re: Newly Released Peter Strzok Doc

There is no doubt in my mind the net has been thrown and catches made.

Continue to do the drip drip to get more people/whistleblowers on DOJ's side to save their own hides then start arresting these mofos

quote:

---

So, there is really nothing stopping any POTUS from using known fabricated intelligence reports as weapons against their political opponents then, right? You would see no legal problem with JD Vance and Trump doing so against the upcoming Dem candidate, right?

---

Some of us warned y'all what this major expansion in powers and protections of the Executive would lead to.

There it is.

quote:

---

Some of us warned y'all what this major expansion in powers and protections of the Executive would lead to.

---

So again, there is no legal bounds as long as you hold office as POTUS, in regards to fabricating evidence to smear your opponent. It's a simply yes/no answer.

And "some of us", you have rabbit in your pocket? Who is "us"?

quote:

---

There it is.

---

LINK

It’s like watching a 4cubbies performance.

quote:

---

What does 2018 have to do with July 2016 to January 2017?

---

You should learn to read.

quote:

---

The document includes talking points from the FBI’s briefing of the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2018 and details the FBI’s assessment of the primary source of the information contained in the Steele dossier. This FBI briefing to Members of Congress occurred after the FBI had learned that the Steele dossier was unreliable in 2017.

---

You going to get there on your own, or do you need someone to hold your hand?

"But opinions differed, especially in the summer of 2016."

If the Rep party plays this correctly (a big IF) and just focuses on getting all the "facts" out as they see them, these scumbags as a whole should be exposed (again) for who they really are and who they really were in the summer of 2016.

This has the potential to "change opinions" of a whole lot of middle of the road Americans in a manner that could keep the current view of Dems (about 27% approval) where it is or lower for quite some time.

Which at least to some like me is far more important than the nuance you want to argue here. Or whether Strzok does the perp waddle.

There is a percent of OMB people who don't want to continue down that path (because they see what's working) but can't justify changes horses mid stream (without looking like "hypocrits"). This situation provides them with a scapegoat (ie. OMB but this is worse and effected my position).

quote:

---

We don't really know, yet.

---

followed by

quote:

---

But it's much more likely now

---

Never change, SFP.

quote:

---

But your framing still isn't fully accurate for Russiagate

---

quote:

---

Your inclusion of the intentionality hasn't yet been established for Russiagate.

---

Well no shite, sherlock. I guess that's why it's currently being investigated. However, unlock the wise family lawyer that is an expert in all areas of law, i am able to use context clues and logic to interpret what has happened.

Now tell me, was it your focus on family law, insurance law, criminal law, constitutional law, maritime law, or bird law that has made you so wise as to know the workings of this particular case?

quote:

---

We have evidence they learned this prior to January 20, 2017?

---

followed by

quote:

---

I imagine it was prior to then,

---