Peter Strzok translator

YouTube

I grow tired of the extreme right wing taking Peter Strzoke out of context,. Below is an easy to use translator for better understanding and communicating with Peter Strzoke, who was the lead FBI agent on the Trump investigation,.

Stzroke: "Yes" (understandable translation or UNT: "No"😉

Strzoke: "No" (UNT: "Yes"😉

Strzoke: "I would never cheat on my wife" (UNT: "Hell yea! My place or yours?"😉

Strzoke: "You are a SMELLY ignorant Hillbilly Trump supporter" (UNT: "You are a US voter whom I respect deeply"😉

Stroke: "F@ck of!" (UNT: "Hi, how are you today?"😉

Stzroke: "I'm good friends with the FISA judge, he should do what we want" (UNT: "FISA judges are unbiased and trustworthy and in no way part of the deep state"😉

Bad batch of moonshine?

Just a show of hands, how many smelly ignorant hillbilly Trump supporters do we have here at RHP, other than KN, of course?

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

Could you translate this:

"I am a dentist. So I read body language very, very well." – Rep. Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona.

There was some pious outrage directed at Strzok for having an extramarital affair.

One of the Republicans questioning him was Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. That's this guy: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028

Originally posted by @no1marauder
There was some pious outrage directed at Strzok for having an extramarital affair.

One of the Republicans questioning him was Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. That's this guy: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028

You are actually surprised there is hypocrisy in the Republican party?
What I want to know is why they are continuing to ignore the Russian attack on our democracy? Perhaps if they had been the target instead they may have been a bit more active in our defense. 'It only effected the cursed Democrats, not effecting ME, so fuk off Strzok'.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
You are actually surprised there is hypocrisy in the Republican party?
What I want to know is why they are continuing to ignore the Russian attack on our democracy? Perhaps if they had been the target instead they may have been a bit more active in our defense. 'It only effected the cursed Democrats, not effecting ME, so fuk off Strzok'.

I reckon the same reason Obama ignored the Russian meddling in the elections.

Then when Trump got elected, all of a sudden it was a problem.

Originally posted by @whodey
I reckon the same reason Obama ignored the Russian meddling in the elections.

Then when Trump got elected, all of a sudden it was a problem.

The party line from the partisan hack.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
The party line from the partisan hack.

Kettle, meet the lying pot.

Originally posted by @whodey
Kettle, meet the lying pot.

You are lying, as virtually always, in claiming Obama "ignored Russian interference". There is some debate about whether he could have done more (if he had, you would have been screaming it was "FAKE NEWS" to help Hillary) but he issued both private and public warnings to the Russians and did other things to protect electoral integrity. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You are lying, as virtually always, in claiming Obama "ignored Russian interference". There is some debate about whether he could have done more (if he had, you would have been screaming it was "FAKE NEWS" to help Hillary) but he issued both private and public warnings to the Russians and did other things to protect electoral integrity. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

You sit there and expect me to believe that warning Putin not to interfere is actually doing something? Additionally, you expect me to believe that warning the press that the Russians were interfering was also doing something?

LMAO! 😵

No, what you had here was an insurance policy if Trump won, knowing that they would use it to try and sink his Presidency. Otherwise, it would never have seen the light of day. It would not even surprise me if Obama was behind it. I don't think anyone here believes that it actually influenced the elections.

Originally posted by @whodey
You sit there and expect me to believe that warning Putin not to interfere is actually doing something? Additionally, you expect me to believe that warning the press that the Russians were interfering was also doing something?

LMAO! 😵

No, what you had here was an insurance policy if Trump won, knowing that they would use it to try and sink his Presi ...[text shortened]... ma was behind it. I don't think anyone here believes that it actually influenced the elections.

No, the leaks of the DNC e-mails were completely unimportant and the stuff in them was hardly mentioned by partisan hacks like yourself.

Is that the new version?

Originally posted by @no1marauder
No, the leaks of the DNC e-mails were completely unimportant and the stuff in them was hardly mentioned by partisan hacks like yourself.

Is that the new version?

So because of their nefarious dealings, millions of potential voters had additional ACCURATE information to guide their votes.

No lies or deceptions, no tampering with votes, preventing people from voting, no lies about either candidate...and THIS is what Democrats want us to believe led to a stolen election.

Originally posted by @whodey
So because of their nefarious dealings, millions of potential voters had additional ACCURATE information to guide their votes.

No lies or deceptions, no tampering with votes, preventing people from voting, no lies about either candidate...and THIS is what Democrats want us to believe led to a stolen election.

Why weren't you demanding the RNC release all their e-mails then? After all, that would have given the voters a lot more ACCURATE information to guide their votes.