import 4.code.options;
import 4.code.about;

class Header{

public void title(){

String fullTitle = "// - ";

public void menu();

public void board();

public void goToBottom();

public void refresh(a);

class Thread extends Board{
public void strzokwasallowedtodecidewhatinformationtheIGgot(OP Anonymous){

String fullTitle = "strzok was allowed to decide what information the IG got";
int postNumber = "269115";
String image = "strzok.png";
String date = "07/12/18(Thu)15:40:44";
String comment = "
nuff said"

public void comments(){
if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269116 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)15:42:43")

"Hang him.";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269121 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)15:49:25")

3 Threads about this now but by far this is the most interesting one"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269122 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)15:50:48")

"Good news officer, I saved you the trouble of looking through my wallet for the money that I stole and it wasn't there so you won't need to press any charges";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269125 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)15:59:51")

"Total coincidence I'm sure";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269126 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:01:36")

"Holy fucking lol

The repubs are so desperate to find any sort of red flag they're digging enough every email, every word.

Maybe we should look at actions, hmm?

How about the lack of actions? How about the fact that this guy was right there, right in the trenches, KNEW that there was an investigation into Trump (and the revelation of the same certainly didn't do Hillary any favors) and did NOTHING.

He was in a spectacular position to do tremendous damage to Trump's campaign...and did fucking nothing.

This hearing is a fucking circus."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269134 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:19:45")

>Damaging controlling this hard
If you listen to the actual hearing jackass he sent a text message to Lisa Page after Comey was fired and the interim FBI director was in charge, the same one whose now facing federal charges, and he told Lisa they had to act now while he was in charge so they could get trump lcked up"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269135 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:20:45")

>and did fucking nothing.
He was the one that recommended investigating Trump in the first place for the whole fake dossier paid for by the Democratic Party
So your argument really is false because he did objectively try to damage the Trump campaign"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269137 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:24:06")

"It's funny how when Republicans are investigated for obstruction of justice their doors get kicked in in their offices are raided, but when a Democrat is investigated for obstruction of justice they get the choice of what documents are relevant to the investigation and they can pick and choose with the investigators get to see";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269138 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:29:58")

Putting any presumed political motivations aside, it seems really odd for a federal investigative agency especially one such as the office of the Inspector General to allow the subject of an investigation pick and choose for them what information they were allowed to see or decide that they aren't allowed to see anything in certain accounts that have been requested
The point is that if this were any non politically motivated investigation, one where the subject was just a normal person off the street this information would have been obtained using a court order and the investigators would have decided what was relevant and what was not, the one being investigated would not have had any choice in the matter"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269139 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:32:40")

>He was the one that recommended investigating Trump in the first place for the whole fake dossier paid for by the Democratic Party
the trigger for the launching of the investigation was information from the australian embassy and you should provide a source that strzok "was the one that recommended" the opening of the investigatoin

what's funny is that when democrats are investigated the media reports on it around the clock 24/7 all through election season and when republicans are investigated everyone keeps it a big secret until after the election is over"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269141 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:43:48")

>this information would have been obtained using a court order
the fourth amendment protects you from having to give the cops your email account just because you might have been using it to do something illegal. the standard for a warrant is that there must exist "probable cause" that what you're searching will yield evidence of a crime; if there's no evidence that strzok was using his personal email accounts to conduct illegal activity it doesn't meet the standard required to get a warrant.

furthermore, strzok was the subject of an internal investigation (violations of DoJ administrative policy), not a criminal investigation (violations of the US federal law), making it that much harder to get a warrant."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269142 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:43:56")

No, it's not odd at all. If you actually read the IG report, the standard procedure was followed. Even the republicans are accepting the report.

You're misreading way, way too hard into that."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269144 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)16:45:04")

I've been listening to the hearing for four straight hours, you cuck. Even the republicans are accepting the report."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269149 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:18:59")

Nobody's refuting the inspector General's report jackass you just set up a fucking strawman and knocked it down good job"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269151 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:21:53")

Funny how all he has to do to get away with this crime is just talk about it on Gmail"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269152 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:23:54")

The issue that anon raised would you didn't even address, you somehow equated it to some IG report, is that while Andrew McCabe was serving as FBI director, before he had charges pressed against him, Peter sent a message to Lisa saying that now that Andrews in charge now's our chance to press some charges and make them stick"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269153 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:26:00")

And you would think if there were actual charges to be pressed they could be pressed with any FBI director, Comey ,McCabe, whoever
And it makes one wonder why they thought they can press charges with McCabe and not any FBI director before or after
What makes one wonder even more about stuff is it's the attorney general who decides to press charges not the FBI director"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269154 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:27:02")

>Funny how all he has to do to get away with this crime is just talk about it on Gmail
yeah that's how the fourth amendment works"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269155 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:29:55")

"I don't see why everyone is so upset honestly. This is totally normal operating procedure for the FBI when they're investigating Hillary or strzok";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269158 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)17:33:40")

republican inspector general, republican FBI director, and republican US attorney conspire to whitewash democrats and destroy republican president

more at eleven"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269166 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:06:09")

>muh text message smoking gun

Holy shit. Do we try people in the court to law for having opinions? How many of you wanted Hillary assassinated? Shut the fuck up and be thankful the 4th amendment exists."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269167 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:10:07")

I'm not in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton, and if I was and I sent text messages saying I want her assassinated, then yeah maybe my personal bias is showing through in my job
You shouldn't be bringing your personal political views with you to work when you're an FBI agent"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269168 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:14:09")

>yeah that's how the fourth amendment works
Only if the investigation is highly politicized, with anybody else they would have had probable cause"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269170 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:24:58")

>Only if the investigation is highly politicized, with anybody else they would have had probable cause
pretend you're a zealous prosecutor submitting a warrant to a sympathetic judge; what evidence indicating that there is probable cause that evidence of a federal crime exists in strzok's private email account would you include in your warrant application?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269172 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:36:40")

conspiracy with hillary to violate that gross negligence probably

dunno if i'd go for it, probably just fire him and all his friends, considering i doubt all his buds are the image of impartial if that hang out with that guy"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269173 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:38:22")

>You shouldn't be bringing your personal political views with you to work when you're an FBI agent
What proof do you have he did that, besides making texts on the wrong phone?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269174 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:39:23")

I see why you aren't a prosecutor."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269175 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:41:32")

>shared opinion about trump to impress girl he was banging
> happen to use FBI work phone to do it
This is truly a conspiracy"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269177 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:44:21")

he's part of the coverup. it's fairly obvious to everyone who is literate.

presupposing that any of this matters, anyway- we've already gone past reasonable doubt by at least double considering that no intent is necessary. you can't get out of a traffic ticket with "sorry, didn't mean to." but you can apparently get out of a dozen laws against espionage while tunneling sensitive government documents onto a private server to avoid legitimate oversight.


if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269179 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:47:07")

So no evidence....maybe you can be a lawyer"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269180 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:47:56")

evidence of what, the former or the latter?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269184 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:52:33")

>We've hone past reasonable doubt by double

Super solid legal language, anon. Next you'll demonstrate that the legal grounds for locking her up is 'super conspiracy'.

Oh wait, no. That's not how that works. Innocent until proven guilty, as I'm sure Trump well knows."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269186 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)18:54:45")

This anon>>269170
asked for evidence of “probable cause that evidence of a federal crime exists in strzok's private email account would you include in your warrant application?”
What evidence of is there of conspiracy with Hilary? Like I’m all ears, cause if you got something besides him trying to impress a girl, and evidence the IG report didn’t tell us, you could be a hero"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269188 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:05:58")

i don't care about strzok, though the fact that he and his buddies are all linked to former representatives for CF, two of them are suspiciously pro-clinton as per direct quotes from them in a private setting, the fact that the investigation team is stacked with people who donated to clinton, and apparently enough of the FBI is OK with this that they still have jobs is very suspicious. it reeks.

personally as long as clinton goes down i'm happy, as she committed crime(s) potentially thousands of times when she was illicitly tunneling sensitive, classified and SCI materials out of the fucking state dept onto a server maintained by who knows and accessed by who knows, which is probably the largest forfeiture of sensitive information at least this decade.

she's guilty, it's open and shut, she's being protected because she is "too big to fail" and has half the politically establishment in bed with her.

it's disgusting, and it must cease.

P.S. no i don't care that trump's being investigated and it has nothing to do with it, though granted that's also fucking suspect now because the FBI is apparently terminally infested by these politically motivated clowns now who are helping strzok dodge every question he's given ATM. personally, if congress can't get answers out of the FBI on the (mis)handling of this whole debacle they should just disband the fucking agency. congress is in the constitution, and the FBI is fucking not. these fuckers and the CIA need to learn who serves who exactly. the fact that the "representatives of the people" can apparently be stymied by one smarmy liar saying "i can't recall" over and over is a fucking scandal."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269190 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:13:06")

"Why has Chairman Goodlatte called six republicans in a row?

Committee rules stipulate that time shall be awarded equally to both parties."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269192 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:24:14")

>the largest forfeiture of sensitive information at least this decade
>they should just disband the fucking agency
Get a grip anon. Go outside and get away from fox news for a while"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269196 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:42:45")

Besides his text messages seeming pretty damning and getting him fired I don't have any proof anon"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269197 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:43:15")

Like question, I don’t like Hilary very much either but it’s seems after countless GOP investigations, like 4 on Benghazi alone. Can you blame the GOP for not getting her? She’s not that slippery"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269198 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:45:15")

I would sign an affidavit saying the subject is under investigation for this and based on existing evidence found on work-related devices, and the knowledge that these conversations may have continued on accounts not managed by the government, it makes sense to fully investigate the situation and not leave it up to the subject to decide what we can and cannot investigate"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269199 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:45:32")

He wasn't fired, Mueller pulled him off the investigation.

And thank you for laying that out - this man has been hauled before a congressional committee and forced to testify for SIXTEEN HOURS (something like ten in private, and another six going on in public) because he texted on the wrong phone.

That is all."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269200 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)19:46:54")

>saying the subject is under investigation

You have just been fired! This is exactly what got James Comey canned.

>leave it up to the subject to decide what we blah blah blah
Please refresh yourself on the 4th amendment."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269202 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:01:15")

His writing the report on the Hillary investigation 8 days before he even bothered to interview anybody
Who the hell writes a report saying somebody is innocent before he's even started the process of investigating
In consideration of this along with his political affiliation, the text messages about Trump, and his connections to the Clinton Foundation there's of Judges they would have signed off on this"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269203 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:02:18")

In a signed affidavit being presented to a judge for a warrant you have to say something is under investigation you absolute glittering fucking idiot
Your entire post was retarded both sections of it"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269204 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:03:25")

>saying the subject is under investigation
>You have just been fired! This is exactly what got James Comey canned
Excuse me mister judge, I'd like a warrant allowing me to examine this person's emails but they're not under an investigation or anything I'm just curious
Go kill yourself idiot"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269205 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:05:31")

"Hearing is over.

Fucking FINALLY."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269207 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:07:03")

Please explain to me how in your fantasy land onewould get a warrant from a judge to investigate somebody without acknowledging that there is an investigation"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269208 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:11:04")

Red herring part 2: the red hearing"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269212 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:23:31")

"I watched the whole thing. All four, five hours worth.

The biggest most astounding things I saw:

>Strzok did not think that his relationship with Page was a security risk (this is probably the only moment during the hearing where his face actually had an 'oh shit you're right' expression)

>Strzok is threatened with contempt of congress less than 10 minutes in for refusing to answer a question

>Gets accused of perjury (lying under oath)

>dems want the closed-door testimony transcript released

Nothing amazing. The guy say there for sixteen hours. He scares me, I'd snap like a twig.

Keeping that."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269228 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)20:59:01")

The standard for warrants isn't probable cause, it's reasonable suspicion.

That said, >>269198 doesn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion based on the DoJ's position given that the DoJ concluded that X was not a crime, by which they must necessarily conclude that conspiracy to commit X is not a crime, and finally that there's basically nothing that exists that can possibly lead you to conclude that Strzok used his personal email account to conspire with Hillary Clinton to do anything.

If all you had to say was "it makes sense to fully investigate" to get a warrant there would be basically nothing you couldn't get a warrant for."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269237 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)21:15:45")

"You can't make this shit up";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269238 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)21:23:40")

Doesn't stop them from trying."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269263 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)22:58:59")

So his crime is having an opinion that Trump is an idiot?
In Trump's most recent rally, he spent a few minutes ranting about how he and his audience were too stupid to understand a simple metaphor, and that they should focus on short meme-phrases instead. AnD then everyone clapped. What sane person wouldn't think trump is an idiot?
Most FBI agents are probably educated. Would it even be possible to find one that is not biased against Trump?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269265 && dateTime=="07/12/18(Thu)23:44:16")

>Holy fucking lol
>The repubs are so desperate to find any sort of red flag they're digging enough every email, every word
They don't need to look far. This idiot is perfect."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269281 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)00:38:38")

Fucking how? All he did was text to his side chick on the wrong phone, that's all they fucking have on him.

He LED both the Hillary and Trump investigations! If he was biased and wanted Trump to lose, he'd have leaked like a sieve and dropped every bomb he could find to burn Trump.

And he did NOTHING. What sort of bias breeds such absolutely contemptible stoic silence? What sort of irrational, toxic hate for Donald Trump begets a complete LACK of any action to damage him?

He did everything possible not to hurt Trump but to make his treatment as fair and just as possible - absolutely by the book.

And yet even THAT was somehow rigged. The absolute state of Republican narrative."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269293 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)02:33:40")

This is my favorite post here."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269294 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)03:55:15")

"You just topped it";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269356 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)10:51:55")

well its nice to know that strzok was completely unbiased during his tenure at the fbi.
also, pretty neat that hes a nice enough guy that he'll save the IG the trouble of sorting thru his digital messages themselves.
man is a true patriot."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269357 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)10:53:34")

>Most FBI agents are probably educated. Would it even be possible to find one that is not biased against Trump?
go home, strzok"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269364 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)11:33:59")

I know, right?

It would have been such a massive hassle to violate his 4th amendment rights to acquire his private text messages without reasonable cause.

Saved so much trouble."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269368 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)11:47:13")

its so funny how sending text messages saying 'fuck the person were investigating', 'hurry andrew is director lets get charge him with some charges that will stick', and then drafting finished reports on the hillary investigation 8 days before anyone was ever interviewed, and then continuing conversation with page, a colleague that they talked to about this stuff, on private channels, isnt enough to investigate a little further."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269391 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)13:15:35")

That's a looot of invented evidence you got there anon.

You got a permit for all that bullshit?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269408 && dateTime=="07/13/18(Fri)14:50:01")

>>Most FBI agents are probably educated.

hahaha.. nice pun.."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269565 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)02:30:37")

clearly, you didn't actually watch the hearing."

if(abc !.CzKQna1OU && title=="" && postNumber==269566 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)02:34:02")

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269568 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)02:44:47")

"And he did NOTHING."

That's because he had nothing. Get it yet?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269579 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)05:04:38")

How the fuck do you pronounce Strzok?!"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269588 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)07:27:06")

kinda has a Russian sound to it...….you pronounce the "Strz" like a person from Boston would say the word "straw"....long A sound...".paark the caar." Then the "ok" is like
"sk".....clearly this Strzok is a Russian spy."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269615 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)09:22:23")

I watched all 5 hours. They tried to subpoena his private phone and the vote failed.

Shut your face."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269616 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)09:24:03")

So...nope, you lost me. You're effectively considering having an opinion to be a crime."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269647 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)11:52:20")

it's not a crime, dummy. it's bias.

realistically, you'd be thrown out of a jury if you attempted to preside over a case of an african guy if you texted to your co-jurors "we need an insurance policy against these niggers. he'll never be a free man."

but apparently it's OK to run (2) investigations when you are biased against and for the people you are investigating for the FBI, and hold TS SCI while you are fucking your subordinate (prime blackmail material lol)

guy's scum, if you're defending him it's because you perceive that he's on your "team" but really his actions are indefensible, just like lynch and comey."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269652 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)12:05:12")

>You're effectively considering having an opinion to be a crime.
well, when your an FBI official and that opinion has quite obviously affected two investigations you are in charge of causing you to throw an investigation against your favorite, and try to discredit the person you dont like, at minimum that is obstruction of justice.
and its pretty fucking dumb that they let him decide which of his own personal communications to lisa page they could view.
had it not been a widely politicized investigation, they would have signed an affidavit with a judge and gone thru his personal emails themselves to see what was *really* going on and not just take his word for it that not a single thing he talked to her about was relevant to the investigation.
i mean what type of FBI agent, who knows how people are arrested, would send an incriminating message on a work device? he would send it thru a private channel just so he could jew his way out of responsibility like he did."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269657 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)12:29:54")

There is a difference between opinion and bias, then. Show it.
>quite obviously affected two investigations
If it's obvious you should be able to show it."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269658 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)12:32:13")

he shows it in his own text messages and by drafting a finished report on the hrc investigation 8 days before he interviewed a single person"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269659 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)12:34:31")

">excuse me sir this is the Inspector General, sorry to bother you, but do you happen to be hiding any incriminating evidence on your personal gmail account?
>ok, sounds good, thanks for your assistance in the matter"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269674 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)14:45:54")

>well, when your an FBI official and that opinion has quite obviously affected two investigations you are in charge of
Let's put it this way: let's say Strzok and Page never fucked, and merely wrote in their diaries about how Trump was literally Hitler and the worst person alive, which were later found. Would this be "obstruction of justice"?

>causing you to throw an investigation against your favorite
The official fact-finding body here indicates that there was no "throwing" of the investigation.

>and try to discredit the person you dont like, at minimum that is obstruction of justice.
If privately disparaging the target of an investigation was obstruction of justice you'd have to prosecute every single US Attorney in the country."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269684 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)16:13:18")

>Would this be "obstruction of justice"?
in your example does strzok still write the report exonerating hillary 8 days before actually interviewing anyone?
because if so, then yes, it still is obstruction of justice or some other similar crime
>The official fact-finding body here indicates that there was no "throwing" of the investigation.
the official fact-finding body found that the bay of pigs invasion was caused by cuban revolutionaries in 1961, so they can be wrong or trying to hide facts themselves
>If privately disparaging the target of an investigation was obstruction of justice you'd have to prosecute every single US Attorney in the country.
you dont see the difference between an attorney prosecuting a random nobody, and an agent investigating two different cases that he is both personally vested in?
an attorney would never be allowed to prosecute or represent a client when it creates a conflict of interest, which is literally what strzok demonstrated."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269788 && dateTime=="07/14/18(Sat)22:43:29")


is that all you really think it is?? that he texted on the wrong phone?? what a fucking shill"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269804 && dateTime=="07/15/18(Sun)00:21:34")

>He wasn't fired, Mueller pulled him off the investigation
Ok I'll bite.
Why was it deemed necessary to remove him from the investigation?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269805 && dateTime=="07/15/18(Sun)00:22:35")

>an attorney would never be allowed to prosecute or represent a client when it creates a conflict of interest, which is literally what strzok demonstrated.

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269826 && dateTime=="07/15/18(Sun)02:51:45")

except that as citizens, everyone will have an opinion on politics, especially in a polarizing election year. Anyone who doesn't have an opinion, probably isn't well enough informed to have the responsibility to be an FBI agent"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269892 && dateTime=="07/15/18(Sun)11:32:22")

agreed, everyone has personal opinions.
but you should be able to leave them at the door and not have the need to continually say "fuck this person", "we'll make sure hillary wins" and other things like that on official federal devices while overseeing investigations into the very people you are talking about.
this very much creates an easily noticeable conflict of interest.
and being an FBI agent, I have no doubt that anything they messaged about which was criminally damning was likely done through the personal messaging accounts instead of federal devices"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==269948 && dateTime=="07/15/18(Sun)13:35:45")