Anti-Trump FBI Agent at center of Clinton Email & Russian Collusion Scandals

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

These are only some of the texts we were allowed to see from this guy.

 

This is same guy who ran Email server investigation, interviewed Huma Abedin/Cherly Mills AFTER giving them immunity without having to cooperate (and they still lied), applied for FISA warrants (which is huge because that taints all the evidence gathered from the surveillance) and also interviewed Flynn.

 

Sorry if I left anything out but it's clear he DID take action prior to his removal.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

All of that is meaningless deflection. All that matters is Strzok's political positions on Trump, and he stupidly chose to air them, very likely because he was emboldened to, having nearly certainly been put in the position he held under Mueller because of them, and not because he was a disciplined political agnostic.

 

He supported a Republican for president.

 

He didn't exactly "air" them, that implies publishing them. They were private political opinions he communicated to his girlfriend, only.

 

By the way, apparently the whole cache of texts - not just the salient ones - over 10,000 were provided to Fox News. Do you see any privacy concerns of what the DOJ did here?

 

- Also btw, how many Congressional Republicans have privately called Trump an "idiot" in their emails and texts and conversations in their time? All of them?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

He supported a Republican for president.

 

He didn't exactly "air" them, that implies publishing them. They were private political opinions he communicated to his girlfriend, only.

 

By the way, apparently the whole cache of texts - not just the salient ones - over 10,000 were provided to Fox News. Do you see any privacy concerns of what the DOJ did here?

 

- Also btw, how many Congressional Republicans have privately called Trump an "idiot" in their emaisl and texts and conversations in their time? All of them?

No...they only released what they allowed the public to see. It wasn't everything.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

No...they only released what they allowed the public to see. It wasn't everything.

 

Congress got ~375 texts. Fox got the whole cache, all 10K+ texts.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Congress got ~375 texts. Fox got the whole cache, all 10K+ texts.

I'd like to see what Congress got as opposed to what Fox got i.e. what was the DOJ surpressing.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

I'd like to see what Congress got as opposed to what Fox got i.e. what was the DOJ surpressing.

 

Ok, and as far as the kind of privacy concerns which were discussed in the whole unmasking debate? What of that here?

[SenatorRock 708]

These are only some of the texts we were allowed to see from this guy.

 

This is same guy who ran Email server investigation, interviewed Huma Abedin/Cherly Mills AFTER giving them immunity without having to cooperate (and they still lied), applied for FISA warrants (which is huge because that taints all the evidence gathered from the surveillance) and also interviewed Flynn.

 

Sorry if I left anything out but it's clear he DID take action prior to his removal.

Isn't Strzok also the guy who changed Comey report from "gross negligence" (a crime) to "extreme carelessness" (not a crime)?

[SenatorRock 708]

 

Congress got ~375 texts. Fox got the whole cache, all 10K+ texts.

Do you have any credible links stating that Fox got all 10,000 texts? Not doubting you, but everything I see online says Fox reported there were 10,0000 texts in possession by OIG, of which 375 were handed over to five congressional committees on Tuesday, same day Fox and other news outlets started releasing them.

 

What appears to have happened, OIG releases 375 texts related to Trump to the committees, it is now public information, any media outlet who wanted could report on them. Fox just happened to be the only one releasing them Tuesday night, as the other media outlets we're busy celebrating the AL victory.

 

Wednesday morning the rest of the media decided to report on the texts.

 

It seems a little conspiracy-ish to insinuate Fox had early access or more access (all 10,000) than anyone else.

 

I am happy to be proved wrong, I just haven't seen any actual reports of Fox getting special access, just grumblings online.

[MDC 5,891]

Saints singlehandedly destroying the forearm Trumptards.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

Saints singlehandedly destroying the forearm Trumptards.

Somebody is making up for lost trolling time.

[SenatorRock 708]

 

Ok, and as far as the kind of privacy concerns which were discussed in the whole unmasking debate? What of that here?

Spying on American citizens vs releasing evidence from a congressional investigation are two different things?

 

OIG claims to have 1.2 million documents in their investigation into 2016 fuckery by the DOJ/FBI. I'm guessing the texts messages are part of that.

 

I'm curious to know how they got the texts.

 

-government phones?

-NSA data collection?

-OIG subpoena to the carrier?

 

Also, were the texts sent through an unencrypted app like imessage, FB messenger, etc or were they sent over encrypted app like Signal or Wickr? (Those were the two references in the Prince transcript released last week).

 

You do bring up a good question though.

[SenatorRock 708]

Saints singlehandedly destroying the forearm Trumptards.

Link?

 

I do admire his thoroughness and style. Very professional.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

Link?

 

I do admire his thoroughness and style. Very professional.

Yes. It's a step above the usual trolling we get from MDC and others.

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

Isn't Strzok also the guy who changed Comey report from "gross negligence" (a crime) to "extreme carelessness" (not a crime)?

You are correct.

 

From the most trusted name in news:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Ok, and as far as the kind of privacy concerns which were discussed in the whole unmasking debate? What of that here?

Exposing signs of his (Strozyk or w/e) crimes are covered by the Privacy Act? You serious Clark?

 

He committed how many breaches of privacy himself against how many people? Rigged several investigations (that we know about) as well.

 

JFC....

[IMMensaMind 459]

He supported a Republican for president.

 

He didn't exactly "air" them, that implies publishing them. They were private political opinions he communicated to his girlfriend, only.

No, the word 'air' stands apart from the word 'publish'. I stated that he 'aired' them - to a mistress. That was monumentally stupid, and indicative of both the character and moral intelligence of the demagogues hired by Mueller. My statement stands - and he's obviously not the only one, so it also lends to pattern, and not outlier.

 

By the way, apparently the whole cache of texts - not just the salient ones - over 10,000 were provided to Fox News. Do you see any privacy concerns of what the DOJ did here?

No, I don't. He's in the employ of the public, and he has abrogated his duty. But you seem more dedicated towards derailing and deflecting from that than upon actual interest in justice here.

 

- Also btw, how many Congressional Republicans have privately called Trump an "idiot" in their emails and texts and conversations in their time? All of them?

...and another meaningless deflection. There is a difference between people such as them lobbing pejoratives, and one employed in the function of investigative justice of a TARGET uttering them.

 

But you, again, are far more interested in deflection from those facts.

[SenatorRock 708]

"Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released copies Thursday of the edits to Comeys highly scrutinized statement.

 

The original statement said it was reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clintons private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely possible.

 

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as extremely careless as opposed to grossly negligent. This is a key legal distinction."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/14/comey-edits-revealed-remarks-on-clinton-probe-were-watered-down-documents-show.html

 

So.... they changed the language to reduce the severity of Hillary's crime and the likelihood that foreign agents hacked her bathroom server.

 

I have a feeling the OIG investigation results are going to blow the minds of many Americans.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

The FBI covered up a crime. Not watergate style coverup, but a coverup none the less. And their reasons for doing it are worse than Nixons.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

One of the most notable messages, from Aug. 15, 2016, came from Strzok.

 

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andys office that theres no way [Trump] gets elected but Im afraid we cant take that risk," said Strzok, possibly referring to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. "Its like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before youre 40."

Reread that several times and let it sink in.

 

Conspiracy including McCabe with these two that they've taken action in some way to make sure Trump won't win followed by Strzok taking additional action(s) that Page and McCabe knew about.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Spying on American citizens vs releasing evidence from a congressional investigation are two different things?

 

OIG claims to have 1.2 million documents in their investigation into 2016 fuckery by the DOJ/FBI. I'm guessing the texts messages are part of that.

 

I'm curious to know how they got the texts.

 

-government phones?

-NSA data collection?

-OIG subpoena to the carrier?

 

Also, were the texts sent through an unencrypted app like imessage, FB messenger, etc or were they sent over encrypted app like Signal or Wickr? (Those were the two references in the Prince transcript released last week).

 

You do bring up a good question though.

 

I think the argument in favor of releasing them is that they are public officials communicating on public (FBI issued) phones possibly relating to their work on official matters. So that I get. - I'm just saying that the stuff beyond the 375 texts that Congress got is either all personal (and we're talking a man and a woman in a relationship here...) or irrelevant. Past the 375. almost all of that 10,000+ would have never been accessible through Foia.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Do you have any credible links stating that Fox got all 10,000 texts? Not doubting you, but everything I see online says Fox reported there were 10,0000 texts in possession by OIG, of which 375 were handed over to five congressional committees on Tuesday, same day Fox and other news outlets started releasing them.

 

What appears to have happened, OIG releases 375 texts related to Trump to the committees, it is now public information, any media outlet who wanted could report on them. Fox just happened to be the only one releasing them Tuesday night, as the other media outlets we're busy celebrating the AL victory.

 

Wednesday morning the rest of the media decided to report on the texts.

 

It seems a little conspiracy-ish to insinuate Fox had early access or more access (all 10,000) than anyone else.

 

I am happy to be proved wrong, I just haven't seen any actual reports of Fox getting special access, just grumblings online.

 

Fwiw this is the link I posted earlier - it's from Shannon Bream, the actual Fox reporter doing the reporting.

 

I think it's possible other outlets also got the full cache, but I'm not sure about that.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Although many of their texts targeted Mr. Trump, others also drew their ire. Over the course of 16 months of correspondence, starting in August 2015 and ending on Dec. 1, 2016, that was culled from their work phones, Mr. Strzok said he loathed Congress and called presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) an “idiot.” He suggested the death penalty was appropriate for Edward Snowden, a National Security Agency contractor who pilfered reams of sensitive information. He said Ms. Clinton, daughter of Bill and Mrs. Clinton, was “self-entitled.” And he described House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as “a jerky.”

He said, “I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected,” apparently referring to Mrs. Clinton. He didn’t elaborate on his concerns.

...Mr. Strzok texted one day that he had been sitting in front of a portrait of Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned in 1973 rather than fire the special prosecutor during Watergate. His action is widely viewed in law-enforcement circles as a heroic act that helped lead to President Richard Nixon’s downfall.

“It’s next to the portrait of Eric Holder, which is wildly offensive,” Mr. Strzok wrote.

When Mr. Holder spoke at the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Strzok texted: “Oh God, Holder! Turn it off turn if off!!!”

...

When Ms. Page had lunch with an unidentified person, she texted Mr. Strzok: “We both hate everyone and everything.”

 

- WSJ.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I just want to point out that they also criticized the Clintons, Sanders and Holder.

[IMMensaMind 459]

 

 

Reread that several times and let it sink in.

Conspiracy including McCabe with these two that they've taken action in some way to make sure Trump won't win followed by Strzok taking additional action(s) that Page and McCabe knew about.

And that is as /thread as /thread could possibly be.

[drobeski 3,061]

Tick tock tick tock

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Reread that several times and let it sink in.

 

Conspiracy including McCabe with these two that they've taken action in some way to make sure Trump won't win followed by Strzok taking additional action(s) that Page and McCabe knew about.

Sorry, but isn't it implicit in the language 'insurance policy' that he might win? I say this even from a pro-Trump perspective.

 

I also asked earlier in response to your post that included the date 8/15/16, what that was referring to, what was happening on that date? Any ideas yet?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

No, the word 'air' stands apart from the word 'publish'. I stated that he 'aired' them - to a mistress. That was monumentally stupid, and indicative of both the character and moral intelligence of the demagogues hired by Mueller. My statement stands - and he's obviously not the only one, so it also lends to pattern, and not outlier.

 

 

No, I don't. He's in the employ of the public, and he has abrogated his duty. But you seem more dedicated towards derailing and deflecting from that than upon actual interest in justice here.

 

 

...and another meaningless deflection. There is a difference between people such as them lobbing pejoratives, and one employed in the function of investigative justice of a TARGET uttering them.

 

But you, again, are far more interested in deflection from those facts.

Let me see if I have this right:

 

- Strzok supported Kasich, a Republican.

 

- He criticized the Clintons.

 

- He criticized Sanders

 

- He critized Holder.

 

- He thought Trump was an 'idiot'.

 

- He wrote this privately to his girlfriend.

 

-Immediately of learning of this on July 20th - immediately - Mueller, a Republican, fired him.

 

Yes?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Sorry, but isn't it implicit in the language 'insurance policy' that he might win? I say this even from a pro-Trump perspective.

What are you trying to say there? If you don't see that Page laid out something already in the works as well as Strzok indicting he was going to take some further action as an insurance policy, you've officially jumped the shark.

 

Reread it again:

 

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andys office that theres no way [Trump] gets elected but Im afraid we cant take that risk," said Strzok, possibly referring to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. "Its like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before youre 40."

 

When he said "we can't take that risk" it isn't because the were afraid of Trump ruining America. It was that there was no hiding whatever they'd already done and knowing their lives would be ruined if it got out.

 

Tap out dude. The chirade is over and now you're trying to defend crimes by the DOJ/FBI.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

What are you trying to say there? If you don't see that Page laid out something already in the works as well as Strzok indicting he was going to take some further action as an insurance policy, you've officially jumped the shark.

 

Reread it again:

 

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andys office that theres no way [Trump] gets elected but Im afraid we cant take that risk," said Strzok, possibly referring to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. "Its like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before youre 40."

 

When he said "we can't take that risk" it isn't because the were afraid of Trump ruining America. It was that there was no hiding whatever they'd already done and knowing their lives would be ruined if it got out.

 

Tap out dude. The chirade is over and now you're trying to defend crimes by the DOJ/FBI.

Yes, something was already in the works, as he Strzok, an FBI agent said then - before Trump was elected - privately - that there were "pervasive connections" between Trump and Russia.

 

But that doesn't register with you? At all?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

Yes, something was already in the works, as he Strzok, an FBI agent said then - before Trump was elected - privately - that there were "pervasive connections" between Trump and Russia.

But that doesn't register with you? At all?

So you believe the guy who changed the wording to allow Hillary to escape prosecution, offered a fake document (Dossier) as evidence to get FISA warrants, signed the documents to initiate the Trump/Russian investigation and acted as lead investigator prior to joining Mueller's team (THIS was the insurance policy), gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and let them lie without charging them while Flynn was charged (ambushed Flynn without his lawyer present), conspired with several other members of FBI while having extramarital affair with one and Lord knows what else?

Yeah, I'm sure on that one point about pervasive connections he is trustworthy.

FFS...........

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/15/gregg-jarrett-did-fbi-and-justice-department-plot-to-clear-hillary-clinton-bring-down-trump.html

 

As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

 

 

As I alluded to earlier, if there's a shred of truth to using the Dossier (compilation of opposition funded innuendos/rumors) to get the FISA warrants then all that evidence is tainted (fruit of the poisoned tree). Flynn, Manafort, et al should dig in and demand the case be tossed.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

So you believe the guy who changed the wording to allow Hillary to escape prosecution, offered a fake document (Dossier) as evidence to get FISA warrants, signed the documents to initiate the Trump/Russian investigation and acted as lead investigator prior to joining Mueller's team (THIS was the insurance policy), gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and let them lie without charging them while Flynn was charged (ambushed Flynn without his lawyer present), conspired with several other members of FBI while having extramarital affair with one and Lord knows what else?

 

Yeah, I'm sure on that one point about pervasive connections he is trustworthy.

 

FFS...........

 

This is what else Strzok did:

• He issued the preservation order for Hillary's documents, without which you wouldn't know 90 percent of the stuff you criticize her for from her time as SOS.
• About Hillary he said, “I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected."
• He seized all of Hillary's hardware - the server from NJ, the nodes in PA, the River Platte servers in CO, the Datto backups in CT, her lawyers, and also servers from multiple agencies in the US government, including State but also elsewhere, Strzok went to the ultimate lengths to recover every scrap of data he could on Hillary.

Strzok didn't give immunity to Hillary's staff. He's FBI, he can't do that - it's DOJ attorneys who make that call.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

This is what else Strzok did:

• He issued the preservation order for Hillary's documents, without which you wouldn't know 90 percent of the stuff you criticize her for from her time as SOS.
• About Hillary he said, “I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected."
• He seized all of Hillary's hardware - the server from NJ, the nodes in PA, the River Platte servers in CO, the Datto backups in CT.

Strzok didn't give immunity to Hillary's staff. He's FBI, he can't do that - it's DOJ attorneys who make that call.

 

Please explain away all the other possible criminal activity of his. :popcorn:

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

No, the word 'air' stands apart from the word 'publish'. I stated that he 'aired' them - to a mistress. That was monumentally stupid, and indicative of both the character and moral intelligence of the demagogues hired by Mueller. My statement stands - and he's obviously not the only one, so it also lends to pattern, and not outlier.

 

 

No, I don't. He's in the employ of the public, and he has abrogated his duty. But you seem more dedicated towards derailing and deflecting from that than upon actual interest in justice here.

 

 

...and another meaningless deflection. There is a difference between people such as them lobbing pejoratives, and one employed in the function of investigative justice of a TARGET uttering them.

 

But you, again, are far more interested in deflection from those facts.

 

I don't think I deflected there, at all - I pointed out two things: Strzok supported a Republican for president and he "aired" his political opinions privately. That's it.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Please explain away all the other possible criminal activity of his. :popcorn:

 

I thought I just covered those but I wil try again:

• changed the wording to allow Hillary to escape prosecution - ok explain to me the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent, and when you do that let me know who else in government has been charged with gross negligence? This is from 3/8/16 - any thoughts here? ("The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a "nebulous" term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.) This is what Comey was referring to in his testimony. ("The FBI said in court filings that Smith carried classified documents and other sensitive records in his briefcase and sometimes left the case open and unattended while he visited her residence. Leung copied many of the records, some of which were recovered from a safe in her home, the court records said. That was particularly worrisome because the FBI had developed Leung as a double agent known to be working with the Chinese government, but in theory working loyally for the FBI.")
• offered a fake document (Dossier) as evidence to get FISA warrants - I ask for a link to this over and over and over and over again. I posted a link further up that the Fisa warrants were about financial transactions. - Please provide a link of some kind (and not just a 'cmon man' response).
• signed the documents to initiate the Trump/Russian investigation - uh, that's his job. What I find remarkable is that one of the texts indicate that Strzok believed, in August 2016 that there were "pervasive connections" between Trump and Russia, he said this privately, and yet you will not acknowledge that he truly believed that and that he must have had reason for believing so.
• and acted as lead investigator prior to joining Mueller's team (THIS was the insurance policy) - again I don't get this one, the guy was one of the FBI's best, he was lead investigator in an investigation. If you didn't want a presidential candidate under investigation you shouldn't have nominated someone with a 30 year history of connections to Russian OC and intelligence. The fact that Trump was unlikely to be elected president so that it didn't matter didn't mean that the investigation should be dropped, continuing it was insurance in the event he did win. Nonetheless I would agree it was an inappropriate thing for Strzok to say and my guess is this is why Mueller threw him off the team immediately after learning of what happened on July 20th. Ironically it was the Democrats who thought Comey had been unfair to their candidate who brought the IG investigation and that was how this was discovered in the first place.
• gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and let them lie without charging them - again, this was not Strzok's job, that was DOJ's decision.
• while Flynn was charged (ambushed Flynn without his lawyer present), conspired with several other members of FBI - Flynn has pleaded guilty and when he flips it won't be because of the terrible dossier or unmasking or campaign donations, it will be because Flynn is confessing to a crime and he will be implicating others in it.
• while having extramarital affair with one - totally his business.

   

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

...

 

- I put a fair amount of thought into that response out of respect for your question, just so you know. If you have time, please consider a response. Thanks.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

- I put a fair amount of thought into that response out of respect for your question, just so you know. If you have time, please consider a response. Thanks.

 

Seriously, I don't want to rehash all this. It's staggering to me at least that there's some who don't realize or aren't shocked at the behavior of the DOJ/FBI to try an influence a National Election.

 

All that's missing is what evidence was used to obtain the FISA Warrants, any recordings/documents between McCabe and Obama Officials (did he provide briefs on this stuff) and possibly bank records for these individuals (Strzok, McCabe, Page, Comey) to see if they were paid to act on behalf of the Clintons.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

 

 

Seriously, I don't want to rehash all this. It's staggering to me at least that there's some who don't realize or aren't shocked at the behavior of the DOJ/FBI to try an influence a National Election.

 

All that's missing is what evidence was used to obtain the FISA Warrants, any recordings/documents between McCabe and Obama Officials (did he provide briefs on this stuff) and possibly bank records for these individuals (Strzok, McCabe, Page, Comey) to see if they were paid to act on behalf of the Clintons.

 

Ok let me ask you one more question about the bolded.

 

Strzok said this:

 

On Aug. 11, 2016, just weeks after the FBI had opened its counterintelligence investigation into potential links between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign, Mr. Strzok wrote: “OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS.” He added: “What the hell happened to our country?”

 

Why do you take that as being politically motivated and not someone who was genuinely and privately concerned about Trump's connections to Russia?

[ELVIS! 12]

How many people work at the FBI? 2?

Well there's Scully and Mulder. Agent Starling. Efrem Zimbalist Jr. Jack Lord and Danno. I figure 2 per every black van that is parked outside the house of everyone who posted in this thread.

 

There may be more....

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

Ok let me ask you one more question about the bolded.

Strzok said this:


Why do you take that as being politically motivated and not someone who was genuinely and privately concerned about Trump's connections to Russia?

I can't read the article in it's entirety but I'll let his other texts and actions speak for his motivations. He stated they (Page, McCabe and himself) had a path to prevent Trump from winning but also they couldn't take that chance. That indicates further actions taken by him that no sane person would think is legitimate.

If he were only concerned about the country and our rule of law, why exonerate Hillary by editing Comey's draft to soften it BEFORE the interviewing key members. Why not let the Justice System play out?