Four Big Holes in Peter Strzok's 'Evidence' of His Election Neutrality |


There can be no question of bias.
He must think Americans are stupid.


It’s odd how the headline and article are so disjoint.
What is the evidence that Strzok’s political preference led to bias in his performance of his duties?


There isn’t. But that doesn’t matter - they just need a talking point to deflect onto.


There is a strange lack of concern from those on the right about the NY FBI office leaking like a sieve during the campaign though.


Was there too much information in the
article to grasp?


Not at all. Why do you ask?


You don’t see the evidence?


The evidence against Strzok?
Look again. Strzok is discussed in the opening of the article. But not in any of the evidence - the four big holes - paragraphs. That is the disjunction that I mentioned i n post #2L the "evidence was oblique to the claim.


Agent Strzok worked for the FBI. He was on the inside - in the loop.

Everyone working under the impression
President Trump would never win.

The act he put on in the hearing the other day was not convincing.


He does and he is not wrong.


Did he act as though he thought Trump woudl win? :confused:


WIFI has been out due to bad electrical storms. I will have to reply tomorrow.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit