What is Waco saying?

Florda_mike said:

---

What is Waco saying?

---

Ignoring: you're doing it wrong.

What is Quash saying?

Florda_mike said:

---

What is Quash saying?

---

Nobody believes you have quash on ignore.

#Childish

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Henry Gondorff said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

---

Strzok was a terrible witness and his actions unpardonable, bringing shame on him and tarnishing the FBI. Yet, not one Republican asked one question that led to any proof of criminal conduct. Instead, they asked about marital infidelities, opined about body language and looked like complete buffoons. The fact that Strzok wanted to testify in public under oath should have tipped the buffoons .... gohmert, goody and the tongue tied dentist did nothing to prove anything, other than their complete, unquestioned allegiance to Trump and their belief that Congress is not co-equal to Trump. They actually made this guy look good by comparison.

---

Didn't even have to get to criminal conduct, given the proceedings. I thought Prosecutor Gowdy had something he would nail Strzok on in terms of biased conduct. Instead all we got was Thought Police on what Strzok thinks about Trump.

Gowdy especially should be familiar with the concept. During voir dire you get a venireman who displays obvious bias, you ask the court to strike the guy and then this happens:
Court: Mr X, can you be an impartial juror in this matter?
Mr X: Sure thing judge.
Court: Motion to strike for cause denied

We all have biases, but we can generally refrain from acting on them intentionally when necessary. If you required bias-free FBI agents, or jurors, or auditors, or biologists, etc, then not much would get done in this world.

---

Oh, come on. This isn't jury selection, it's jury misconduct alleged after the fact. His testimony about his own mental processes wouldn't even be admissible. Gowdy was making a circumstantial case for acts of material misconduct, the same as you'd do in a motion for a new trial.

---

Fine: show me the conduct. Until then even circumstantial evidence is a scintilla shy.

---

I think the IG report is more than a scintilla. Granted, the Strzok hearing was mostly political theater. If they're serious, they'll have to start holding people in contempt and Trump will have to start demanding documents. Right now Republicans don't seem to think that's in their best interest.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Henry Gondorff said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

---

Strzok was a terrible witness and his actions unpardonable, bringing shame on him and tarnishing the FBI. Yet, not one Republican asked one question that led to any proof of criminal conduct. Instead, they asked about marital infidelities, opined about body language and looked like complete buffoons. The fact that Strzok wanted to testify in public under oath should have tipped the buffoons .... gohmert, goody and the tongue tied dentist did nothing to prove anything, other than their complete, unquestioned allegiance to Trump and their belief that Congress is not co-equal to Trump. They actually made this guy look good by comparison.

---

Didn't even have to get to criminal conduct, given the proceedings. I thought Prosecutor Gowdy had something he would nail Strzok on in terms of biased conduct. Instead all we got was Thought Police on what Strzok thinks about Trump.

Gowdy especially should be familiar with the concept. During voir dire you get a venireman who displays obvious bias, you ask the court to strike the guy and then this happens:
Court: Mr X, can you be an impartial juror in this matter?
Mr X: Sure thing judge.
Court: Motion to strike for cause denied

We all have biases, but we can generally refrain from acting on them intentionally when necessary. If you required bias-free FBI agents, or jurors, or auditors, or biologists, etc, then not much would get done in this world.

---

Oh, come on. This isn't jury selection, it's jury misconduct alleged after the fact. His testimony about his own mental processes wouldn't even be admissible. Gowdy was making a circumstantial case for acts of material misconduct, the same as you'd do in a motion for a new trial.

---

Fine: show me the conduct. Until then even circumstantial evidence is a scintilla shy.

---

I think the IG report is more than a scintilla. Granted, the Strzok hearing was mostly political theater. If they're serious, they'll have to start holding people in contempt and Trump will have to start demanding documents. Right now Republicans don't seem to think that's in their best interest.

---

The IG report agrees with me. Bias but no effect on how work was carried out. Listen closely to Rep. Gowdy's harangue, he has lots of detail re: expressed bias, but nada for evidence that the bias impacted the team. Like rehabilitated jurors.

"We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations," the IG said.

57Bear said:

---

"We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations," the IG said.

---

I wish these employees of ours would face consequences stronger than IG words!!! Pretty weak. These scumbags would get fired in private sector

Maybe that's why they're government employees?

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Henry Gondorff said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

---

Strzok was a terrible witness and his actions unpardonable, bringing shame on him and tarnishing the FBI. Yet, not one Republican asked one question that led to any proof of criminal conduct. Instead, they asked about marital infidelities, opined about body language and looked like complete buffoons. The fact that Strzok wanted to testify in public under oath should have tipped the buffoons .... gohmert, goody and the tongue tied dentist did nothing to prove anything, other than their complete, unquestioned allegiance to Trump and their belief that Congress is not co-equal to Trump. They actually made this guy look good by comparison.

---

Didn't even have to get to criminal conduct, given the proceedings. I thought Prosecutor Gowdy had something he would nail Strzok on in terms of biased conduct. Instead all we got was Thought Police on what Strzok thinks about Trump.

Gowdy especially should be familiar with the concept. During voir dire you get a venireman who displays obvious bias, you ask the court to strike the guy and then this happens:
Court: Mr X, can you be an impartial juror in this matter?
Mr X: Sure thing judge.
Court: Motion to strike for cause denied

We all have biases, but we can generally refrain from acting on them intentionally when necessary. If you required bias-free FBI agents, or jurors, or auditors, or biologists, etc, then not much would get done in this world.

---

Oh, come on. This isn't jury selection, it's jury misconduct alleged after the fact. His testimony about his own mental processes wouldn't even be admissible. Gowdy was making a circumstantial case for acts of material misconduct, the same as you'd do in a motion for a new trial.

---

Fine: show me the conduct. Until then even circumstantial evidence is a scintilla shy.

---

I think the IG report is more than a scintilla. Granted, the Strzok hearing was mostly political theater. If they're serious, they'll have to start holding people in contempt and Trump will have to start demanding documents. Right now Republicans don't seem to think that's in their best interest.

---

The IG report agrees with me. Bias but no effect on how work was carried out. Listen closely to Rep. Gowdy's harangue, he has lots of detail re: expressed bias, but nada for evidence that the bias impacted the team. Like rehabilitated jurors.

---

The report's methodology and conclusions are carefully hedged, but the evidence is there. It's in the arbitrary timeline for the Clinton investigation, the added pressure to complete it after Trump was nominated, the reference to the Trump investigation as an insurance policy, the statement that the Trump investigation is the one that "MATTERS," the blatant abuse of the FISA warrant process, etc. If you want an example of hedging, consider this: the report finds no "documentary or testimonial evidence" that bias directly affected specific decisions. In other words, no one went on record expressly stating that it happened (hooray, hooray). That says nothing about the accumulation of circumstantial evidence, which was already significant before Gowdy et al. took the stage.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Henry Gondorff said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

---

Strzok was a terrible witness and his actions unpardonable, bringing shame on him and tarnishing the FBI. Yet, not one Republican asked one question that led to any proof of criminal conduct. Instead, they asked about marital infidelities, opined about body language and looked like complete buffoons. The fact that Strzok wanted to testify in public under oath should have tipped the buffoons .... gohmert, goody and the tongue tied dentist did nothing to prove anything, other than their complete, unquestioned allegiance to Trump and their belief that Congress is not co-equal to Trump. They actually made this guy look good by comparison.

---

Didn't even have to get to criminal conduct, given the proceedings. I thought Prosecutor Gowdy had something he would nail Strzok on in terms of biased conduct. Instead all we got was Thought Police on what Strzok thinks about Trump.

Gowdy especially should be familiar with the concept. During voir dire you get a venireman who displays obvious bias, you ask the court to strike the guy and then this happens:
Court: Mr X, can you be an impartial juror in this matter?
Mr X: Sure thing judge.
Court: Motion to strike for cause denied

We all have biases, but we can generally refrain from acting on them intentionally when necessary. If you required bias-free FBI agents, or jurors, or auditors, or biologists, etc, then not much would get done in this world.

---

Oh, come on. This isn't jury selection, it's jury misconduct alleged after the fact. His testimony about his own mental processes wouldn't even be admissible. Gowdy was making a circumstantial case for acts of material misconduct, the same as you'd do in a motion for a new trial.

---

Fine: show me the conduct. Until then even circumstantial evidence is a scintilla shy.

---

I think the IG report is more than a scintilla. Granted, the Strzok hearing was mostly political theater. If they're serious, they'll have to start holding people in contempt and Trump will have to start demanding documents. Right now Republicans don't seem to think that's in their best interest.

---

The IG report agrees with me. Bias but no effect on how work was carried out. Listen closely to Rep. Gowdy's harangue, he has lots of detail re: expressed bias, but nada for evidence that the bias impacted the team. Like rehabilitated jurors.

---

The report's methodology and conclusions are carefully hedged, but the evidence is there. It's in the arbitrary timeline for the Clinton investigation, the added pressure to complete it after Trump was nominated, the reference to the Trump investigation as an insurance policy, the statement that the Trump investigation is the one that "MATTERS," the blatant abuse of the FISA warrant process, etc. If you want an example of hedging, consider this: the report finds no "documentary or testimonial evidence" that bias directly affected specific decisions. In other words, no one went on record expressly stating that it happened (hooray, hooray). That says nothing about the accumulation of circumstantial evidence, which was already significant before Gowdy et al. took the stage.

---

Interesting spin.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think the IG report is more than a scintilla. Granted, the Strzok hearing was mostly political theater. If they're serious, they'll have to start holding people in contempt and Trump will have to start demanding documents. Right now Republicans don't seem to think that's in their best interest.

---

The IG report agrees with me. Bias but no effect on how work was carried out. Listen closely to Rep. Gowdy's harangue, he has lots of detail re: expressed bias, but nada for evidence that the bias impacted the team. Like rehabilitated jurors.

---

Bias of agents works for the suspects.

You make the same argument Keyser uses to defend BOR actions.

The appearance of bias by FBI and lack of responsiveness (producing evidence Congress asked for) damages credibility of the investigation.

I'm sure a criminal defense attorney has seen defendants convicted on circumstantial evidence not a substantial as this.

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

Great hypothetical. Great point.

Racist cops get fired

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

---

You're moving the goal posts. The question is whether bias was an influence, not whether it was the only influence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

---

You're moving the goal posts. The question is whether bias was an influence, not whether it was the only influence.

---

I'm good with that standard. Now show me evidence it happened. The IG didn't have any.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

---

You're moving the goal posts. The question is whether bias was an influence, not whether it was the only influence.

---

I'm good with that standard. Now show me evidence it happened. The IG didn't have any.

---

All the IG did was look at each decision in isolation and evaluate 1) whether it was a rational decision; and 2) whether there was direct evidence of a biased motive. They made no attempt to judge whether the decisions were appropriate or what motives were indicated by the totality of the circumstances. This methodology effectively precludes any finding that bias was an influence, no matter how much evidence there is. That doesn't mean there's no evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

---

You're moving the goal posts. The question is whether bias was an influence, not whether it was the only influence.

---

I'm good with that standard. Now show me evidence it happened. The IG didn't have any.

---

All the IG did was look at each decision in isolation and evaluate 1) whether it was a rational decision; and 2) whether there was direct evidence of a biased motive. They made no attempt to judge whether the decisions were appropriate or what motives were indicated by the totality of the circumstances. This methodology effectively precludes any finding that bias was an influence, no matter how much evidence there is. That doesn't mean there's no evidence.

---

Thus my next to last sentence.

Inspector general recommends criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inspector-general-recommends-criminal-investigation-andrew-mccabe-n867571

Did he release any evidence against McCabe?

The IG's investigation is ongoing - more to come.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Let's say a chief of police was recorded saying racist things. The chief says that doesn't bias the way I do my job. Do you believe him? Should he still hold his job?

---

I don't need a hypothetical. I've known racist Dallas cops. Some acted on their bias, some didn't.

Instead of using Thought Police tactics, somebody show me where Strozk acted only out of bias. The instances Sam listed all have other bases than bias.

---

You're moving the goal posts. The question is whether bias was an influence, not whether it was the only influence.

---

I'm good with that standard. Now show me evidence it happened. The IG didn't have any.

---

All the IG did was look at each decision in isolation and evaluate 1) whether it was a rational decision; and 2) whether there was direct evidence of a biased motive. They made no attempt to judge whether the decisions were appropriate or what motives were indicated by the totality of the circumstances. This methodology effectively precludes any finding that bias was an influence, no matter how much evidence there is. That doesn't mean there's no evidence.

---

Thus my next to last sentence.

---

As I said, the acts and omissions covered by the report are evidence of the lack of even-handedness in the two investigations. There was no investigative reason to use the election as a deadline for closing the Clinton case or to rush the investigation even more when Trump became the presumptive nominee. Aside from the haste necessitated by this arbitrary deadline, there was no reason to grant immunity to witnesses like Paul Combetta instead of charging them and pressuring them to cooperate. There was certainly no reason to think the Trump case mattered more than the Clinton case. And if the stories coming out today are accurate, the evidence may no longer be entirely circumstantial. Lisa Page reportedly testified that her and Strzok's texts meant exactly what they said in many cases, which may include those texts vowing to stop Trump's bid for the presidency. That would be direct testimonial evidence.

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

Florda_mike said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

---

Puddles, time to add to your ignore list. Such as it is.

Florda_mike said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

---

So, what are your thoughts on Trump's lies? Do you apply your standard across the board?

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

---

So, what are your thoughts on Trump's lies? Do you apply your standard across the board?

---

Lies and adultery, make him cover all his triggers and see if he has any integrity.

why did you divorce q ?

lies or infidelity ?

Florda_mike said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

---

Ok

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

True. But it saddens me the blindness of Fla Mike et al

Florda_mike said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

The Baylor Bears were well represented by Louie and Gowdy in the dismantling of Peter Stroke, (or whatever his name is).

It's no coincidence that the two biggest political scandals of my lifetime will have Baylor grads as tips of the spear during the proceedings.

---

Those 2 clowns are an absolute embarrassment to BU. I'm not sure which one showed his ass more yesterday.

---

This. They humiliated themselves and the Republican Party. It was disgraceful.

---

For you 2 to say such makes you sound like, well, clowns

They both led the charge exposing a liar under oath(Lisa Page verified this) and proud adulterer. They had this chance to do so and they took it. That's honorable

You both are taking the side of Strzok, a certified liar and outward adulterer. What does that make you 2?

Get outta here with your high road self serving cr**. Grow some ba*** by not accepting lies and liars. I can't stand liars as dealing with them is a waste of every second you spend around them

---

right on