Fbi investigator politics in general readerrant

As far as I know if one is an FBI agent then he/she investigates facts, pure and simple. When they do that I assume that they give chapter and verse as to the why, what, where, when, and who. If I remember correctly that is the standard. It works in reportage and it works in investigations. Basically, bias has nothing to do with it. If there is bias then there would be, I think, non-factual, personal bias, expressed in the report of said investigation and it would be immediately discounted and tossed. I am basing this on my own experience (a very long time ago) and plain old logic. EVERYTHING done in an FBI investigation is reviewed, not just once or twice but constantly until its considered done. If anybody has ever read one of these reports they would note this stuff.

What amazed me, about the congressional hearing, is that none of this stuff was even mentioned one time, by either side! Instead the hearing continued apace with the right accusing the one testifying of everything but matricide. On the other side the man was a literal saint. However, not once, NOT A SINGLE TIME, did anybody actually get into the nitty gritty of what an investigation is and how it is handled/processed. I did turn it off so I can be dead wrong but, from what I saw, that would be unlikely. Instead each side was busily making their point and neither side took the time out to explain, exactly, what in the hell they were talking about! In other words, it was not unlike all of TV these days when it comes to politics and gov, I tend to believe that its all speculative TV or, fortune telling by people that should know better and have more respect for what they are supposed to be doing.

I got one thing wrong. I claimed that nobody explained what, exactly, is entailed in an investigation and I was dead wrong. The FBI guy getting grilled did that (I had turned it off before that happened so I wasn’t running with a full deck and ran my mouth anyway ) Still, the hearing itself was a grand display of the Republican lack of integrity, or honesty, in their race to placate their lord and master – the jackass.

I have been watching the jackass continuing to make claims of great progress. He started with the North Koreans and has now moved on to NATO, claiming his complete victory and that all members acquiesced to his demands. That was yet another claim of great progress that never happened. I have come to the conclusion that the man is, literally, living in another reality and no longer has a grasp of any kind of the real world. In other words the Republicans are being led by a fully delusional psychopathic narcissistic jackass. I also believe that Mueller will get the goods on the jackass, in spite of being under the constant, and unending, assaults and name calling. (hopefully he will finish it up pretty soon – they are saying September but I would hope for sooner)

I predict Mr Trump will escape the purview of a grand jury indictment or the weaker un-indicted co-conspirator status. The only thing the narcissist, Mr Trump, does intentionally, is to enhance the delusions about himself. I believe he is incapable of concocting a scheme which would require extended thought processes, and would instead react to his "gut" instincts to promote himself in the moment.

For these reasons, I believe SP Mueller will not find evidence of Mr Trump and Russians intentionally "colluding" (conspiring) to do anything. I believe, based on todays indictment, SP Mueller may find several Trump surrogates/advisors who participated in a variety of low level schemes to utilize Russian expertise in IT operations from stealing emails to hacking local election boards.

Strzok maintained his political opinions did not amount to bias. Clearly if we refer to the definition we can see the GOP has to prove Strzok’s political opinions in some way influenced his decisions against Mr Trump. So what would it mean to say Strzok did something against Mr Trump. The obvious is Strzok was top agent in charge of Trump investigation, so he could have done what? At this point no Republican offered a theory of what Strzok did which adversely influenced the investigation into Mr Trump. Since they failed to present a theory, I have to conclude Strzok’s statement, he did not believe his political opinions amounted to bias, must be true.