Jim Jordan Grills Peter Strzok



Video post from Mark Dice.

Congressman Jim Jordan’s interrogation of Peter Strzok makes it clear that there is no “one” dossier.

There are at least THREE variations of this alleged “Trump Dossier” which was in part funded by the Democrats and at least part of which looks false and manufactured.


Jim Jordan has his own problems.

#wrestling #metoo


Which he has clearly said he knew nothing about, and there is nothing but conjecture from a few people involved who say “he must’ve known”…but offer no evidence or stories about how he WOULD have known.

In other words, more rumor-mongering from leftists at CAF.


And some of the wrestlers said he would have to know about it, so I guess either the wrestlers are lying or Jordan is clueless or Jordan knew about it and covered it up. We’ll have to wait and see.


Huge difference between “He would have had to know about it” and “I KNOW he knew about it, because I told him.”

For example: President Obama could arguably say he didn’t know about Hillary’s illegal server. Some people could say “he must’ve known, because he emailed her through it!”, but there isn’t proof that he knew about it.

HRC, however, clearly KNEW she was running an illegal server.

Big difference.


So, that’s why it may be difficult to discern the truth, but we did find out that Joe Paterno basically covered up for Jerry Sandusky’s behavior, so I wouldn’t discount that Jordan is in the clear just because you like his politics.


I’m not saying Jordan is clear, and certainly not because I like his politics. If he knew about it, and it can be shown that he knew about it, then he should face appropriate charges, and/or his voters should decide for themselves.

But for now we have a couple of people saying “he was there, he should have known”, and we have him saying he knew nothing about it.

Everything else, like F_Marturana’s posting here, is rumor-mongering.


I don’t really see what the problem with F_Marturana’s post is. She said Jordan has problems, which he certainly does. She didn’t assign guilt or innocence. I think you are being way too sensitive.


Awe, I thought we were getting along splendidly. And now you ruin it and call me a rumor monger.

I didn’t even post an article or anything.



I’m just heartbroken.


Boatswain2PA . . .

Huge difference between “He would have had to know about it” and “I KNOW he knew about it, because I told him.”

Great point Boatswain2PA answering someone else deflecting! (You have more patience than I would have had with that deflection)


To some others here . . . .

Huge difference between a thread entitled

“Jim Jordan Grills Peter Strzok”

and deflecting to an imaginary thread entitled

“Jim Jordan just gotta have known about a homosexual who was in close proximity to Jordan and acting out against others! He just MUST have known because I think that he would have known. He’s just gotta!”


There are wrestlers who have stated that they had conversations with Jordan about the creep.
According to those directly involved, he knew. And he did nothing.

Is “untrue” now equated with “great”?


Is this a quote? From whom?


Jim Jordan is not testifying.
He is the one doing the questioning.
Nice way to deflect from Peter Strzok.


I’d like to contribute to this thread, I really would, but I am under direction from the FBI not to.


And had absolutely nothing to do with Strozk.

It’s like bringing up Strozk in a topic about Ohio State wrestling.


That is not quite fair.
The grilling of Strzok included impeaching statements about his lying to his wife. Jordan is not immune from the same impeachment. And again, at least one of the wrestlers has stated that spoke to him directly about the doctor’s inappropriate conduct.


And color me shocked that we care about marriage fidelity when determining if someone is trustworthy.


I do. I realize that the Christian right doesn’t, but I hope that Catholics do.


dvdjs . . .

The grilling of Strzok included impeaching statements about his lying to his wife.

Not by Jim Jordan it didn’t.

dvdjs . . .

Jordan is not immune from the same impeachment.

Since we can drag in something that someone NOT Congressman Jordan said . . .
. . . .But rather something Congressman Louie Gohmert said . . .
and use THAT to attack Congressman Jim Jordan . . .

. . . What other irrelevant inventiions could be made using that “logic”?

Just about anything one can imagine.

Whataboutism or tu quoque fallacious reasoning from you dvdjs dragging that into this thread.

If you want to start a thread criticizing Congressman Jordan why not just start it?

The title of this thread is "Jim Jordan Grills Peter Strzok."

And that is exactly what happened.


Yes. He’s doing the questioning.

Stzork cannot answer them because they have to do with the ingoing investigation.

Corn is David Corn. Jim Jordan could speak to him, or read his book on the subject. Or check his twitter feed.

Let’s see what David Corn said:

“Per @jim_jordan’s question, why am I mentioned in this Strzok email? A week or two after the election, on my own accord, I shared the copy of the Steele memos I had with the FBI to see if the bureau would confirm the authenticity of the documents and its contacts with Steele.”

“This was part of my journalistic follow-up to the 10/31/16 story I wrote revealing the existence of the memos and reporting the FBI was investigating the allegations in the memo. I was still on the case & trying to discover more information about the memos and their allegations.”

“Why were there differences between the versions of the Steele memos I presented to the FBI and the version Buzzfeed posted in Jan. 2017? The version I had only included pre-election memos. The Buzzfeed version included post-election memos. This is not a big mystery.”

“A few months ago, @Jim_Jordan had a false conspiracy theory: the FBI had slipped me the Steele documents pre-election in order to sabotage Trump. This was not true. See:”

“Now the rightwing conspiracy theory seems to be that I slipped the memos to the FBI to sabotage Trump. Also not true. They can’t get their story straight.”

The Strzok hearing and all the conspiracy-mongering is a distraction from the big story: Trump has tried to cover-up Putin’s attack on American democracy, which aimed to help Trump.

My question is, why ask Stzork when he can’t answer the questions due to the investigation, but ask Corn (who wrote a book about the whole thing, it’s called “Russian Roulette”.

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