillary won't be president, right? RIGHT? ......No, no she won't. We'll stop her.

Would you still say they did nothing wrong?

It's horrible the way they were talking to each other about President Trump because some of it happened after the time the FBI opened an investigation on the Russian interference and the possible Trump campaign team, witting or unwitting involvement!

Not that what the two said to each other about candidate Trump was not said by millions of US Citizens every day of the week, during that campaign time period....

as example:

ME: He's not going to win, right? Right?

MY SISTER: No! No, we will stop him!!!

It's a perfectly normal conversation, and the No! We will stop him! Between my sister and me, could simply mean we, as in Democrats, will stop him from winning by: increasing our focus on our democratic ''get out to vote'' programs, for us...talk to more of our own personal friends and coworkers to make certain they are voting, DNC increased advertising, donate more to the campaign, or any number of things that we could do to stop Trump from winning....

BUT, coming from those two, and under the circumstance of they being FBI investigators, looks bad, and warranted the Inspector General looking in to whether decisions in their investigation process were done in some partisan or nefarious way.

And the IG did thoroughly look in to every decision the investigative team made... and could not find any nefarious or partisan actions on how the investigation of the case was handled by Strzok/Page....

Which means one of two things:

1. They didn't take any actions or make any decisions that were biased, or

2. They did, but removed any and all evidence of said actions or decisions. When I saw how Hillary tried to remove all traces of what was on her unprotected and unsecured server, and I saw how the IRS somehow got rid of any incriminating evidence on Lois Lerner, and I've seen how the DOJ/FBI and the State Dept and other federal agencies have slow-walked efforts by Congress to obtain relevant documents and communications, well it does sort of lend itself to suspicions of the same sort of BS on the part of the DOJ/FBI in this case.