The firing of corrupt Peter Strzok will quickly lead to the unraveling of the entire Muller probe

[Skylar]

One has zero to do with the other, & how Hillary's name came up in connection beats me, oh well carry on

Nope, nothing at all. Strzok hasn't been a part of the Mueller investigation for over a year. Making the OP yet another example of desperate, wishful thinking backed by nothing.

Most of the nonsense these poor souls post are exercises in creative writing and might as well begin with 'Once Upon a Time'

Everything Strzok touched should be reinvestigated for bias.

Says you. The IG investigated the issue and found no bias from Strzok.

Why would I ignore the IG and instead believe you, citing yourself? Remember, you're fronting an elaborate conspiracy theory. And you can't prove any of it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

• "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” — about Trump becoming president (August 2016)
• “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with [the Clinton investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” (May 2017)
• "I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps….” — after Lisa Page said Strzok is "meant to protect the country from that menace.” (August 2016)
• “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40." (August 2016)

Nothing to see here!

No reason to question whether or not his investigation was influenced from personal bias.

It’s not like he personally changed Comeys speech about HIllary’s emails from “gross negligence”to “extremely careless”

 

[Crepitus]

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Nope. Even the disciplinary committee argued against him being fired. This was purely political.

Right. He was fired for saying bad things about tRump.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

I don’t think you understand the first ammendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Strzok was fired for opining on an FBI handset about how he hated was going to make sure subject of his investigation did not stay in office.

Pretend he was texting exact same things, but replace “Donald Trump”with HIllary Clinton.

You would lose your mind and you know it.

The first ammendment has absolutely dick to do with anything.

You are incorrect. He was texting in an unofficial capacity to personal not business relationships. Totally a first amendment thing when the government fires you for it.

Nope. You are 100% wrong.

Even your left wing nut job pals in the media aren’t as ignorant as you are about the first ammendment.

If Congress passed a law banning “hate speech”, that would be a violation of the first ammendment.

If a public university prevented someone from speaking because they don’t agree with their political views, that would be violating their first ammendment rights.

If one gets on their employer paid for handset and disparages the head of their company, they can be fired, and should be, because it means they are fucking dipshit at best and a corrupt asshole most likely.

It’s called a conflict of interest. Any investigatior should not be opining on the subject of that investigation. They should be unbiased.

You know damn well had Strzok been critical of HIllary, you would want a lot more than his firing.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

Lol, you really can't see the difference here?

Let me ask you a question genius, who was the employer?

 

[Skylar]

• "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” — about Trump becoming president (August 2016)
• “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with [the Clinton investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” (May 2017)
• "I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps….” — after Lisa Page said Strzok is "meant to protect the country from that menace.” (August 2016)
• “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40." (August 2016)

Nothing to see here!

No reason to question whether or not his investigation was influenced from personal bias.

It’s not like he personally changed Comeys speech about HIllary’s emails from “gross negligence”to “extremely careless”

The IG investigated and found no bias on the part of Strzok. They found that the judgments of the FBI were motivated by the law and the FBI's previous handling of similar cases.

But hey, keep fronting your conspiracy theory. I and any rational person will stick with the IG's report on the matter.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I’m sure we will be seeing Strzok’s civil rights violation case argued before the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

I’m sure we will be seeing Strzok’s civil rights violation case argued before the Supreme Court.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it won't have the slightest relevance to the Mueller investigation either way.

 

[ColonelAngus]

So, anyhow, Strzok helped Mueller fuck himself. Congrats Mueller.

Odd that Mueller took Strzok off the case for simply exercising his first ammendment rights.

Mueller violated Strzok’s civil rights? Is that what the argument is?

Wow. Maybe Mueller should be removed from the case for civil rights violations.

 

[Skylar]

So, anyhow, Strzok helped Mueller fuck himself. Congrats Mueller.

'Mueller 'fucked himself'? You're raising wishful thinking backed by nothing to a bit on art form.

Mueller and his investigation are fine. Remember, you've *imagined* the conspiracy you're citing. You can't prove it and the IG investigation disproves it. You've *imagined* that Strzok's firing has anything to do with the continuation of the Mueller investigation. Again, backed by nothing.

Imagination isn't serving you well so far

Mueller violated Strzok’s civil rights? Is that what the argument is?

Nope. The argument is that the Steele Dossier isn't the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. Debunking your conspiracy.

That Mueller has found extensive evidence of criminal activity, justifying the continued existence of his investigation. Nixing your wishful thinking.

And that Strzok hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation for over a year. Demonstrating the absurdity of your wishful thinking.

Your desperately hopeful assumptions of the OP just don't work.

 

[easyt65]

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

and you have still failed to disprove the evidence already posted.

Two problems.

One, you've presented nothing to back the claim that the sole basis of the Mueller investigation was the Steele Dossier. You've simply claimed it must be so, backed by nothing.

You fail.

Two. I've disproven your nonsense claim by citing the order from the Deputy Attorney General in seating the special counsel citing Comey's testimony before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis for the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Debunking your nonsense conspiracy yet again. A conspiracy you were never able to back with any evidence.

Smiling......but keep imagining. I'll keep quoting the Deputy AG.

Again, LINK?

STILL WAITING...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Pop’s lawyers have the legal standing to see all evidence collected against Pop and how it was collected.

This should be a lot of fun.

Ask yourself, why would Mueller subvert the law to keep the evidence from Pop’s lawyers if he was ethical?

 

[Hellokitty]

If the FBI had other evidence for the FISA on Page they would not have gone to so much trouble trying to justify the dossier as being a credible source. They used the dossier in all 4 FISA warrants on Page.

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

Rosenstein re-authorized the Page FISA 7/18/17 which is what gave Mueller legal authority to go after the records of everyone on the TRUMP campaign. The OIG was conducting an investigations on internal leaks which lead to the discovery of the Strzok/L. Page texts. Mueller removes Strzok a short time after. The Page FISA warrant is never renewed and Page is not charged with anything. Keep in mind the FISA warrant claims Page is a Russian spy, and Mueller is investigating Russia.

The reason Rosenstein will not release the unreacted Page FISA is most likely because it was used in the charges against Flynn, Papadopoulos and Manafort.

 

[easyt65]

Trump should declassify the documents and let America see everything.

 

[Hellokitty]

Liberal response: “No! You are!”

Quality retorts. Thanks for playing.

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Strzok was fired for withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.

 

[Hellokitty]

Trump should declassify the documents and let America see everything.

Honestly at this point I'm not sure that would change much since the majority of people would still rely on the media to interpret the documents. But if TRUMP does have plans to release the documents he needs to do it soon because the fake news media and the left are trying to change the narrative from collusion/conspiracy to obstruction. My guess would be if TRUMP is going to release the documents he'll do so after Kavanaugh is confirmed.

 

[easyt65]

Trump should declassify the documents and let America see everything.

Honestly at this point I'm not sure that would change much since the majority of people would still rely on the media to interpret the documents. But if TRUMP does have plans to release the documents he needs to do it soon because the fake news media and the left are trying to change the narrative from collusion/conspiracy to obstruction. My guess would be if TRUMP is going to release the documents he'll do so after Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Democrats are trying to claim that Trump telling Comey, "I HOPE you can end the investigation of Flynn soon' is somehow 'Obstruction'.

'I HOPE' is not an order.
'I HOPE' is not giving direction....

AS OPPOSED TO.....

COMEY STATING IN AN INTERVIEW AND, I BELIEVE IN TESTIMONY, THAT US AG LYNCH DIRECTED HIM TO CALL AND TREAT THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION(S) 'AN ISSUE' AND NOT AN 'INVESTIGATION'.

THAT is Obstruction.

The US AG helping Comey author Hillary's exoneration letter before witnesses are even interviewed and before the investigation is over is 'Obstruction'.

After Comey wrote the final Hillary Investigation report, a report in which he specifically chose the words 'GROSS NEGLIGENCE' - which come directly out of the definition of the law she broke - to describe Hillary's actions, Strzok altering the report, stripping those words out, and replacing them with 'carelessness' in order to spare Hillary from Indictment - now THAT'S 'Obstruction'!

** Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

 

[Crepitus]

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Strzok was fired for withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.

Lol

 

[Skylar]

The claim isn't that the used the Dossier for their FISA warrants on Page. As the FBI investigation of Page isn't what is supposedly 'quickly unraveling' per the OP.

But if they used the Steele Dossier as their sole basis of the Mueller Investigation.

And that claim has nothing backing it. Eliminating it as a valid basis for the ending of the Mueller investigation.

EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AND POSTED EXPOSING THE DOSSIER AS BEING TBE CENTER PIECE OF THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, THE 'SAND' ON WHICH THE FOUNDATION WAS BUILT.

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

Rosenstein re-authorized the Page FISA 7/18/17 which is what gave Mueller legal authority to go after the records of everyone on the TRUMP campaign.

Blithering nonsense. You *imagine* that it was the Page FISA that gave the Mueller the legal authority to go after the records of everyone at the Trump campaign.

Based on nothing. Prove that it was the Page FISA that gave Mueller that legal authority to go after the records of everyone at the Trump campaign. And you can't. You're offering us your imagination as evidence.

Try again.

The OIG was conducting an investigations on internal leaks which lead to the discovery of the Strzok/L. Page texts. Mueller removes Strzok a short time after. The Page FISA warrant is never renewed and Page is not charged with anything. Keep in mind the FISA warrant claims Page is a Russian spy, and Mueller is investigating Russia.

The Same OIG that found no bias in Strzok's work? That found that the FBI's decisions were based on the evidence and precedent?

That OIG?

The reason Rosenstein will not release the unreacted Page FISA is most likely because it was used in the charges against Flynn, Papadopoulos and Manafort.

'Most likely'? So you've just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and you're offering us your imagination.

Again, you're making up a story backed by nothing. Contradicted by the OIG report. And gloriously irrelevant to the Mueller investigation's continued existence.

Good luck with that.

 

[Skylar]

Actually the responses were 'seems unlikely' and 'good luck with that'.

Your assertion doesn't make much sense.

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Strzok was fired for withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.

The OIG found no evidence of bias by Strzok. The found that the FBI came to its conclusions and conducted its investigation based on the evidence and precedent.

Now why would I ignore the OIG and instead believe you, citing yourself?

And of course, the basis of the Mueller investigation per the Deputy AG that seated Mueller.......was the testimony given by Comey on March 20th, 2017 before the House Select Committee. Not the 'Steele Dossier'. Not the 'Page FISA warrant'. But Comey's testimony.

Says who? Says the order written by the Deputy AG seating the special counsel.

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Debunking your conspiracy nonsense yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Not on the Steele Dossier being the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. While I've disproven that nonsense with direct quotes from the Deputy Attorney General's own order establishing the Special Counsel. It cites Comey's testimony about Russian Election interference before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony let alone uses it as the basis of his testimony before the House Select Committee. Which you'd know of course if you'd had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You've been duped, Rube. Sigh.....again.

And where is the IG report you claim to be citing that supposedly states the FBI perpetrated FISA Court abuses by claiming that everything in the Steete Dossier had been verified?

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

You continue to spew opinion and accusations in the face of links, reports and articles posted proving you are wrong. You SAYING something is fact don't make it so, and you have failed to counter the evidence I and others have posted....but nice diatribe.

I continue to cite the actual order from Deputy Attorney General which cites Comey's testimony on Russian election interference before the House select committee on March 20th as the basis of the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even *mentions* the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Let alone cites it as the basis of any investigation.

You're literally ignoring the Deputy Attorney General on why the Mueller investigation was founded......and imagining whatever you'd like.

Sorry, Slick.....but your imagination vs. the order from the Deputy AG on why he seated a special counsel has the same winner every time. And it ain't you. You keep imagining. I'll keep quoting.

Laughing......Deal?

and you have still failed to disprove the evidence already posted.

Two problems.

One, you've presented nothing to back the claim that the sole basis of the Mueller investigation was the Steele Dossier. You've simply claimed it must be so, backed by nothing.

You fail.

Two. I've disproven your nonsense claim by citing the order from the Deputy Attorney General in seating the special counsel citing Comey's testimony before the House Select Committee on March 20th, 2017 as the basis for the Mueller investigation.

And Comey never even mentions the Steele Dossier in that testimony. Debunking your nonsense conspiracy yet again. A conspiracy you were never able to back with any evidence.

Smiling......but keep imagining. I'll keep quoting the Deputy AG.

Again, LINK?

STILL WAITING...

Laughing.....you need a link to the Deputy AG's order creating the special counsel? I wasn't aware you were challenging its existence. Here you go, including the relevant passage on the basis of the Mueller investigation:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Nothing about Page. Nothing about the 'Steele Dossier'. But instead, James Comey's testimony before the House Select Committee. Now, riddle me this....

How many times did Comey mention the Steele Dossier in his entire day of testimony?

Spoiler Alert: He didn't.

Easily exploding your baseless batshit conspiracy that the Steele Dossier is the sole basis of the Mueller investigation. A batshit conspiracy you've backed.....with absolutely nothing.

 

[Erinwltr]

Why don’t you lay out the folly of my logic.

Specifically, point by point, why I am wrong.

Use specific proper names and specific reasons.

Why don't you factually establish that your claim is right. For example, explain why a man who hasn't been part of the Mueller investigation in over a year would have any significant effect on it today.

As your claim makes no sense. Change that with evidence and reason. Or admit you can't.

Well, you tried.

I will try again.

He opened the Trump probe on July 31, 2016 based on hearsay from an Australian diplomat via the U.S. embassy in London. The diplomat said a Teump volunteer, George Papadopoulos, told him a Russian-connected professor heard that Moscow owned “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Strzok’s FBI team embraced an unverified dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS with money from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. The FBI used the dossier to convince a court to approve a wiretap on campaign volunteer Carter Page. The bureau also relied on the dossier to guide the investigation. The bureau told a House committee last year it had still not confirmed Mr. Steele’s Kremlin-sourced charges.

Strzok participated in a partisan flow of anti/Trump information that went from the Clinton opposite research firm, Fusion GPS, to Associated Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the FBI agent. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.

The firing of Peter Strzok for cause opens for questioning and reexamining all interviews and data he collected.

Think of it like when a crooked cop gets fired. Often, every case that cop was involved with gets re-examined.

You follow me now?

Strzok was fired for exercising his first amendment rights, not for "cause".

Strzok was fired for withholding and manipulating evidence base on his political bias.

The OIG found no evidence of bias by Strzok. The found that the FBI came to its conclusions and conducted its investigation based on the evidence and precedent.

Now why would I ignore the OIG and instead believe you, citing yourself?

And of course, the basis of the Mueller investigation per the Deputy AG that seated Mueller.......was the testimony given by Comey on March 20th, 2017 before the House Select Committee. Not the 'Steele Dossier'. Not the 'Page FISA warrant'. But Comey's testimony.

Says who? Says the order written by the Deputy AG seating the special counsel.

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Debunking your conspiracy nonsense yet again.

I think I gained 5 pounds eating popcorn reading this thread. Kick ass Skylar.