New Evidence: FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Let Clinton Off & Opened Russia Probe!

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hm, so Strzok, who was a member of the FBI is not considered, "part of the government?"

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

emphasis mine

FBI.gov

Did Comey not realize his statement had been changed?

It is obvious now someone knew what he was about to say.

And to think, none of this would have come out had Hillary won the presidency.

Yeah....that is pretty damning for Comey unless he somehow didn't know it was changed. Guessing that's how they will roll with it unless they either plan to throw him under the bus OR he has been working with Trump the whole time.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hm, so Strzok, who was a member of the FBI is not considered, "part of the government?"

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

emphasis mine

FBI.gov

Did Comey not realize his statement had been changed?

It is obvious now someone knew what he was about to say.

And to think, none of this would have come out had Hillary won the presidency.

Yeah....that is pretty damning for Comey unless he somehow didn't know it was changed. Guessing that's how they will roll with it unless they either plan to throw him under the bus OR he has been working with Trump the whole time.

There is still the possibility of a redemption arc for Mueller and Comey. One thing is clear Trump knew that this would come out ahead of time. Like i always said his tweets are never random.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

mm mmm mm....good catch, J&C!

So seeing as how no one has showed up to say this isn't a big deal, allow me to play devils advocate.

We still don't know exactly what strzok said to his mistress, so we don't know the extent of his bias.

Even if he hated trump and likes hillary, this doesn't mean he did his job improperly.

Do to his high position in the fbi, it is not surprising he was involved in all of these situations.

I have responses to all of this, but in the interest of accuracy we should view this from as many angles as possible.

a reply to: Grambler

So seeing as how no one has showed up to say this isn't a big deal, allow me to play devils advocate.

It doesn't appear to be a big deal whatsoever.

Changing the description of Hillary's actions in prepared remarks does not change the evidences found in the case.

The assertion that this man "let Hillary off" simply because a certain phrase was changed is laughable.

a reply to: Grambler

It seems that they were building a layer of power to bypass prying eyes and a tool to attack political opponents

a reply to: Grambler

Meetings on the tarmac had nothing to do with Mueller.

I don't know if it's true (I'll see if I can find corroborating information), but supposedly anti-Trump Strzok also led the probe into Weiner’s laptop that cleared Hillary. hmmmm....

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So seeing as how no one has showed up to say this isn't a big deal, allow me to play devils advocate.

It doesn't appear to be a big deal whatsoever.

Changing the description of Hillary's actions in prepared remarks does not change the evidences found in the case.

The assertion that this man "let Hillary off" simply because a certain phrase was changed is laughable.

Oh yes it does. From a legal standpoint changing the words "grossly negligent" implies a crime to "extremely careless" is a pretty big deal. Don't try to downplay this.

a reply to: introvert

Had Comey included the phrase, "grossly negligent," in his statement, how do you think it would have been received when it was announced that she was not going to be prosecuted because she never intended to be negligent?

It certainly wouldn't have been as easy to brush off the intent portion.

a reply to: queenofswords

Why don't you find out if something is true first. Before you bring it.
Jesus christ

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Oh yes it does. From a legal standpoint changing the words "grossly negligent" implies a crime to "carelessly handling" is a pretty big deal. Don't try to downplay this.

That is true. They would not want to use language that implies a crime was committed when there is no evidence to support that claim. So it would be a good idea to change that language.

Again, how does that language change in prepared remarks change the evidence of the case?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Had Comey included the phrase, "grossly negligent," in his statement, how do you think it would have been received when it was announced that she was not going to be prosecuted because she never intended to be negligent?

I do concede on that point. He would not want to imply a crime was committed when the evidence does not support it.

It certainly wouldn't have been as easy to brush off the intent portion.

Well, they would still have to have evidence to support any claim on intent.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Neither was prosecutable so who the # gives a #?

Besides people who want to change the news stories of the day that are devastating to trump.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So seeing as how no one has showed up to say this isn't a big deal, allow me to play devils advocate.

It doesn't appear to be a big deal whatsoever.

Changing the description of Hillary's actions in prepared remarks does not change the evidences found in the case.

The assertion that this man "let Hillary off" simply because a certain phrase was changed is laughable.

Well I am sure they changed the phrase for a reason. They knew exactly what the legal definition stated, and they changed the language to not include the definition from that definition.

In addition, it is troubling that we now know a guy with a pro Hillary anti trump bias was in charge of all of the following.

The interviewing of hillary that wasn't recorded and allowed her lawyer huma who was also under investigation to be present.

The changing of the language to ensure the phrase used in the legal code was not used in comets statement.

The beginning of the russia investigation, perhaps based on the dnc paid for dossier.

The interview of flynn.



Given the high profile of both of these investogations, it is not a good idea to have the same person doing all of these things in general.

Now when we find out that this person is biased for Hillary and against trump, it is that more troubling.

If it wasnt, why did Mueller stone wall Congress for months and NEVER disclose that he knew about this bias, something that was only revealed through media leaks?

Given this one man had so much input in both investigations, and now seems biased, it calls into question the impartiality of both investigations.

originally posted by: Grambler
We still don't know exactly what strzok said to his mistress, so we don't know the extent of his bias.

Even if he hated trump and likes hillary, this doesn't mean he did his job improperly.

Think Mark Fuhrman.

Will this single-handedly destroy a case against Flynn, Manafort, Trump...etc, BEFORE they have a chance to start?I personally doubt it.

But the defense, in any case impacted by Strzok's role in collecting evidence, will use this bias to destroy the quality of the evidence that Strzok had a hand in collecting.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Oh yes it does. From a legal standpoint changing the words "grossly negligent" implies a crime to "carelessly handling" is a pretty big deal. Don't try to downplay this.

That is true. They would not want to use language that implies a crime was committed when there is no evidence to support that claim. So it would be a good idea to change that language.

Again, how does that language change in prepared remarks change the evidence of the case?

What evidence? It got destroyed by the Bleachbit mishap of course. Are you playing being dumb on purpose? Judicial Watch however is shifting through the ones who weren't destroyed as we speak. They already found pretty interesting stuff.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: queenofswords

Why don't you find out if something is true first. Before you bring it.
Jesus christ

Coming from you, that's hilarious. That's why I said, I needed corroboration and didn't state it as a confirmed 100% fact.

First, I'm pretty sure it's true, and this is ATS, you smarta$$, and I'm hoping some of the better sleuths here can confirm it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Meetings on the tarmac had nothing to do with Mueller.

Who said they did?

I said that both the fbi and Mueller has to know with investigations into presidents or candidates for it, they would have to be extra careful to be as impartial and by the book as possible, and they have both failed miserably.

Strangely though. We have more of a connection between tarmac meetings and mueleler than you imply.

Although Muller wasn't on the tarmac, Stanley enough a person involved in investigating that man in the tarmacs wife was also instrumental in the mueller investigation.

What a coincidence, right?

a reply to: Grambler

Well I am sure they changed the phrase for a reason. They knew exactly what the legal definition stated, and they changed the language to not include the definition from that definition.

For nefarious, partisan purposes, or because the definition did not fit the reality of the situation?

In addition, it is troubling that we now know a guy with a pro Hillary anti trump bias was in charge of all of the following.

Despite his bias, is there any evidence to suggest he did not do his job properly?

Given this one man had so much input in both investigations, and now seems biased, it calls into question the impartiality of both investigations.

Not really. You'd have to prove he took other actions that affected the investigations.

It would be unreasonable, and I'd say impossible, to expect anyone involved in investigations to not have their own personal biases and if we disqualified people from positions based on those personal biases, we would never get anything done.

This appears to be a slippery slope in the making.