• Former FBI Counterintelligence Chief Undergoes Public Senate Hearing
    89 replies, posted
He testified that Mueller told him it was due to his texts and e-mails. He did not clarify that it was for PR reasons, but the reason for his firing was clearly due to those messages in particular. It is his opinion and understanding that he was fired to keep up appearances - but if he was fired for conduct unbecoming or bad investigatory procedures, why would he lie about it in Congress -- as rather than those texts and e-mails that would've been the reason for his dismissal?
It may very well be that Mueller felt uncomfortable with a person who held those convictions leading the investigation. So that he was let go because of perceived bias, but not because of any, as of yet, known biased actions. (Although it is good to note that a lack of evidence is not the same as there being no evidence. There hasn't really been much time at all to look into the issue.) Like I said before, strongly believing a person to be guilty before starting an investigation is a bad sign. Mueller may have thought so as well. Note that I'm not making some claim of fact. I'm simply saying that we don't know because nobody knows Mueller's specific motivation.
I'd trust the man who works with Mueller to know his head on these sorts of matters.
Sure! but I think the republican party would jump on any grain out of place and use it as a opportunity to delegitimize the investigation. And they have every incentive to do so. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that Mueller probably removed Strzok for concerns about bias, real or perceived.
Where was your false outrage during the 2 1/2 Benghazi investigation, then... the one Majority Leader McCarthy admitted was to prevent her election? “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."
Is that the entire discussion? Whether it was "real or perceived" or whether it was just "perceived," as multiple people have claimed?
On one hand, institutional bias is not good for the FBI, on the other, it's impossible to expect people not to have private opinions. Keeping the two apart is important, but this just seems like a witch Hunt. Are all FBI agents supposed to be Trump supporters? I don't think it's unreasonable that someone harbor disagreements with the administration. And expecting that person to keep their personal opinion out of work.
I agree, everyone has political views, and the fact that there were plenty of other agents who also expressed political views and had no consequences seems to suggest that that isn't a problem, on it's own. The case of Strzok goes beyond that, though. He didn't just express a like or dislike of Trump, he proclaimed guilt for the very investigation they were about to commence.
And then proceeded to not be fired for acting in a biased manner nor being reported for acting in a biased manner by his co-workers, who he specifically states includes those who are both pro-Trump and anti-Trump, until those texts surfaced. He was also then and remains now aware of information not presently available to the public. If they have Trump on tape talking to Russian officials about how they 'need to get together on this one' or how 'Russia needs to help him win this' -- or vice versa, where he's being told 'his loans are being re-evaluated right now by very interested parties who might be amenable to forgive some of his debt for a show of good faith to Russia'. Et cetera. So, the question is: If he acted as the GOP would want folks to believe, in a compromised and partisan manner where his beliefs interfered with his work -- why did his co-workers not rat him out as the FBI's culture (and their own political beliefs) both would tell them to?
6th time my congressman has been told the steele dossier was not used as a basis for the investigation but like the sexual assault at his previous job he ignores it
Disappointed you can't see this for the political circus it is.
FYI that shit show just ended. Man sits for 10 hours being grilled, at times not being allowed to answer questions laden with allegations leveled against him, and the committee chair ends the farce talking about how Trump's own Justice Department is apparently corrupt to the core (but I thought he was draining the swamp??)
I love how hard this backfired.
if the committee was truly concerned with getting answers for the American public, why is Goodlatte determined to not release the today's closed-doors transcripts?
How did it backfire? Didn't watch the stream
as much as strzok became another target for whataboutism, in reality there are more and more people becoming actively aware of how and why and what the congressional republicans are trying to do this is just more opportunity for dialogue against the right.
Strzok was removed by Mueller because his texts were leaked and it was a PR nightmare for the investigation, not because he said or did anything especially egregious. That being said, I think it's possible that Strzok was biased and let that influence the investigation.. but it's also possible there are pro-Trump agents currently sabotaging the Mueller investigation too. In fact, how is it that we (rather, Republicans) can say that Strzok's work can't be trusted because of his bias, but GOP politicians who are openly biased are excused for running provably biased committees and investigations against anybody who opposes their politics? Even if Strzok is biased, you should be able to demonstrate his work was unacceptable regardless of his beliefs. Someone's bias against a terrible person doesn't invalidate evidence presented in an investigation.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1017543043296219136 I'm not a dentist but I don't think they're that good at body language
So why the hell were pubquiet during Benghazi and Trey Gowdys hollow and empty crusade? he showed his hand that he believed she was guilty but never had evidence of it. Seems like a hypocritical time for you to be quiet in but I remember you being okay with it all at the time.
Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of political circus in this. All these hearings are almost always clouded by idiocy. It seems to me that the reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle. Strzok seems clearly biased to a degree that would make it almost impossible to be fair, but I doubt it had a major effect on the overall investigation because of all the other people involved.
Why would it be 'almost impossible'?
I just can't imagine anyone who wouldn't be effected by having already concluded the outcome of the investigation before even starting. It's going to change the way you approach things. I would include myself in that. I just don't think anyone can so completely separate their beliefs and actions as to completely believe a person to be guilty and still be totally fair to them while investigating them. I mean as of right now. We don't have Mueller's answer as of yet. So, right now, there's no way to know that.
And because you can't imagine it and you wouldn't include yourself in that, therefore it's impossible?
Knowing what I know about human beings and how incredibly susceptible they are to even unconscious bias, I believe it's fair to say that it's would be extremely unlikely, or possibly even impossible, to stay unbiased when you've already concluded one way or the other on the result, yes. It's just a scientific fact that we are more prone to bias than we believe. So to be so incredibly biased in your starting point, it's hard to see how anyone could investigate fairly.
Excuse me if I cry horse puckey on all that. What's your evidence that he was so biased that it impacted the investigation or his professional work? The evidence presently available to us far more demonstrates that he, in fact, conducted his investigation professionally and did, in fact, separate his bias from his work. To state otherwise would mean some sort of larger coverup occurred or his coworkers weren't checking his work or a general incompetence existed -- none of which we have evidence to back.
From the WaPo: "The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials [Strzok] showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-receiving-briefing-ahead-of-public-release-of-report-expected-to-criticize-fbi/2018/06/14/c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.30df5b5b25ff) So while the same official IG report found that the conclusions of the investigation weren't found to be a result of bias, they recognized that people like Strzok had shown a willingness to act, in an official capacity, to prevent Trump from winning. That's pretty much the same thing I stated as my position.
Maybe because the investigation pulled up nothing for the past 2 years and was a dead horse republicans wanted to beat to sway swing voters? Its more apparent the much larger threat with loads of more evidence should be immediately tackled than some fucking scapegoat. Its extremely pathetic that repubs are trying so hard to discredit the FBI over a dickhead shit talking to a coworker. Especially when said dickhead was immediately removed from the collusion investigation to prevent bias when it became known to Mueller. Also pathetic that its been almost 2 years in and they are still going after "duh emails" when their leader is covered in so much bullshit that he could fertilize an entire field.
I quoted the official IG report. It's made by their internal watchdog, not some partisan Republican group.
The FBI itself has a republican bias. Why was the Clinton investigation made public even though Trump was under investigation for collusion with Russia at the same time?
You would have to ask Comey, clearly not a guy who was on good terms with Trump. According to the report, he's the who chose to make the Clinton thing public, and was "insubordinate" in doing so according to the report.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.