!! Not fired because he didn't do his job? The fucker was fired because as head of the counterintelligence division investigating the President he owed a full disclosure that he despised (for political reasons) the man he was investigating. According to FBI guidelines, agents are allowed to have and express political opinions as individuals. Where agents feel they cannot be objective in an investigation as a result of bias, or because of the appearance of bias, they are obligated to recuse themselves from the investigation. Strozk was clearly biased against all things Trump.
(Strozk could give the general a run for his money as the poster child for trump hating)

Have you forgotten the infamous texts? Let Shooter refresh everyone's minds;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

• Strzok called Trump an "idiot" in August 2015 and texted "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 - 0"
• In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it.
• In an August 15, 2016 text message, Strzok told Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's (Andrew McCabe,, Deputy Director of the FBI) office that there's no way Trump gets elected—but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ... "

There's of course much more, including the "lost" emails and texts the FBI couldn't find (amazing how often that happens isn't it, no matter which political party benefits from lost e mails).

And when Shooter heard Strozk's infamous I have been a patriot and faithful servant for my entire career and I resent the inference that I was biased speech before Congress, Shooter believed that the fucker was lying, cause, you know, fake outrage is a good indicator of guilt. (That very thing in fact has been pointed out several times around here where Trump gets his panties knotted about something, and notably with Kavanaugh when he expressed his outrage during his testimony).

Strozk was in fact removed from Muellers team when the e Mails were disclosed, and later fired because of those texts, not because he was fucking a fellow agent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d1f5ae93aaa

Now here's the thing. When Strozk's texts were exposed, and his bias exposed, he was fired. Strozk also lied to the FBI and before Congress, but he was not charged, as Flynn and others have been. He was not "casually" interviewed and told he didn't need an attorney, he was not offered a deal in return for his cooperation. No one tried to "ambush" Strozk.
Flynn lied. Flynn is certainly going to jail for his actions. Flynn has a lifetime of service to this country, and despite that, his life and the life of his family is ruined for what he did.
Strozk lied. Strozk got fired, but he is not going to jail. He indeed has a lifetime of service to this country, but that apparently is enough to keep him from further investigation, from having his life ruined, and the life of his family ruined.

Now lying to the FBI about meetings with foreign nationals, and trying to hide what those meetings were about is a lot more serious than lying about texts and your affair when you are married, but when the issue is an investigation of the President's administration, even the appearance of bias is at least as serious as lying about meetings that are the subject of the investigation.

In Shooters opinion, the only explanation for this discrimination is
Cause ................... Trump.

Did Strozk do his job? It doesn't matter. Strozk had to know, even the appearance of bias is enough to taint an investigation, and if he truly "loved the FBI and believed in the sanctity of it's reputation", he should have recused himself. He did not. And the stink of that will be raised many times before this mess is resolved.

So you are correct; Shooters opinion of Strozks political views is irrelevant. The FBI'S, Congress, and the administration's views of his political views are indeed relevant. So damned relevant it cost Strozk his job, and if the system was fair, should have put the fucker in prison.

 

Really? Where? Gohmert made a number of accusations, but no concrete cases of lies.

 

There are three things that make this laughable. First the FBI as an institution has always leaned hard conservative/Republican. Second, the Republicans and sycophants like shootersa seize on the exchanges between Strzok and Page and then completely ignore all the terrible things they said about Clinton and Obama. And finally you have to suspend disbelief that FBI agents like all other humans have their biases. But they can put them aside in order to conduct fair and objective investigations. Which was confirmed in the Inspector General investigation and report.

But being brainwashed parrots they can't really look at things objectively and factually. All they can do is scream Trump is the persecuted victim if anyone exposes anything bad about him. He is their god like Fuhrer and can do no wrong.

 

I think it is strange how Gohmert, in his only example of a lie from Strzok, was over his affair with Page. He lied to his wife. And yet, none of them ever bring up the fact that Trump cheated on all three of his wives, thus lying to all of them.

 

Well, but you're the one who tried to convince us that Strozk was fired for fucking another agent.
And Trump cheating on his wives was well known and acknowledged around here before Trump was elected.
Just as Clintons fucking around on Hillary was well known and acknowledged around here earlier. Old news. Not relevant.

 

So you admit you can't show us any lies. Thanks, I know it was hard, but I bet you feel so much more relieved...

 

If you read the actual transcripts they are so tedious they are just grating. They have tiny little bits of things they have snatched out of thin air and its question after question trying to get Comey to slip up, contradict himself, or admit to something they can use. And none of it works because its easy for Comey. All he has to do is sit there and keep telling the truth. And so they leave that little piece hanging in thin air and grab the next one.

And the one way we know for sure they came up with nothing is because if they had they would be screaming their heads off about it. Instead its been Comey in their faces and this was their last chance at him.

 

Robert Mueller requested Roger Stone Congressional testimony — signaling he may be pursing charges

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/ro...onal-testimony-signaling-may-pursing-charges/

 

House Intelligence Committee votes unanimously to give Mueller documents on Trump ally Roger Stone

*And Stone bragging about contacts with Wikileaks isn't the only contacts Mueller is looking at. News organizations are also running multiple clips of Stone bragging about being in constant contact with Trump all during the campaign.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/ho...ive-mueller-documents-trump-ally-roger-stone/

 

‘The mask was ripped off’: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reveals how Trump tipped his hand on Mueller today

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/ma...ddow-reveals-trump-tipped-hand-mueller-today/

 

I don't get it. If he is innocent, why does he work so hard to shut this down? I'd like to see if any of his supporters can answer that.

 

An MSNBC story reported by wrong story?
Really, you want a response?
Funny.
Not gonna happen today with Shooter.
But here, read and understand this for future reference;

You have a right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you free of charge.

Do you understand these rights as I have explained them?

 

Were any of these people you are defending under arrest? Miranda rights are for people being detained, and they were designed to remind people that they do have certain rights. Someone being interviewed by the FBI probably has their lawyer there with them. And even if they don't, having to be reminded not to lie is just a joke. An idiots defense. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Well because Trump is not innocent. But is incredibly stupid. Trump threw a fit and bitched his flunky out for not protecting him from the revelations that he committed felony campaign finance violations from coming out of the SDNY. Which is more than just obstruction of justice. Now that has come out Matt Whitaker is paralyzed and hiding under his desk so Trump doesn't get him indicted.

Trump lashed out at Whitaker after explosive Cohen revelations

*Well we know that's the kiss of death. That's what Trump always says before someone gets fired or quits.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/21/poli...-after-explosive-cohen-revelations/index.html

 

.

 

Fine. In order for Miranda to apply, the suspect must be detained or under arrest. Shooter was trained that when an individual is a suspect, they must be advised of their rights, whether they are under arrest or detained or not. Shooter should have done further research before he posted the standards he was trained under.

Now, that said, the FBI policy is different and has been different since the FBI submitted briefs in support of advising suspects of their rights when Miranda was first decided;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...bi-helped-create-them/?utm_term=.e1d0a7e3763d

"...But during oral argument in the Miranda case, Justice Abe Fortas asked the federal government’s lawyer for more detail on FBI interrogation practices. Hoover’s written answer to the court was prompt and specific. “Both suspects and persons under arrest” were given warnings “at the very outset of the interview,” he wrote. They could consult with counsel of their choice “or anyone else with whom [they] wish to speak,” could have “free counsel” if they were “unable to pay” and could consult with counsel by telephone, if more convenient. Interviews were terminated promptly if counsel was requested. If an interview subject was “indecisive” about requesting counsel, or when there was a question as to whether he had waived counsel, Hoover wrote, the decision to proceed was “left to the judgment of the interviewing Agent.”
​

One police practice is to not tell the suspect that they are in any way in custody. They are told they are free to leave at any time, that the officers are only looking to clarify some details of an issue so they can put it to rest. The reality however is that law enforcement has determined that the suspect will be arrested, but they want a statement from the suspect first. This tactic worked until 2004 when the Supreme court restricted the practice, noting that if an investigation leads law enforcement to conclude that their suspect has committed a crime, they cannot avoid giving the "Miranda warning" simply by avoiding use of the term "arrest" or "detained".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-6320.ZO.html

"... The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is triggered “at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated … ‘whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). We have held that an accused is denied “the basic protections” of the Sixth Amendment “when there [is] used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents … deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206 (1964); cf. Patterson v. Illinois, supra (holding that the Sixth Amendment does not bar postindictment questioning in the absence of counsel if a defendant waives the right to counsel).

We have consistently applied the deliberate-elicitation standard in subsequent Sixth Amendment cases, see United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 270 (1980) (“The question here is whether under the facts of this case a Government agent ‘deliberately elicited’ incriminating statements … within the meaning of Massiah”); Brewer, supra, at 399 (finding a Sixth Amendment violation where a detective “deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from [the suspect]”), and we have expressly distinguished this standard from the Fifth Amendment custodial-interrogation standard, see Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 632, n. 5 (1986) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment provides a right to counsel … even when there is no interrogation and no Fifth Amendment applicability”); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300, n. 4 (1980) (“The definitions of ‘interrogation’ under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, if indeed the term ‘interrogation’ is even apt in the Sixth Amendment context, are not necessarily interchangeable”); cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated).

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the absence of an “interrogation” foreclosed petitioner’s claim that the jailhouse statements should have been suppressed as fruits of the statements taken from petitioner at his home. First, there is no question that the officers in this case “deliberately elicited” information from petitioner. Indeed, the officers, upon arriving at petitioner’s house, informed him that their purpose in coming was to discuss his involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine and his association with certain charged co-conspirators. 285 F.3d, at 723; App. 112. Because the ensuing discussion took place after petitioner had been indicted, outside the presence of counsel, and in the absence of any waiver of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the officers’ actions did not violate the Sixth Amendment standards established in Massiah, supra, and its progeny.

Second, because of its erroneous determination that petitioner was not questioned in violation of Sixth Amendment standards, the Court of Appeals improperly conducted its “fruits” analysis under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, it applied Elstad, supra, to hold that the admissibility of the jailhouse statements turns solely on whether the statements were “ ‘knowingly and voluntarily made.’ ” 285 F.3d, at 724 (quoting Elstad, supra, at 309). The Court of Appeals did not reach the question whether the Sixth Amendment requires suppression of petitioner’s jailhouse statements on the ground that they were the fruits of previous questioning conducted in violation of the Sixth Amendment deliberate-elicitation standard. We have not had occasion to decide whether the rationale of Elstad applies when a suspect makes incriminating statements after a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel notwithstanding earlier police questioning in violation of Sixth Amendment standards. We therefore remand to the Court of Appeals to address this issue in the first instance."
​

https://www.policeone.com/archive/articles/44406-When-must-you-provide-a-Miranda-warning/

In the context of Miranda, interrogation has a broad meaning. It includes any direct questioning of a suspect about a crime under investigation. It also includes various forms of indirect or subtle questioning that are considered the “functional equivalent” of direct questioning.

What is the “functional equivalent” of direct questioning? This is any words or actions by an officer that the officer should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. According to the United States Supreme Court, this is “a practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect amounts to interrogation.”

In determining whether an officer’s words or actions constituted the functional equivalent of direct questioning, it is helpful to keep the following principles in mind:

• Reasonably likely: Interrogation does not result merely because there was a “possibility” the suspect would incriminate himself, or because officers “hoped” he would. Instead, interrogation occurs only if officers should have known an incriminating response was reasonably likely.
• Officer's intent: Interrogation will probably result if the officer actually intended that his words or conduct would elicit an incriminating response because it indicates the officer was aware that an incriminating response was reasonably likely.

So the general and Anon can puff out their chests and proclaim that they were right and Shooter was wrong. Shooter agrees; current case law says a suspect must be "in custody" before Miranda applies, but "in custody" can also mean that the police have determined that a suspect has committed a crime and they are interrogating the suspect, if their intent is to obtain incriminating statements.

So going forward, you can freely talk with the cops until they slap the cuffs on you. Until then, you can confess to your crimes, cause, you know, being truthful is a given and no one should need to be reminded not to lie to the cops.

​

 

As usual just fucking hilarious shootersa.

The FBI was not investigating a crime when they went to talk to Flynn. There was nothing illegal about Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador. And even if he discussed sanctions that is not illegal with the possible exception of violating the obscure and never used Logan Act. What they wanted to know was why was VP Mike Pence going on TV saying things they knew were not true.

And the crime was committed right in front of them when Flynn deliberately and repeatedly lied to them.

It just cracks me up to see your pretzel "logic".

 

Well Shooter is glad the general is getting a laugh out of all this.

But, the FBI wasn't investigating a crime when they interviewed Flynn?
You believe that really?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/james-comey-congress-interview/index.html

In the interview, Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, pressed Comey on the purpose of the interview.
"It is not the FBI's job, unless I'm mistaken, to correct false statements that political figures say to one another. So why did you send two bureau agents to interview Michael Flynn?" Gowdy asked.
"Because one of the FBI's jobs is to understand the efforts of foreign adversaries to influence, coerce, corrupt the government of the United States," Comey responded. "So they were sent there as part of that counterintelligence mission to try and understand why it appeared to be the case that the national security adviser was making false statements about his conversations with the Russians to the vice president of the United States."
Gowdy also pushed Comey on comments he had made in a New York forum earlier this month, in which he told a moderator his decision to send two FBI agents to the White House without notifying the White House counsel's office was something he "probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration."
"I'm just kind of hung up on the phrase 'gotten away with,' " Gowdy told Comey on Monday in the private Capitol Hill interview, according to the transcript.
"In an administration where the rhythm of the context between the FBI and the White House was more established, there would've been a strong expectation that we coordinate it through White House counsel instead of calling the national security adviser directly. That's what I meant by it," Comey replied.
The timing of the interview thrust Comey back into the spotlight over the Russia investigation, as he was quizzed on the Flynn interview the same week that Flynn was supposed to be sentenced by a federal judge, although that sentencing was delayed Tuesday. But memos detailing how the FBI had arranged the interview and the assessment afterward were released ahead of the sentencing date, raising new questions for Comey from Republicans.

 

Now one thing the Mueller's team did during Flynn's sentencing hearing is make a point to tell the that Flynn cooperated early, often and got others to cooperate as well. So what were they cooperating on? Probably this.

Mueller may soon reveal damning evidence of Trump associates’ dealings to end Russia sanctions: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/mu...ociates-dealings-end-russia-sanctions-report/