"Benghazi" Trey Gowdy gets an earful...

[heironymouspasparagus]

The summary by definition attempts to compile sometimes unrelated details in a succinct single point. Sometimes that means you have to generalize. How is this so hard to understand? This is like arguing over the definition of is. But when you so viccerally hate Trump, I guess you can just overlook all the cases of potential bias and chalk it up to nothing.

Except for the FACTS that it is the Republicans doing all the 'generalizing' and defining - and they have never been shy about going after anything, even if it is specious and meaningless.  So if they are having to admit nothing there, then it must be squeaky clean.  Especially guys like Gowdy...  do you really believe for a second that if there was something legitimate to find he would not be all over it like a duck on a junebug??   Blinder vision...

Maybe it is because outside of Trump Fantasy Psycho World, they know that eventually, if they lie about it now there will be issues in the future. 



My feelings toward the Pedophile in Chief don't enter into this in any way - it is your guys who are finding nothing to find...!!  And have said so.  

[cannon_fodder]

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

The more you try to explain it, the less I understand.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

[heironymouspasparagus]

Basically at this point, it is never going to be "wrong" for an agent to not pursue an investigation. I mean, there are only so many man hours available so looking the other way is not inappropriate per se. Putting additional man hours and investigative effort into the Trump investigation isn't "inappropriate" be definition, but was it really the highest and best use or resources, or an attempt to play out a couple of people's biases? Nothing he did was illegal. It obviously casts a pretty big shadow over his credibility, which is somewhat important at this juncture where we still have yet to see any connections made to the Trump campaign of any meaningful crime. All my opinion only obviously.

Feeling that pretzel 'burn' yet...from twisting yourself into all those different directions??

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

The more you try to explain it, the less I understand.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

No, you understand perfectly.  It makes no sense.  The RWRE is twisting themselves into a Gordian knot - casting around wildly, trying to fling any old pile of sh$t they can get their hands on in a desperate effort to make people believe their BS.  And divert attention from the intellectual dishonesty and the moral bankruptcy that is the Trump regime.   Remember the Terminator movie where the liquid metal terminator guy gets dunked into the molten metal vat - that kind of casting about and slinging 'stuff'....

[erfalf]

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

The more you try to explain it, the less I understand.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

First of all, there are no "correct" answers. And second, I made no contention that the Mueller investigation was a bad use of resources. You jumped about 15 steps ahead on that one all by yourself.

What I suggested (again, no right/wrong answers here), is that potentially the lead investigator in both the Clinton and Trump matters may have minimized his efforts on the Clinton investigation because he favored that candidate and increased his effort on the Trump matter out of his hatred. Not that either of those things necessarily would have lead to convictions or exoneration. But then again, you will never know. The die has already been cast.

And he only advised re-opening the matter after sitting for months on the newly discovered emails on Weiner's laptop. Hardly a springing to action if you ask me. Just goes to confirm that bias was likely playing a role in his decisions. More like the pressure was likely so great he couldn't avoid it. That decision making there likely lead to her defeat more than anything, all the while he was probably trying to protect her. Again, none are wrongful decisions legally, but if he would have just played it down the middle, we might be talking about a Clinton presidency instead of the alternative. Karma is a grumble.

[erfalf]

grumble is censored. ok.

[erfalf]

Feeling that pretzel 'burn' yet...from twisting yourself into all those different directions??

No need. You guys are doing a fine job twisting around me all by your selves.

[patric]

I'm getting frustrated. I'm trying to clarify the issue and understand what the outrage is about. The last comment seems to indicate the outrage is because you don't think the Mueller investigation is the best use of FBI resources?  Basically, because an FBI agent texted political opinions to his girl friend, the investigation that was in line with that opinion is not a good use of resources.  

For that to make any sense, we would need to pretend the Mueller investigation was created by that FBI agent, which he couldn't and didn't do.  He didn't start the investigation and hasn't worked on the investigation for 10 months. The guy has investigated politicians and Russia counter intelligence, that he was assigned to help out doesn't require a conspiracy. If he didn't exist, someone else would have been assigned.

Also worth pointing out that while he was texting opinions to his girlfriend about Trump, he was advising to reopen the Clinton investigation and on a team that drafted memos credited with finishing off her campaign.  Do you think without him the FBI wouldn't have looked into the Trump-Russia dossier, wouldn't have interviewed Flynn, wouldn't have investigated the DNC email hacking?  Without him Sessions wouldn't have recused and the DOJ wouldn't have appointed a special counsel, or that the special counsel wouldn't have requested assistance from the FBI?

As I asked before, *if* someone in the FBI had an opinion against Hillary - does that mean the Hillary investigation was biased and an unwise use of resources?

If his cult followers really cant comprehend anything over 140 characters, this is what they believe to be true:

@realDonaldTrump
   
President Obama thought that Crooked Hillary was going to win the election, so when he was informed by the FBI about Russian Meddling, he said it couldn't happen, was no big deal, & did NOTHING about it. When I won it became a big deal and the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by Strzok!
10:37 PM - 15 Jul 2018

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018731223890481153?

[joiei]

No need. You guys are doing a fine job twisting around me all by your selves.

Bless your little heart.

[erfalf]

If his cult followers really cant comprehend anything over 140 characters, this is what they believe to be true:

@realDonaldTrump
   
President Obama thought that Crooked Hillary was going to win the election, so when he was informed by the FBI about Russian Meddling, he said it couldn't happen, was no big deal, & did NOTHING about it. When I won it became a big deal and the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by Strzok!
10:37 PM - 15 Jul 2018

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018731223890481153?

The irony of someone insulting someone for only being able to understand in short bursts, after "your crew" was using the summary of a huge report as "evidence" of something is comical at worst. A huge lack of self awareness at best.

[patric]

The irony of someone insulting someone for only being able to understand in short bursts, after "your crew" was using the summary of a huge report as "evidence" of something is comical at worst. A huge lack of self awareness at best.

I'm betting the "summary" had fewer exclamation points.

[heironymouspasparagus]

grumble is censored. ok.

Spell it with a dollar sign... Bi$ch.  That passes muster.

[heironymouspasparagus]

First of all, there are no "correct" answers. And second, I made no contention that the Mueller investigation was a bad use of resources. You jumped about 15 steps ahead on that one all by yourself.

What I suggested (again, no right/wrong answers here), is that potentially the lead investigator in both the Clinton and Trump matters may have minimized his efforts on the Clinton investigation because he favored that candidate and increased his effort on the Trump matter out of his hatred. Not that either of those things necessarily would have lead to convictions or exoneration. But then again, you will never know. The die has already been cast.

And he only advised re-opening the matter after sitting for months on the newly discovered emails on Weiner's laptop. Hardly a springing to action if you ask me. Just goes to confirm that bias was likely playing a role in his decisions. More like the pressure was likely so great he couldn't avoid it. That decision making there likely lead to her defeat more than anything, all the while he was probably trying to protect her. Again, none are wrongful decisions legally, but if he would have just played it down the middle, we might be talking about a Clinton presidency instead of the alternative. Karma is a grumble.

Actually, yes, there are right and wrong answers in much the same fashion as there is right and wrong on moral and legal and business issues.  Fake Fox News would have you believe otherwise, but they truly do exist!

It has been shown - repeatedly - by Republican investigators that there was no bias toward Hillary, nor the Trump investigation.  Even Gowdy had his Congressional hearings and even though he didn't like it, had to admit that Hillary has done nothing illegal, even though you know that had to hurt him to his very core!   And she didn't do anywhere near as much "wrong" as Bush did with his private email server that deleted over 20 million emails.  Did you even know about that??   Or knew and just selectively chose your moral position...?




Or use "l" - bltch.

[erfalf]

Actually, yes, there are right and wrong answers in much the same fashion as there is right and wrong on moral and legal and business issues.  Fake Fox News would have you believe otherwise, but they truly do exist!

It has been shown - repeatedly - by Republican investigators that there was no bias toward Hillary, nor the Trump investigation.  Even Gowdy had his Congressional hearings and even though he didn't like it, had to admit that Hillary has done nothing illegal, even though you know that had to hurt him to his very core!   And she didn't do anywhere near as much "wrong" as Bush did with his private email server that deleted over 20 million emails.  Did you even know about that??   Or knew and just selectively chose your moral position...?




Or use "l" - bltch.

I knew. But again, point out to me where it has been shown repeatedly that bias didn't go into the FBI deciding to not pursue charges against Hillary when they have no right to make that decision. Admitedly the AG wouldn't have either but I'm sure there was no bias there either.

Again, the IG report did not rule out bias went into decisions, just that bias didn't cause them to make illegal/against policy decision. There is a difference.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I knew. But again, point out to me where it has been shown repeatedly that bias didn't go into the FBI deciding to not pursue charges against Hillary when they have no right to make that decision. Admitedly the AG wouldn't have either but I'm sure there was no bias there either.

Again, the IG report did not rule out bias went into decisions, just that bias didn't cause them to make illegal/against policy decision. There is a difference.

That is the perfect example of what Ben Bradlee said about John Mitchell, "It's a non-denial denial."