Former FBI Counterintelligence Chief Undergoes Public Senate Hearing - Polidicks

Peter Strzok testimony live CBS News FBI official Peter Strzok is trying to publicly defend his actions during investigations of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election as he testifies before a joint hearing before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on Thursday. Testimony has been slowed by bitter partisan arguments among the members on the panels. At one point, after just one member had questioned Strzok, the panel voted on whether to subpoena former White House strategist Steve Bannon. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/12/peter_strzok_hearing_descends_into_chaos_after_first_question.html Real Clear Politics A House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok became heated Thursday when Democrats attempted to defend the FBI's decision not to allow him answer certain questions. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was the first to question Strzok, and when he declined to answer Gowdy's questions, saying that FBI counsel instructed him not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. In response, committee chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) warned Strzok: "Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question." At this, Ranking Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) interjected. "The gentleman does not have the standing to object," Goodlatte responded. "This demand puts Mr. Strzok in an impossible position," Nadler said. "He is still an employee of the FBI. And FBI Counsel has instructed him not to answer the question. If we have a problem with this policy, we should take it up with the FBI, not badger Mr. Strzok." "The gentleman’s point of order is not well taken," Goodlatte said. "It is right on point," Nadler shot back. At this point, Republican and Democratic lawmakers began to openly yell at one another across the room, as Goodlatte said if Strzok did not answer questions they might recess the hearing and hold him in contempt.

Fucking hell, how does he still have a job. Imagine if an FBI agent was caught saying he'd never allow Obama or Hillary to be president, imagine the shit that poor soul would receive.

Now, Steve Bannon, the question we all most want answered is... how exactly does one suck one's own cock, exactly?

Been following this and this is yet another time the GOP gets to sound more Soviet than American about personal opinions and supposed sedition and anyone with two brain cells can see this is a farce of the highest order.

It is transparent how little the gop actually cares about rule of law

Reminds me of the pre Civil War era when a pro slavery congressman beat an abolitionist one almost to death with his cane.

If congress subpoenas him, that might trigger a constitutional crisis. He is under order from the FBI (Which is technically independent but primarily operates under the executive branch) not to discuss those investigations.

I don't think that would be a constitutional crisis

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/us/politics/fbi-agent-house-republicans.html “Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,” the agent, Peter Strzok, told House lawmakers investigating what Republicans say is evidence of rampant bias at the top levels of the F.B.I. “I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity,” Mr. Strzok said, continuing: “I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.”

Grow up. FBI employees are allowed to have and express political opinions.

As people said in the hearing, there are lots of other agents who have recognized political opinions, many anti-Trump, but they are not being pursued and were not taken off the case by Mueller. Strzok said a lot more than just expressing political opinions. He made clear statements about impeachment of Trump, guilt of Trump, etc. before the investigation even began.

Political preference does not automatically equate to professional bias. As usual, Republicans can't produce a single shred of evidence indicating that Strzok's duties were compromised by his political preferences. Instead, they're dragging his name through the mud, shaming him for having an extramarital affair and threatening to hold him in contempt for refusing to answer questions regarding an ongoing, classified federal investigation. In Strzok's own words: "My presumption, based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be President of the United States," Strzok said. "It was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process, for any candidate." Let's be honest, Strzok's only crime was being appalled by Donald Trump's rhetoric. In the era of the lawless and sycophantic GOP, that might as well be treason. Fuck these two-faced pieces of shit who gleefully turn a blind eye to obstruction of justice and potential treason while harping on about ethics and bias. And fuck the people defending them.

Of course you're here to muddy the waters with uninformed posts about why the liberals are uniquely unqualified for X Private texts. Private conversation. Private. Private. Private. I don't care if this guy was pro Trump, this shit was private, these people are people. Not puppets.

You totally ignored everything I said.

He also made clear statements about investigating investigating Hillary Clinton over the email controversy. Republicans are cherry-picking this guy's texts

Which are you specifically referring to?

mentioned here Advocacy by Strzok and Page for a special counsel to investigate Clintons' emails could complicate Republicans' arguments that the pair were acting based on political bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump.

Again, whatever personal statements he made are irrelevant to the investigation (and frankly perfectly reasonable, given the incriminating information on Trump which Strzok had access to) because there is no evidence that Strzok's personal politics had any influence on his professional duties. Republican attacks on Strzok are not based on any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing; they are based on the implicit assumption that Strzok's bias precluded his ability to act objectively in a professional capacity. And while this is clearly not the case, Mueller dismissed Strzok immediately upon discovering his personal bias, out of an abundance of caution and respect for public appearances.

That's a "what if" type of statement being made by the author of the article, not a citation of an actual message. There's nothing in those messages that shows them advocating for a special counsel. They simply mention it as a conversation going around, and that they are talking about it with different people. I've listened to the whole hearing so far, and I've heard no democrats bring up any of these as positive evidence of Strzok's legitimacy.

I think Republicans need more proof of his illegitimacy than some random texts. Usually people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Do you think it's a problem for a head investigator to believe with conviction that a person is guilty before the investigation of that person begins?

Not so long as they remove that bias while pursuing said investigation and interpreting facts. Besides, as he mentioned, everyone checks everyone else's work. If he was biased such that he was not acting professionally, his co-workers would've called him out for it, and out of an abundance of intolerance for allowing political preferences to interfere with a good, fact-based, investigation would've ensured he was either removed from the investigation or written up on it and been told on to his superiors.

I don't think texts are enough proof of that conviction. And again, mueller removed him from that investigation.

Not to mention the fact that the FBI apparently had access to incriminating evidence against Trump leading up to the investigation - information which Strzok had access to and which he never leaked despite its significance. Frankly I'm not surprised he was furious with Trump.

So you're honestly saying that you believe the personal beliefs about a person being guilty ought to give absolutely zero pause to whether that person can fairly investigate them? Really? That they may choose to go after certain leads, or put less pressure on other leads, based on that belief? If that's the case, then we just simply disagree. I don't think it's really possible to fairly investigate someone if you've already concluded what the result is beforehand. Let me also clarify that I'm not saying the whole investigation was batched or something, just that Strzok's participation ought to be questioned.

It was questioned. That's why he was asked to leave, because it lends the appearance of a biased investigator onto said investigatory team. Also, you're taking this well beyond extremes. There are measures already in play to ensure that if said person 'was unfairly investigating' that they would be removed from the investigation. He was not removed for anything he did during the investigation. He was removed for effectively public PR reasons.

What is that claimed based on? Mueller got rid of him basically as soon as he found out about the texts, and we have no reason to believe that it was simply for "PR reasons" beyond Strzok's personal opinion. Even he claimed that Mueller didn't tell him that.

His personal opinion which he is submitting as sworn testimony. Testimony which Mueller could and would immediately call out as wrong and a lie if it was.

He stated that it was personal opinion during the hearing, not that it's some fact. He clearly claimed that Mueller did not tell him one way other the other.

Though someone leaked this to the new york times https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112373/e9d00863-4359-4969-874d-c0b878879aea/DSVFzitWAAAjBti.jpg Although we know now that russia/trump has been under investigation since july 2016