Watch this rex and face reality. Learn why this is important. You can't refute it. [MENTION=7390]rexlunae[/MENTION]
Peter Strozof FBI: There's No Big There There
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
If Trump were being framed, he's been doing everything he could to play into it. His own words indict him. And it would have to involve a whole lot more than the entire FBI and Justice Department.
Oh, I'm not saying that there aren't Americans who have such interests. There are. Heck, I'm interested in seeing what Nunes thinks he has. I just think it's interesting how the bots seem to have taken such a strong and immediate interest in it.
I reiterate my previous statement. If this were a mafia case against someone who isn't a politician, you wouldn't have any trouble figuring out why he was attacking the investigators.
At least one of them is speaking out:
https://thinkprogress.org/dent-criticize-trump-conspiracy-theory-fbi-1296125d085d/
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What do you think that the following words of Strozk are about?:
"You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there's no big there there."
What is he referring to when he says "there's no big there there"?
It was Strzok who signed the documents opening the investigation into Russian election interference and the words which I quoted prove that going after Trump was nothing but a witch hunt!
Of course you think that no one should attack this witch hunt and just play like everything is on the up and up!
That's what Nixon said. Perhaps for the same reasons.
When the republicans "investigated" Clinton, it was one splashy accusation after another. But at the end of it all, a nothing burger. Because at the end of the day, you have to have a crime to get an indictment.
Everyone knows that if she had done a third of what Manafort or Flynn did, she'd be in jail now.
If Trump and his cohorts (other than the ones who have already pled guilty) did nothing, then the result will be the same.
That's how it works. Whining only makes it look as though there is something there.
I think he was expressing his doubts at the outset of the investigation that they'd be able to turn up enough evidence of a crime to go to prosecution. Two confessions and two indicted suspects later, those concerns have turned out to be unfounded.
There's no winning with you. If he'd expressed confidence at the outset, you'd indict him for prejudging the situation.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why would they even call for an investigation if they didn't have enough evidence? Even though the DOJ and the FBI were spying on the Trump campaign they still have found no evidence. They have given up on that and are now trying to find evidence of obstruction of justice. And the indictments had nothing to do with any Trump Russia collusion.
If they were really looking for anyone obstructing justice a case of that is right before their eyes. Thirty thousands of Hillary's emails were destroyed to prevent them from being subpoenaed. That amounts to obstruction of justice.
That's an odd question, isn't it. Because of a reasonable suspicion founded in evidence. Like any other situation.
Why do conservatives seem so often to not understand basic things? Is this really so hard to figure out? You don't start an investigation because you have a certainty. You start one because you have doubts.
That's just not true at face value. You can't call even what's publicly known "no evidence". You can bet Mueller has more. And as far as I'm aware, the FBI was surveilling Manafort, pursuant to a FISA court warrant on an unrelated matter, when Trump decided to hire him as his campaign manager (just bad luck, I guess), and Surgey Kislyak, a Russian diplomat/spy with no legal protections against US spying. That's how they got caught. Monitoring Kislyak lead them to Flynn, and suggested a larger concern, and now the scandal threatens to consume the whole administration. And then separately, Kushner lying repeatedly on his security clearance forms implicates him and could spread further.
Obstruction of justice is an independent crime, and why would Trump people be obstructing an investigation in which they were innocent? But all indications are that the investigation on both conspiracy and obstruction charges is continuing.
So far. Those investigations also started before the Trump campaign even began. And they have suggested that superseding indictments are expected to include additional charges.
The woodchipper of justice isn't always fast, but once it locks onto you, it's only a matter of time.
That was investigated. Not only could they not find evidence to support the allegation that the emails were deliberately destroyed, but they also found positive evidence that something else happened. Would you like to know what? Have you been paying attention? Or are you only interested for as long as it gives you a cudgel to attack Hillary Clinton with?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Their so-called evidence consisted of the fake Trump dossier which was paid for by Hillary! And then they employed KGB tactics and used the fake Trump dossier to get a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign.
You must be proud of these people!
So the emails were just accidently destroyed despite the fact that everyone involved knew that they were subject to preservation orders and a congressional subpoena.
What a convenient accident! If you can believe that you will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.
You probably believe that Bill did not have sex with that woman but she had sex with him.
Yeah, I wonder if they removed some of the more embarrassing ones.
FBI:
Texts between two lovers, lookin' like a fool. Textin' you is breakin' all the rules.
Mary MacGregor - Torn Between Two Lovers - YouTube
Texts between two lovers, lookin' like a fool. Textin' you is breakin' all the rules.
Mary MacGregor - Torn Between Two Lovers - YouTube
Actually, when Fusion GPS brought their work to the FBI, the FBI had already been investigating for a while. See my previous comments about the causes of that.
False.
Why?
No, they weren't accidentally destroyed. They were accidentally preserved. The administrator of the email server deleted them when he realized his mistake.
I believe Comey's account of the email investigation because it makes the most sense. But it seems like you don't even know what it is yet, so it's no wonder you're so confused.
What year is it?
I really don't care right now. Bill hasn't been on the ballot in my adult life.
The "Stormy" truth of the matter is that Bill never put our national security at risk, as well as never committing acts of treason.
The left will do anything to avoid the realization that their beloved investigation is corrupt at the highest levels. Classic denial.
Right. It's always the career law enforcement that's breaking the law, not the people they're investigating. Classic indeed.
You can ignore what the FBI, Clinton, Obama and the DNC did, of which there is ample evidence, but the American people won't. Keep focusing on a manufactured crime, of which there is absolutely no evidence.
Peter Strozof FBI: There's No Big There There
This week, conservative conspiracy theorists are asserting that an email to Peter Strzok establishes the existence of a "secret society" and places him in it - so how can a member of the "deep state" also be presented as a credible source for ending the Mueller Investigation?
Patience. It's all going to come out eventually. Mueller seems to be getting pretty close to the end game.
And given the frantic attempts to divert from the investigation, I'd say that Trump's lawyers are worried.
The fact that Trump decided to fire Mueller early on, and was coerced by his own counsel into backing off, is going to be another bit of evidence as to his intentions, I think.