Congressional Hearing of Peter Strzok

[LostMarbels]

What I am presenting are my minutes of what I witnessed while watching Trey Gowdy question Strzok. The interjections are Gowdy's. I wrote down what I heard in verbatim as best as I could. Some information was compiled to better summarize it and put it into contextual order rather than having it as a standalone statement.

March 2016 Strzok texted " God, Hillary should win 100,000,000 to 0" At the same period of time he was investigating Hillary for the email scandal. Strzok admitted he hadn't even interviewed Hillary or any other individuals before that text was even sent. And at that time Hillary was not even the democratic nominee yet. So Strzok already had a person that was not even nominated to run for president, and was investigating for breaking the law, as president in his mind.

The FBI investigation began on July 31 2016 into Russian collusion by Trump to interfere with elections.The FBI had represented to congress that nothing from an investigative stand point,with respect to Russian collusion and the trump campaign has begun before July 31st 2016

Strzok wrote, approved, and was the point of contact for the originating document but 10 days before the investigation even began. Before the originating document that kicked off the investigation was even written. Strzok is quoted: "Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be."

Pretty big allegation to make 10 days before an investigation of that individual has even begun.

between July 31st, and Aug 8th, the FBI admitted they had interviewed zero people.

Aug the 6th Strzok texted "'F' Trump" to Lisa Page who responded:"maybe you are meant to protect the country from that menace." Strzok then responded: " I can protect the country at many levels." however, the first ever interview was not even conducted until Aug 11th.

Not even into a week of the investigation not a single person interviewed, and already promising to protect america from Trump. No bias?
Aug 8th, text form Lisa Page: "Trumps never gonna be President, right?" Response from Strzok: "No, no he's not. We'll stop it."

Strzok admitted that the 'he' in his text was referring to "The then Candidate Trump." and the definition to what 'it' was, was "the candidacy of Trump to become president." In that admission, Strzok admitted his intention in keeping Trump from becoming president.

Nov 7th Strzok texted: " Oh my god! This is 'F'ing terrifying!" self admittedly meaning: " how I saw, and what I believed in the potential upcoming administration."

March 2017 Strzok is texting about Trump resigning.

May 17th 2017 Bob Muller is appointed. Strzok begins pushing for impeachment the next day. Again, zero interviews were even conducted, on the first day of Muller's investigation, before Strzok even began seeking impeachment. But there is no bias.....

A differnt statement by Gowdy, but outlines what I presented above.

 

[tulc]

What I am presenting are my minutes of what I witnessed while watching Trey Gowdy question Strzok. (snip)

Cool story bro.
tulc(hopes LostMarbels hand has recovered from all the writing)

 

[bhsmte]

What I am presenting are my minutes of what I witnessed while watching Trey Gowdy question Strzok. The interjections are Gowdy's. I wrote down what I heard in verbatim as best as I could. Some information was compiled to better summarize it and put it into contextual order rather than having it as a standalone statement.

March 2016 Strzok texted " God, Hillary should win 100,000,000 to 0" At the same period of time he was investigating Hillary for the email scandal. Strzok admitted he hadn't even interviewed Hillary or any other individuals before that text was even sent. And at that time Hillary was not even the democratic nominee yet. So Strzok already had a person that was not even nominated to run for president, and was investigating for breaking the law, as president in his mind.

The FBI investigation began on July 31 2016 into Russian collusion by Trump to interfere with elections.The FBI had represented to congress that nothing from an investigative stand point,with respect to Russian collusion and the trump campaign has begun before July 31st 2016

Strzok wrote, approved, and was the point of contact for the originating document but 10 days before the investigation even began. Before the originating document that kicked off the investigation was even written. Strzok is quoted: "Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be."

Pretty big allegation to make 10 days before an investigation of that individual has even begun.

between July 31st, and Aug 8th, the FBI admitted they had interviewed zero people.

Aug the 6th Strzok texted "'F' Trump" to Lisa Page who responded:"maybe you are meant to protect the country from that menace." Strzok then responded: " I can protect the country at many levels." however, the first ever interview was not even conducted until Aug 11th.

Not even into a week of the investigation not a single person interviewed, and already promising to protect america from Trump. No bias?
Aug 8th, text form Lisa Page: "Trumps never gonna be President, right?" Response from Strzok: "No, no he's not. We'll stop it."

Strzok admitted that the 'he' in his text was referring to "The then Candidate Trump." and the definition to what 'it' was, was "the candidacy of Trump to become president." In that admission, Strzok admitted his intention in keeping Trump from becoming president.

Nov 7th Strzok texted: " Oh my god! This is 'F'ing terrifying!" self admittedly meaning: " how I saw, and what I believed in the potential upcoming administration."

March 2017 Strzok is texting about Trump resigning.

May 17th 2017 Bob Muller is appointed. Strzok begins pushing for impeachment the next day. Again, zero interviews were even conducted, on the first day of Muller's investigation, before Strzok even began seeking impeachment. But there is no bias.....

A differnt statement by Gowdy, but outlines what I presented above.

Judging by the context of these texts, i have a hard time believing it had zero impact on strzok's work. If fbi made comments like this about hilary, the other side would be saying the same thing.

Like if have said before, some in the fbi, may have overstepped their bounds and the russia investigation, can still be legit despite this.

 

[Rion]

Judging by the context of these texts, i have a hard time believing it had zero impact on strzok's work. If fbi made comments like this about hilary, the other side would be saying the same thing.

Like if have said before, some in the fbi, may have overstepped their bounds and the russia investigation, can still be legit despite this.

I agree, but I'm waiting to see the IG report on the Russia Investigation. I think what a lot of Never Trumpers have failed to catch on to is the fact that it seems like collusion is now pretty much dead. They wouldn't have told Trump days before the announcement of the new indictments if they still doubted him.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree, but I'm waiting to see the IG report on the Russia Investigation. I think what a lot of Never Trumpers have failed to catch on to is the fact that it seems like collusion is now pretty much dead. They wouldn't have told Trump days before the announcement of the new indictments if they still doubted him.

What really gets me, is the fbi personal, were brazen enough to text these comments, on fbi devices.

I mean, you really have to ask yourself how arrogant and stupid that was. I wouldnt want anyone with their head buried in the sand that much, anywhere near any investigation.

 

[LostMarbels]

Judging by the context of these texts, i have a hard time believing it had zero impact on strzok's work. If fbi made comments like this about hilary, the other side would be saying the same thing.

Like if have said before, some in the fbi, may have overstepped their bounds and the russia investigation, can still be legit despite this.

What I have found is that Russia did conduct a cyber attack on America in 2016. The Muller probe was supposed to look into that attack. Instead it became the backbone of a movement to impeach President Trump. This is where the political intrigue began. Once they labeled Trump as a conspirator of the actions by Russia, he is now part of the investigation. Even tho the investigation had nothing to do with him. So it was imperative to remove Trump quickly before people dug too deeply. It's has taken far too long and has given congress and the like ample time to 'dig' and study the investigation leading to bias against Trumps presidency.

 

[Rion]

What really gets me, is the fbi personal, were brazen enough to text these comments, on fbi devices.

I mean, you really have to ask yourself how arrogant and stupid that was. I wouldnt want anyone with their head buried in the sand that much, anywhere near any investigation.

You don't agree with the Democrats who wanted to give the guy the purple heart?

 

[LostMarbels]

What really gets me, is the fbi personal, were brazen enough to text these comments, on fbi devices.

I mean, you really have to ask yourself how arrogant and stupid that was. I wouldnt want anyone with their head buried in the sand that much, anywhere near any investigation.

You have to remember, in their mindset, they weren't going to lose. Hillary was going to be president, or Trump would be quickly removed and none of this was ever even going to see the light of day. They had nothing to fear. They were on the winning side.

 

[tulc]

I'll tell you what's fun: watching Republicans ignore the obvious (Russia interfered in the US election) while obsessing about an FBI guy's text's to his girlfriend. As a bonus watching people spin these elaborate scenarios about "this other thing was supposed to happen and didn't but now me and the Scooby Doo gang will reveal the REAL culprits!!"
tulc(ruh roo! indeed)

 

[LostMarbels]

I'll tell you what's fun: watching Republicans ignore the obvious (Russia interfered in the US election) while obsessing about an FBI guy's text's to his girlfriend. As a bonus watching people spin these elaborate scenarios about "this other thing was supposed to happen and didn't but now me and the Scooby Doo gang will reveal the REAL culprits!!"
tulc(ruh roo! indeed)

As stated:

Trump was illegally (wiretapped) surveilled

A fake dossier paid for by the DNC was used as reasoning for the Trump investigation.

There was unprecedented basis in the Trump collusion investigation, and it has been admitted to congress the bias's goal was to remove Trump from office.

The Hillary Clinton investigation into her email scandal was closed before any investigation even occurred.

No collusion at all was found by any American counterpart to the cyber attack that did happen in 2016, and the attack was ineffectual in its scope because it was stopped.

The democrats alone are implicated in this 'conspiracy'. What Trump supporters deny is this constant rhetoric that Trump had something to do with it.

 

[whatbogsends]

As stated:

Trump was illegally (wiretapped) surveilled

A fake dossier paid for by the DNC was used as reasoning for the Trump investigation.

There was unprecedented basis in the Trump collusion investigation, and it has been admitted to congress the bias's goal was to remove Trump from office.

The Hillary Clinton investigation into her email scandal was closed before any investigation even occurred.

No collusion at all was found by any American counterpart to the cyber attack that did happen in 2016, and the attack was ineffectual in its scope because it was stopped.

The democrats alone are implicated in this 'conspiracy'. What Trump supporters deny is this constant rhetoric that Trump had something to do with it.

If only your narrative had any factual basis it might be compelling.

 

[LostMarbels]

If only your narrative had any factual basis it might be compelling.

By all means keep it up...

 

[tulc]

As stated: (snip)

Yes, "Wash, Rinse, Repeat" Every one of the above have (repeatedly) been shown to be false and when it becomes obvious no one is buying it? They are tucked away for a couple of months in the hope that somehow, over time, they've magically become true, well sorry bro, they still haven't become true.
tulc(maybe in another 6 months? doubtful, but still...)

 

[tulc]

OH! But if LostMarbels would like to show support for every one of his points I'm sure we'd all love to see it!
tulc(does love looking at support)

 

[bhsmte]

You don't agree with the Democrats who wanted to give the guy the purple heart?

Pink slip is more appropriate.

 

[bhsmte]

You have to remember, in their mindset, they weren't going to lose. Hillary was going to be president, or Trump would be quickly removed and none of this was ever even going to see the light of day. They had nothing to fear. They were on the winning side.

Those texts indicated they feared something.

I get what you are saying though.

 

[LostMarbels]

OH! But if LostMarbels would like to show support for every one of his points I'm sure we'd all love to see it!
tulc(does love looking at support)

It isn't important to convince you. The information is out there. The only thing that is important is to keep the information in the public eye regardless of controversy or opposition. You and people like yourself are always going to state that information that is contrary to your own stance is wrong. So why bother?

On the other hand no proof can be presented that this post is not factual, that Peter Strzok did not make the comments listed under oath, before congress, as questioned by Trey Gowdy, that I have posted above.

Neither can you factual state that congress hasn't found basis in the Trump investigation nor favoritism in the Hillary investigation. That is fact.

It is fact The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, Perkins Coie, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day; Research that resulted in a now-famous Steele dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin. That is fact.

 

[LostMarbels]

Those texts indicated they feared something.

I get what you are saying though.

Strzok admitted he feared a Trump presidency. Stating the reasoning as: "how I saw, and what I believed in the potential upcoming administration." He made this comment after being questioned as to why he felt the need to 'save' America from Trump.

 

[whatbogsends]

It isn't important to convince you. The information is out there. The only thing that is important is to keep the information in the public eye regardless of controversy or opposition. You and people like yourself are always going to state that information that is contrary to your own stance is wrong. So why bother?

On the other hand no proof can be presented that this post is not factual, that Peter Strzok did not make the comments listed under oath, before congress, as questioned by Trey Gowdy, that I have posted above.

Neither can you factual state that congress hasn't found basis in the Trump investigation nor favoritism in the Hillary investigation. That is fact.

It is fact The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, Perkins Coie, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day; Research that resulted in a now-famous Steele dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin. That is fact.

We understand that you believe it's important to keep these claims in the public eye, regardless of factual basis for them. It's out there, but it would fall under the heading of disinformation.

Trump was not illegally wiretapped.

The dossier about Trump began under funding from GOP candidates. It's not a "fake" dossier. Some of the information has been corroborated, some of the information remains unverified. Nothing has been shown to be "fake", despite the repeated claims from the right.

You keep talking about "basis" when you mean "bias". You've done this in multiple posts.

It has not been shown that bias impacted the investigation. It hasn't been disproven (a very hard thing to do), but it certainly has not been proven.

The Democrats aren't implicated in any "conspiracy", unless you count the DNC favoring Clinton over Sanders. While I think it's highly unethical, it's not illegal (unless they violated campaign finance laws).

Trump's people, including campaign managers, members of his transition team, his son, and more, all lied under oath about their contacts with Russia. That doesn't prove collusion, but it certainly makes it look like they have something to hide.

Trump's actions in office are exceedingly pro-Russia. Only Trump loyalists deny that, with the argument that he only appears to be exceedingly pro-Russia. What we've seen more often than not with Trump is that what he appears to be doing, he is, in fact, doing.

 

[LostMarbels]

We understand that you believe it's important to keep these claims in the public eye, regardless of factual basis for them. It's out there, but it would fall under the heading of disinformation.

I have no doubt in my mind you want this current congressional hearing in the corners of conspiracy theories.

Trump was not illegally wiretapped.

Trump was illegally (wiretapped) surveilled

The surveillance of Trump was done under false pretenses. We began this argument that no surveillance at all of Trump was even conducted. Now it is argued it wasn't illegal. Tomorrow it will be something else.

The dossier about Trump began under funding from GOP candidates. It's not a "fake" dossier. Some of the information has been corroborated, some of the information remains unverified. Nothing has been shown to be "fake", despite the repeated claims from the right.

Not surprised. A lot of RINOs also want Trump out of office.

You keep talking about "basis" when you mean "bias". You've done this in multiple posts.

I have spatial dysgrapiha, and dyslexia among other disabilities. I was never even suppose to be able to write or compose correct sentence structure, but I think I did good for myself, thank you. If it isn't for those little red lines I am not even aware it is misspelled all the time. And if spell check changes it to the wrong word I might not catch it.

It has not been shown that bias impacted the investigation. It hasn't been disproven (a very hard thing to do), but it certainly has not been proven.

Common sense dictates that if an individual prejudges a situation and or individual even before and investigation occurs that is bias, and that bias does effect the individuals interaction with said person.

The Democrats aren't implicated in any "conspiracy", unless you count the DNC favoring Clinton over Sanders. While I think it's highly unethical, it's not illegal (unless they violated campaign finance laws).

Such semantics are what are becoming so damning. As we have know since day one, a concerted effort to keep out and/or remove Trump from office was perpetrated, and it is beginning to come to the light. Likewise, a concerted effort to exonerate Hillary is also come to light.

Trump's people, including campaign managers, members of his transition team, his son, and more, all lied under oath about their contacts with Russia. That doesn't prove collusion, but it certainly makes it look like they have something to hide.

I think this is a matter of opinion and perspective.

Trump's actions in office are exceedingly pro-Russia. Only Trump loyalists deny that, with the argument that he only appears to be exceedingly pro-Russia. What we've seen more often than not with Trump is that what he appears to be doing, he is, in fact, doing.

So what if he is? What good does it do for America to alienate the second largest nuclear power in the world?

And before this goes down a rabbit hole I will be redirecting the conversation.