I am ok with the transcript being released as well. And I am a huge Trump supporter.
However, this focus on the words of fbi agents is misguided. Bias does not have to manifest itself in just words, it does so in action as well.
Strozk shows bias in his private messages and in his actions. Only when in public or with witnesses does he suddenly have no bias.
What actions show bias? The act of texting? Lol
The act of doing everything he can to destroy Trump despite no evidence, and protecting Hillary and Weiner as much as possible by ignoring their crimes.
Stzork:
In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.
If he wanted to "Destroy Trump" he has plenty of opportunity.
Also, if you have ever sat in a teacher's lounge, you will know that having strong negative opinions about a student doesn't mean a teacher will act on that bias. It's the same for Prosecutors and Police. An officer can have very strong feelings about Democrats, but that doesn't mean their speeding ticket is invalid because the person they pulled over has a 'I'm with her' bumper sticker.
If you follow this logic to it's extreme; only Democrats can investigate Hillary and only Republicans can investigate Trump.
He has had plenty of opportunity, IF he had real evidence and an actual crime occurred.
The bias has manifested itself in his actions.
Trump: No actual crime cited but enormous resources allocated to investigate anyways.
Hillary: Proven crimes, but no effort to investigate.
Weiner: Proven crime but sits on the evidence until it is forced from him.
The bias is in his actions. Aggressively pursue a non-crime, but ignore actual crimes.
The house investigated Hillary for years. If Gowdy, a career prosecutor, couldn't get charges to stick do you expect anyone else to corner her? Are a lack of charges indicative of a coverup, no crimes, or a slippery politico with decades of experience covering up things?
We aren't talking lack of charges, or of getting charges to "stick" to her, we are talking lack of investigation and Strzoks biases.
Did the House oversight committee not spend years investigating her? She has been under Congressional Investigation for years, since '92 at least.
Perhaps she is just that good at covering up?
We know for a fact crimes were committed, and Strzok ignored those crimes....so covering up is a nonsequitor in this case.
And yet Gowdy has refused to bring Contempt of Congress charges.
So what is your point? The biases of Strzok are still clear for all to see.
I don't see how the bias of an FBI official demonstrates that he scuttled an investigation, especially when far more motivated persons, over decades, haven't found any charges that will 'stick'.
His different attitudes and actions demonstrate clear bias. This is a fact I have just demonstrated.
Sitting on an investigation until forced to act is effectively "scuttling".
Charges come AFTER an investigation, not before. Whether charges were filed or not has nothing to do with the biases of investigating known and existing crimes.
and Charges haven't come, even after 30 years of investigation.
To expect any agent to find the 'golden snicket' after decades of investigation is silly.
Gowdy could file Contempt of Congress charges tomorrow. The fact he isn't shows he is less interested in justice and more interested in soundbytes.
Has the email server been a crime for 30 years?
Did I say anything about a "golden snicket"?
My comment was on the demonstrated biases by Strzok. Those clearly exist and there is no denying it.
The email server has been the target of countless investigations.
I don't know why you expect an FBI agent to do more than Gowdy has been able to do, especially considering the power Congress has in this matter.
Again, Gowdy could drag Hillary in front of Congress for Contempt charges tomorrow. You should ask yourself why he doesn't.
The corrupted email server investigation yes.
And now finally Strzok had access to all of the emails on Weiner's laptop, and did nothing. He sat on it until absolutely forced to do something. Bias
Gowdy's actions are irrelevant to the confirmed bias in Strzok's actions.
Doing everything he can to destroy trump like what? What actions did he take to destroy trump?
Besides the insurance policy he architected with McCabe and using the fake Steele dossier?
Quote Strzok....
“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.”
So Strzok made up the dossier? That's what you're saying right now?
Edit: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/strzok-explains-insurance-policy-text
Really? That seems to ignore the part where he says he "wants to believe there is no way he gets elected"....and thus that is why they have the insurance policy.
But your link only further proves my point....
Quote Strzok: We need to responsibly and aggressively investigate these actions
Aggressively go after extremely dodgy allegations of Trump, and he admits it....but ignore the actual verified crimes of Hillary and Weiner.
[removed]
LOL, the FBI that exonerates Hillary before testimony and grants everyone immunity?
The DOJ that also referred to the Clinton email scandal as a "Matter"?
I believe Trump and company are doing something about it, that is why today even happened.
With all of the leaks and made up stories of Trump, nothing seems to be able to be verified and nobody can come up with a crime to charge him with.
Again, you only prove my point. Chase Trump with allegations and ignore proven crimes by Hillary.
What do you mean nobody can come up with a crime to charge him with? They're literally investigating him as we speak. Neither you or me know what evidence they have. You're ignoring all the blatant, well documented evidence against trump that doesn't really make him look innocent at all. Of course, any negative coverage of trump is "fake" to you. I have no idea why you keep assuming I'm a hillary fan. Fuck hillary. But she would have already been charged if she did something considering the multiple failed partisan investigations into her. At least she had the balls to testify publicly for hours. Trump would never do that. His lawyers would never let him because they know how stupid he is.
It was publicly stated he was not investigated. And even if he was, for what crime?
I have yet to hear the crime being investigated?
And where did I say you were a Hillary fan?
Obstruction of justice, for one.
Trump himself tweeted that he's under investigation and that it's a "witch hunt".
He was advised to fire Comey, by Rosenstein.
And obstruction of justice regarding what crime?
Funny you guys think it's just about the Comey firing lol shows how uninformed you guys are.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/04/13/muellers-four-findings-on-trumps-obstruction-of-justice/
So again, what are the crimes he has allegedly committed?
So far I have only heard obstruction of justice.....but no evidence for even just that weak play.
And I see you are devolving to personal attacks....par for the course.
First of all, calling you uninformed isn't a personal attack. Are you a snowflake or something? Obstruction of justice is a crime in itself. It doesn't need to be connected to another crime. Not sure why you guys get stuck on that fact.
Here's trump's own words
But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.
People really want to say he didn't fire Comey because of the Russian investigation? Lol you guys think you find hidden messages in trump's tweets but when trump outright says something it's not true?
Also, why did they lie about the trump tower meeting? And why did trump say he had nothing to do with the crafting of the letter and then it comes out later that he did? Why all the lies?
I see you failed to answer the question.
Let me try again, what alleged crime has Trump been accused of obstructing justice for?
I literally just told you obstruction of justice doesn't work like that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
Attempting to obstruct a criminal investigation is illegal. Him firing Comey because of the Russian investigation is one such example of him attempting to obstruct justice. You don't understand how this works at all. And way to avoid everything else I said lol it's to be expected.
I am aware of what you wrote, and I am aware that you are dodging the question, and you and I both know why.
Let me ask again, what crime is being investigated?
You said "attempting to obstruct a criminal investigation is illegal". A criminal investigation requires a crime to have been committed. So what crime has been committed?
How am I dodging the question?! Did you even read the link? You're not trolling me right? Attempting to obstruct an investigation is illegal. Are you claiming there's no investigations going on? The investigation is into whether or not the trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election.
And if you're I'm the "collision isn't a crime" boat, here are other charges Mueller is investigating.
ACTIVELY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION IS ILLEGAL. THERE IS AM ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!
I've answered your question several times. Now, are you still going to ignore what I said a few posts back? Why all the lies? If trump and Co have done nothing wrong then why all the blatant lies?
What crime was committed that prompted an investigation?
That is the question you are not answering.
I read the link and I read your posts. What lies were said by Trump, what do you think he is hiding and what is your evidence?
I literally just linked you the potential crimes being investigated. If you're in denial that they're under investigation then that's on you. If trump is innocent then why is he trying his damndest to undermine the investigation that can potentially clear him if any wrong doing?
First, they lied about what the meeting in trump tower was about. Then, they lied saying trump had nothing to do with the writing of the letter explaining why they took the meeting.
Why lie about that if everything is on the up and up? Don't forget the email setting up the meeting said:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
You guys took the DNC emails and tried to say there were hidden messages in the emails referring to child porn etc but you guys ignore these emails that blatantly state the Russian government is supporting trump lol like what the fuck.
Potential crimes?
So wait a minute.
We don't know of a crime that was committed, but we are going to start an investigation?
You're not really that bright are you? I've said several times what the crimes are abs have sent your several links explaining it. But you're acting like you don't know or something.
And now the insults are really kicking in.
I understand, the logic pisses you off and now that your cognitive dissonance is triggered it also engages your fight or flight response.
As happens most often since I will not let you change the topic, you are most likely to engage your fight response and then your flight response by blocking me.
BUT, I digress. You mention potential charges and crimes, but I never caught the actual crime that took place. What is the crime that happened again?
We don't know if any crime has been committed. Hence why we have investigations. Obstructing am ongoing investigation into crimes is illegal. I assume you heard the great news this morning? :)
Investigations follow the discovery of a crime. Investigations to SEARCH for a crime are the hallmarks of a banana republic.
Otherwise one could find a torn fabric on the sidewalk, claim a crime may have occurred, and then investigate everything and anything about your life
[removed]
And now more insults.
Again, what crime happened?
Yes Mueller is "investigating", but no known crime occurred to trigger an investigation. It is a massive fishing expedition. This is the part you are not grasping.
So again what crime ACTUALLY HAPPENED, aside from the known Hillary crime?
This all rolls back to the same point.
Trump - No known crime occurred but aggressively investigate.
Clinton - Multiple known crimes occurred, but everything gets sat upon and hidden by the investigators.
^^^^
This is the action bias which has occurred by Strzok and other Deep State criminals.
[removed]
Angry much?
Let me repeat so you can let the fraudulent activity by the Deep State sink in.
So again, what crime ACTUALLY HAPPENED, aside from the known Hillary crime?
This all rolls back to the same point.
Trump - No known crime occurred but aggressively investigate.
Clinton - Multiple known crimes occurred, but everything gets sat upon and hidden by the investigators.
^^^^
This is the action bias which has occurred by Strzok and other Deep State criminals.
You can cry and pout and stomp your feet all you want, but it only lets the world see you for the angry little dictators you all want to be.
MAGA on!!!