- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Strzok bias question
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:45 pm
Listening to the questioning from both sides of the aisle and it makes me wonder something.
The consistent questions seem to revolve around whether or not Strzok's obvious bias as evidenced in the texts affected his work on any of the investigations.
Why does this matter?
Instead of Anti-Trump texts, what if he had been sending racially biased texts? (i.e. using racial slurs) Would anyone be asking if racial bias tainted an investigation or would he just be immediately fired and pilloried in public? I see stories all the time where a police officer says something on a personal social media platform when off duty and unrelated to his official functions yet he is fired. Why is this different?
The consistent questions seem to revolve around whether or not Strzok's obvious bias as evidenced in the texts affected his work on any of the investigations.
Why does this matter?
Instead of Anti-Trump texts, what if he had been sending racially biased texts? (i.e. using racial slurs) Would anyone be asking if racial bias tainted an investigation or would he just be immediately fired and pilloried in public? I see stories all the time where a police officer says something on a personal social media platform when off duty and unrelated to his official functions yet he is fired. Why is this different?
12
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:45 pm to jbgleason
He's the Deep State's MVP
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:46 pm to jbgleason
It's not but there is the issue of possibly altered evidence.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:46 pm to jbgleason
If Strzok was a conservative in the FBI and he was ordered to investigate Obama and sent an email "I hate that ****" he would be fired, jailed and there would be a made for TV movie about it.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:46 pm to jbgleason
He was removed from the Russia investigation because of a perceived bias. So there's that...
That still doesn't prove that bias affected his decisions, but we all know they probably did.
That still doesn't prove that bias affected his decisions, but we all know they probably did.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:47 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Would anyone be asking if racial bias tainted an investigation or would he just be immediately fired and pilloried in public?
See: Fuhrman, Mark
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:49 pm to SUB
quote:
That still doesn't prove that bias affected his decisions
Pretty much my point. Why is there a need to "prove" it?
The guy used a government cell phone to text his likewise government employed mistress to directly discuss the target of an investigation in derogatory terms. Why is everyone so wrapped around the axle about proof? He should be fired and gone immediately. No discussion needed.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:51 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why is this different?
Or if there was a text message from a murder suspect to someone else saying, shite, "I really wish so and so was dead, fricking a-hole" That would be exhibit number 1 and lead the investigators in a single direction, whereas here we have his texts laying out his intent, and it's oddly meaningless.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:54 pm to jchamil
quote:
Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok. “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok r
Strzok can say whatever he wants now to save face but this trxt proves hes a biased lying turd . He had an agenda and it involved getting Hillary elected by any means necessary .
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:57 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Pretty much my point. Why is there a need to "prove" it?
If he's to be criminally charged, then there is a need. I don't think there's a need to prove it for him to be fired.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 12:58 pm to SUB
quote:
That still doesn't prove that bias affected his decisions, but we all know they probably did.
Quite the coincidence that the candidate he liked walked from her investigation whereas the candidate he did not like is under great scrutiny. But totally just a coincidence.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:00 pm to Clyde Tipton
quote:
Quite the coincidence that the candidate he liked walked from her investigation whereas the candidate he did not like is under great scrutiny. But totally just a coincidence.
Which is why I said that it probably affected his decisions.
I really want someone to ask him if he believes in "unconcious bias"
. I think his head would explode.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:00 pm to TennesseeFan25
quote:
Or if there was a text message from a murder suspect to someone else saying, shite, "I really wish so and so was dead, fricking a-hole" That would be exhibit number 1 and lead the investigators in a single direction, whereas here we have his texts laying out his intent, and it's oddly meaningless.
Defendant: "I can assure you, judge, that my text messages were merely late night personal musings about the victim and by no means had any impact in my thinking when I killed him."
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:16 pm to SUB
quote:
He was removed from the Russia investigation because of a perceived bias.
There are several other members of the SC group with perceived biased against Trump. One even attended the Hillary celebration. They weren't removed over biased, yet this guy was. Obviously the SC thought it was more than a perceived biased by Strzok, otherwise honest Bob would have removed the others who are perceived to be biased too, correct?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:23 pm to jbgleason
Are you dumb?
Racial texts would absolutely matter if someone of that race was negatively affected by his later actions.
Dont you agree?
Racial texts would absolutely matter if someone of that race was negatively affected by his later actions.
Dont you agree?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:25 pm to jbgleason
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has political beliefs or any opinions about one of the candidates in a US Presidential election should not be able to work for the FBI. Right gang?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:27 pm to SUB
quote:
That still doesn't prove that bias affected his decisions, but we all know they probably did.
Why? And is there any evidence whatsoever supporting this or is this just one of those things we all know? Do we all just know that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia or are we waiting for evidence of that? When do we need proof and when do we not?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:29 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has political beliefs or any opinions about one of the candidates in a US Presidential election should not be able to work for the FBI. Right gang?
He shouldn't be involved in an investigation of that candidate who recieved never before heard of preferential treatment in her being "questioned".
It's the FBI for Gods sake. Not some podunct small town cops.
Reading his texts and following his actions...any human being who denies his bias is simply a lying POS
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:32 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Are you dumb?
No.
quote:
Racial texts would absolutely matter if someone of that race was negatively affected by his later actions.
Dont you agree?
Did you read the OP? I specifically asked why it is that LEO's are fired ALL THE TIME for merely saying something racist. No one has to be negatively affected by later actions. The mere use of certain words brings down the hammer. Yet this guy says he is going to prevent a democratically elected individual from taking office and something needs to be "proved"? I don't get it.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 1:35 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
Why? And is there any evidence whatsoever supporting this or is this just one of those things we all know? Do we all just know that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia or are we waiting for evidence of that? When do we need proof and when do we not?
Well, there is evidence straight from the horse's mouth that Strzok's bias would affect his decisions in investigating Trump. As far as I know, there is no evidence straight from Trump stating he colluded with Russia
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News