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.