GOP's Transcript Release Gambit Backfires Upon Actual Reading

It's not looking good for Trump's personal witch hunt against the fine men and women of the FBI.

Rachel Maddow takes a closer look at what is actually said in newly released congressional testimony transcripts of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, and notes that Republican hopes that releasing the transcripts will serve their political ends are not well supported by the actual content of the transcripts.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc

MSNBC delivers breaking news and in-depth analysis of the headlines, as well as informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.​

 

Rachael Maddow! hahahahha The left I guess needs to know what to think instead of actually reading the transcript themselves

 

OH, how I wish I could be like you. I can only read something and understand what the words mean whereas you.......you know what they REALLY mean (wink, wink).
What a gift.

 

Wait. You mean she isn't making what was said out to be whatever fits her narrative........like Don's lying tweet from the other day? She's basing it on the actual testimony! Trumpers sad........and confused.

 

Did you have a point to raise? Maybe something contrary to Rachel's top-notch analysis?

 

For example?

 

McCabe, strzok, page and others are not fine men and women

They are Deep State snakes

 

Fine people testifying before congress often have these facial expressions:

The ****er literally has horns popping out on his forehead.

 

I particularly liked the part of the transcript when GOP attack dog Trey Gowdy had his questions to Strzok blow up in his face. No wonder Trey did not seek re-election. Every lie he spewed about Hillary, Strzok, Page, etc. was exposed as partisan horse dung.

 

For example?

 

Well no that is , in fact, exactly what she was doing spinning like a top.

 

This is why the right is always so angry. They latch onto some snippet of information, then they can't understand why nothing ever happens when the whole thing is taken in context.
They try to do the same thing with data. They will pick a time frame that fits their narrative and ignore the real facts.

 

The OP reads like an advertisement. Is MSNBC promoting their programming on message boards, now? Is this paid programming? An infomercial?

 

Just including the video description.

 

Looks like an ad, to me.

Is that your career field?

Your words come across as ad copy.

 

It's simple copy 'n paste. I do personally recommend MSNBC as a great source for news and information, however.

 

Did you notice that every rightie here has attacked the messenger etc. They haven't yet received their marching orders from Hannity so they don't know what to say. They have to have the lies prepared for them so they can spread them.

 

These Page, Strzok transcript releases are a Total SNOOZER.

And everybody knows it.

The only people that even care are RW Tinfoil Hats who spam 20 threads a day based on whatever they hear from the RW Echo Chamber.

Most people don't even care about this fabricated Page/Strzok "issue".

That said, the RW Noise Machine never misses a chance to channel Faux Outrage.

Especially over things that nobody else cares about.

The story in the OP is spot on.

 

Wouldn’t you rather just read the transcript yourself, instead of taking someone else’s word for it? I mean that’s what adults do.

 

You're quite behind on this aren't you. Here's the bullet point. All the noise House Repubs like the fatuous Devin Nunes, lying Don, and duplicitous right wing media generated for the consumption of the gullible about how some "deep state" (there's no such thing) DOJ agents were out to get Don (a fiction destroyed by the AG's report) has been exposed as hyped up nonsense.
If you bothered to watch the video supplied to you I wouldn't have to provide this example. Gowdy, thinking he was on to something good, asked Strzok why the FBI thought it was necessary to investigate Vlad's favorite candidate despite a lack of conclusive evidence of collusion. Strzok replied, because there was so much evidence of contacts between members of the campaign and Russians it would have been negligent not to investigate the possibility of a serious threat to national security (I've paraphrased).

His answer is devastating to the whole "they were out to get him" narrative because regardless of what the investigation revealed, and it has revealed plenty, because the pretense for the need to investigate was as clear as day. Rendering absolutely meaningless the innocuous texts so obviously taken out of context by Don and his defenders to try to show bias.

The thing is, none of this matters to Don or to Trumpers. They believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Which explains why Don's tweet, sent out shortly after Page's testimony was made public, completely distorts what her testimony reveals. Trumpers, in true form, have done likewise.

 

All this makes you wonder why such wonderful people as Strzok and Page no longer work for the FBI. It appears that the FBI would do everything they could to keep such wonderful people.

 

Apparently only Peter Strzok held this strong opinion about Trump. They might not have particularly liked him, but they were not seeing him as this threat to national security. We have not heard it from anyone else in the FBI. Reference Jackson Lee's questioning of Lisa Page. Lee is a democrat who fed Page soft ball questions looking for the answers she wanted. I prefer to wait on Mueller's report on the Russian collusion.

In spite of he democrat's hoopla about Rachel, I fail to be impressed with her analysis.

 

They are victims of the GOP witch hunt Don's defense inspired.

 

What? Concerns over possible national security threats posed by Russia's involvement in Don's campaign are the essential reason the investigations were launched.

 

I

it’s sad we live in a world where people need Rachel Maddow to tell people what words....really mean