didn't watch the hearing. anyone point out that it's nuts to insist investigators be unbiased?

[unblock]

"oh, we've gathered tons of evidence that jack the ripper is a career criminal and a violent sicko, we're confident we can prove in court that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. but i'm very open-minded about him being a perfectly decent person and he may be just as likely innocent."

[BigmanPigman]

1. Just now Dem Rep Connolly was great!

He had copies a dozen texts that he read. All of them were written during the campaign, like Strzok, and all were highly critical of the moron. After each one was read he named the author...all of them were GOP!

[unblock]

2. lol!

[comradebillyboy]

3. Aren't cops generally biased against the criminals they investigate?

[unblock]

4. exactly! and our system takes this into account by having trials conducted by an independent branch

with judges and juries. *those* are the people who are supposed to be unbiased.

our system takes into account they might be biased and handles this.

*if* they are so biased that it led them to manufacture or plant evidence or lie, then that is an argument to be brought at trial to discredit any evidence that might be affected by that bias.

but merely having a bias is not, in and of itself, a problem.

and of course, they have zero evidence to suggest strzok manufactured or lied about anything related to his work.