BOB GOODLATTE FULL ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW WITH SEAN HANNITY (1/25/2018)

I’d be fascinated if I were watching this in TV series or reading a book about this. That this is OUR GOVERNMENT sort of leaves me sick to my stomach. Bob Mulehead is laughing at everyone.



x

Congressman Bob Goodlatte: Strzok Admits FBI Withheld Form 302 Evidence From Congress

 

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

 

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”. However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...ments-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information. That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

 

That is nice, but until we see what it is I don't even see a claim as to why we should be bothered. It could be that we are all bothered because Donald trump is selling us out. It could be Hillary laughing at us with other democrats. I don't know what it is to be mad at until is see it and I am not trusting this guy as to the content. I can read it for myself.

 

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

“Jim” is likely James Baker, the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.

“Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

 

I am in no way trying to tell anyone what to think. I am posting what I see out there that the MSM will not touch that's it. My beef is with the MSM. I hope whoever is proven guilty gets jail time including Trump.

 

Through all of this, I'm wondering how previous administrations transitioning for the first time to the White House would stand up to the over watch Obama and the swamp put in place for the Trump Administration.

Parsing every word, placing what amounts to a "listening device" on every discussion, engaging moles throughout the White House, etc., has set a precedent for future administrations that will only harm them.

It seems there is a minefield of do's and don'ts that no reasonable and accomplished individual would want to walk through. Did every, meeting, debate, correspondence, and phone call get the microscope treatment during previous administrations? Clearly not, because there is no way people with little experience on the layout of the minefield could avoid innocently stepping on a couple.

 

Because its one more thing in a pattern of questionable and corrupt behavior.

If it was one thing you could dismiss it, maybe two things and you could shrug it off, but we're finding intentionally created irregularities in every part of the sham Hillary investigation.

If the Democrat media outlets had even a micron of journalist integrity they would be all over this because this is the greatest scandal of our age.

 

You make it seem that trump was caught with little slips. There was no new stuff there. Trump has a giant big mouth that gets him in trouble.

 

Would you like to show some actual citations of this, or are we supposed to just believe you saw it on breitbart and perhaps you really don't know what is going on?

 

Yea right. And given the tone of your posts, you certainly are making an objective observation.

Future administrations are in big trouble because of the precedent the left has set. Who the hell would want to serve in any administration if one innocent mistake could destroy their lives?

 

Yes let me get right on linking you the entirety of news you haven't been shown.

Just kidding I'm not going to do that and here's why.

1. I think you're just throwing one of those "screenshot or it didn't happen" things at me and I find that annoying.

2. You have one of those examples before you, in this thread, and by your own admission you dismissed it.

3. Google is a thing.

But if you truly do want to catch up then I recommend listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, or Levin on the radio because they do a good job of presenting the details and the big picture of what I'm speaking about.

Mock those names if you want, but they'll tell you what people like Maddow, Oliver, Noah, and Colbert wont.

 

Yeah there is a reason they are telling you things other people won't. That is because they are lying and making stuff up. They are unreliable, immoral, and dishonest. I did listen to them and the things they say went against facts and reality. If you want to play make believe with those people that is fine, but here in the real world those people are disreputable for a reason. They have ruined their reputations with their continual lies and contradictions. They are jokes in the real world, and I am not going to argue with a made up character. However I will note that you enjoy that world of make believe news and please enjoy the show, but I am not playing along.

 

The congress has the responsibility of overseeing the FBI. When the FBI gets to decide what the overseer should or should not see - yes we should be bothered.

PS and if Strzok says the withheld information was "inflammatory" I will take his word on this.

 

Head in sand.

 

That is good for you, but I prefer my sources a bit more reliable and honest than him. If you want to trust him that is on you.

 

That is good for you, but I prefer my sources a bit more reliable and honest than him. If you want to trust him that is on you.

 

if by in sand you mean educated and worldly enough to know what is what then yes most certainly I am not duped by the notorious cheats and liars mentioned above.

 

Right... Strzok totally made up the fact that the FBI was withholding [inflammatory] information from the Congress in his private text message to his like-minded and supportive mistress. You have any interest in buying a cheap bridge?

 

Tererun dominates the others in this thread like a lion among mice.

 

It is called pillow talk, and it is unreliable at best.

 

Nah, Strzok does.

 

LOL, you libs are fun, 50,000 text messages between high ranking FBI lovers is pillow talk. Not even the FBI or democrats in congress deny the veracity of these text messages

 

Pillow talk

 

I have not seen these texts for myself so no I do not trust what someone else said he saw. They could say anything and all you have is vague innuendo and you are running with it. Quote any of those texts for us. Go ahead I will wait. You will have a problem because there are no quotes. There is only some biased liar with an agenda claiming there are these texts. I can read so please let me read them for myself. I do not need an interpreter to tell me what they say. If you need an interpreter because you cannot read the texts and figure them out for yourself that is your problem. Until I can read them for myself I do not believe anything wrong was said. The right has lost all credibility because of their open lies and misrepresentation and I want to read for myself.