It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey's description of Clinton

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

This is what you've invited me to see? Strzok signing the document that officially started the FBI investigation isn't really that significant.

The OP insinuates that somehow without Strzok there would have been no investigation. If it hadn't have been him, it would have been somebody else. He didn't provide the impetus for the FBI investigation. Russians meddling in the election did.

As for the changing of the language. Okay? According to the same CNN article where this was published, the drafting was a team effort. If Comey didn't like the change to the wording, he simply could have changed it back. But hey, investigate Clinton some more. What do I care? Anything that will keep her from trying to run for office again is a good thing.

What we have here is desperate partisan grasping by desperate people who are fretting over the progress of the Mueller investigation. None of this is going to derail the Mueller investigation. It's not going to result in Flynn's guilty plea being vacated or kill the plea deal Flynn just made and it's not going to stop the dominoes from falling.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No it's more than that and you know it.

First on this issue, comey said he did not share his staement with anyone in government, therefore he lied on his statement, which as shown in the other thread you think is a big deal.

Lets look at what strzok was involved in.

Interviewed hillary. This interview was not recorded, was pretty short, and allowed antother person being investigated, huma, to be present.

Changed the language to not use the language in the statute. This accompined with comey lying saying he didn't share the statement with anyone, and the fact that many people myself included were baffled not only by the fact that comey stepped outside of his bounds to act as a prosecutor, but seemingly ouined the case for Why she should be charged and then went against it was very unusual.

Apparently started the russia investigation based in part on the dossier that was paid for by the dnc, despite other fbi employees allegedly having questions about the dossier.

Did the interview of flymn. This was done questionably, with mcacabe telling Flynn agents were coming for a different reason, and Flynn not having his lawyer present.

Then we find out tjat strzok was sending anti trump pro Hillary messages to his mistress that also worked for the fbi.

Then we find out that Mueller has stonewalled Congress about this for months, and we only find out through a leak.

So yes, it is a big deal.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I knew you would ignore all the other supsicious signs. Why would this particular guy be put in charge of everything Clinton related? That's beyond retarded. This pos handled the Weiner laptop aswell. Yeah sure it's all coincidence. Bipartisan my ass.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


This interview was not recorded, was pretty short, and allowed antother person being investigated, huma, to be present.


It wasn't just Huma who was present:


Clinton arrived with her legal entourage in tow. Attorneys David Kendall, Katherine Turner, Heather Samuelson, and Cheryl Mills flanked Clinton. On the government side of the conference room: FBI Section Chief Peter Strzok, David Laufman from the Justice Department, two unnamed DOJ representatives as well as the two confidential FBI agents conducting the interview.


True Pundit

Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were both also granted immunity meaning they were interviewed for this investigation as well.

 


btw, Perfectenemy, I starred your post, lol!
edit on 4-12-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Compare that to Flynn interview.

Lied to about what it was, his lawyer not present.

But sure, no double standard.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I still think Twitter is compromised. Flynn got trended like crazy and spread like wildfire. Strzok only crickets. I do like how the lunatics always get there hopes up and a few hours later they get obliterated. They still didn't learn anything from this year.

edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)


Edit: I'm sure that the new Melanie Martinez is a rapist thing broke after the Strzok story is just pure coincidence. One tweet destroyed her whole career and people don't even consider that she could be innocent. It's kinda scary. Innocent until proven guilty is apparently a thing of the past.
edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know why Flynn just didn't refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. It's not like Strzok and whoever else tagged along could compel Flynn to speak under duress of any sort.

btw, Strzok also interviewed Mills, Samuelson, and Abedin.

It seems as though he was one of the lead agents on the investigation, not just a nobody.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know why Flynn just didn't refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. It's not like Strzok and whoever else tagged along could compel Flynn to speak under duress of any sort.

btw, Strzok also interviewed Mills, Samuelson, and Abedin.

It seems as though he was one of the lead agents on the investigation, not just a nobody.


You can't help but wonder why they would leave one person do all of those investigations.

Now if it turns out he was imcredibably biased, it cast doubt on all of what he did, especially in interviews he didn't record.

This whole thing is a mess.

Anyone with any shred of integrity will have to admit that there is a clear double standard as to how the investigation into hillary went vs Trumps.

But just ask bernie, turns out the establishment on both sides don't like perceived outsiders.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


First on this issue, comey said he did not share his staement with anyone in government, therefore he lied on his statement, which as shown in the other thread you think is a big deal.


He did? When did that occur? I don't remember that happening and looking at the transcript of his testimony, I'm not finding what you're referring to. If he lied to Congress about having circulated a draft statement, then he lied to Congress and should be held to account.


Interviewed hillary. This interview was not recorded, was pretty short, and allowed antother person being investigated, huma, to be present.


There's already an IG investigation into Strzok. If I'm not mistaken, that's how the texts were turned up? Interview them again. Hell open the investigation up and do it all over? What shouldn't be done is to continue talking about it as though it's somehow a reason to stop the Mueller investigation or treating it like it delegitimizes the Mueller investigation.


Changed the language to not use the language in the statute. This accompined with comey lying saying he didn't share the statement with anyone, and the fact that many people myself included were baffled not only by the fact that comey stepped outside of his bounds to act as a prosecutor, but seemingly ouined the case for Why she should be charged and then went against it was very unusual.


Again, I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Comey saying he didn't share the draft statement. Do you also find it unusual that a week before election day Comey came out and said that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Clinton or that doesn't concern you because it doesn't fit into the overall narrative that Comey was somehow in the bag for Clinton?

It suffices to say that both were unusual.


Apparently started the russia investigation based in part on the dossier that was paid for by the dnc, despite other fbi employees allegedly having questions about the dossier.


All I've read is that he signed the document that initiated the official investigation into Russian meddling according to a source. I can neither agree with nor disagree with the rest of those assertions as I have no information to go on. It seems that you're arguing that Strzok received the dossier and opened up an investigation all on its own while people were urging him not to. Can you actually back that up or is this what you're speculating from drawing on different bits of reporting over the months?


Did the interview of flymn. This was done questionably, with mcacabe telling Flynn agents were coming for a different reason, and Flynn not having his lawyer present.


This is all coming from Hannity's minion Sara Carter who has written a lot of checks that have yet to clear recently. You're also misstating what she reported from one of the many anonymous sources:


According to another source, with direct knowledge of the Jan. 24 interview, McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the “earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called,” the source said.

McCabe told Flynn “some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate,” the source said.

“It wasn’t until after they were already in (Flynn’s) office that he realized he was being formerly interviewed. He didn’t have an attorney with him,” they added.

Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner did not respond for comment.


What does that have to do with anything? Seems like you (and Sara Carter and her source) are searching really hard for some sort of technicality for reasons I find hard to fathom. He's not being prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Flynn already pled guilty to lying to the FBI. He did it to avoid being prosecuted for more serious crimes.


Then we find out tjat strzok was sending anti trump pro Hillary messages to his mistress that also worked for the fbi.


Which on its own proves nothing. Were they discussing the Clinton email case? No? From what I gleaned, they were discussing debate performance. But as I said, he's being reviewed by the IG now. That's where the texts came from.

If you want to call into question the handling of the Clinton email server investigation, by all means. As I've said, investigate Clinton again. This doesn't have any significant bearing on Mueller's investigation. The guy hasn't been a part of it since August.


Then we find out that Mueller has stonewalled Congress about this for months, and we only find out through a leak.


That's incorrect from what I've read. The accusation by Nunes and in October, by Paul Ryan, was that the DOJ and FBI (which are both run by Trump appointees) have been stonewalling.

Now let me share some other Fox News reporting form recent days on this:

Mueller aide fired for anti-Trump texts now facing review for role in Clinton email probe


All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight of the intelligence community.

Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include “highly sensitive raw intelligence,” so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S. the “potential danger and chilling effect” it could place on foreign intelligence sources.

Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session that his committee’s ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel’s Democratic members were permitted to attend.


So he's not appearing for document review sessions and he's refusing briefings if the Democratic members of his committee are permitted to attend? Why?

And did you read the last bit of the Sara Carter article? Again, sure seems like Nunes, who shouldn't even be involved in any of this (he was part of Trump's transition team and you're talking about a guy sending texts about an election debate to his side piece), is playing political games:


A source familiar with the chairman’s request said Nunes knows the answers to “whether FBI paid for dossier, whether dossier launched investigation, whether the dossier was used as basis for FISA applications. what steps FBI took to verify dossier upon receipt and since in addition, DOJ has cleared every witness he asked for. Period.


Looks to me like Nunes is spearheading the latest counter-narrative and couldn't gaf about the truth.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

If you're citing True Pundit, you might as well be citing Sorcha Faal.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

On comey saying he shared his statement with n9 one.

I am referring to his statement given about why not to charge Hillary.

Its in the first paragraph, he says he didn't share his statement with anyone. It appears that was a lie, as strzok apparently changed language.

And yes, I had argued that comey was acting poorly when he issued that second statement.

I guess that's the price you pay when you act outside your role in the first place. He sucked all along.


On Hillary investigated again.

Great let's do it, and let's investigate those that botched the original investigation, namely comey and the fbi.

And let's get any one involved with that out of the current investigation.


On strzok and the dossier.

I read that he pushed the dossier that others were questionable about. I will try to find it tomorrow.

The point is strzok had his hands in many key situations, and we know some of them were unjsual, such as his interview of hillary.

If you think there is enough to re interview her based on this shadiness, why should his interview of flymn stand up.

Now I hope he recorded his interview with flynn, if so I see no problem with allowing that to stand as long as the recording shows it was a fair interview.


On Sara Carter and Flynn interview.

Hannitys minion! Ha! Want me to use your vaunted msm sources that are mouthpieces for Hillary and obame, would that be better?

How is abc looking right now.

Regarfless, should be simple to verify, was his lawyer there or not.

If I am wrong, I will apologize. I would guess it would have came out though if that is a lie.

I have no hidden agenda. I still maintain I want muellers investigation to continue. I don't think pointing out how shady the fbi is and how they handled Hillary with kid gloves but have been bulldogs after trumps team should be avoided.

Do you think we should just shut up and ignore these double standards?

Given that we know strzok apparently liked Hillary and not trump and these double standards, you don't have a problem with this double standard?


In stonewalling.

You are just wrong.

We know that Mueller and the fbi still haven't commented on why strzok was demoted.

So unless you are claiming the house never asked about tjis, the proof is obvious.

As far as nunes asking for shady tjings, whatever. The fbi and Mueller stonewalled about what the dossier was used for. They always do this, they are not held accountable to Congress at all.

I agree nunes should probably not he invloved.

I find your obvious anger at his conflict of interest in this area to be encouraging. It seems to be lacking in other people like lymch, comey, etc.

But fine.

Though may I suggest if you want to look at political hames, ask why this investigation started in the first place.

Hint, Obama weopnizing the Intel community, like his doj and its.

How is that dossier coming?

Was it used for did a warrants?

If so, this whole investigation pales in comparison to the unbelievable corruption of Obama and the fbi using paid oppo research from dems to go after their political opponents.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

If you're citing True Pundit, you might as well be citing Sorcha Faal.


I didn't.

There are hardly worse than the biased msm you And me source though.

I really didn't mean to leave out the and me part.

We are all guilty of using crappyt sources.

But yes, I have admitted on many true pundit sources threads that they seem shady.


edit on 4-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: theantediluvian

I knew you would ignore all the other supsicious signs. Why would this particular guy be put in charge of everything Clinton related? That's beyond retarded. This pos handled the Weiner laptop aswell. Yeah sure it's all coincidence. Bipartisan my ass.


Why do you keep saying "bipartisan" to me? I never claimed to be unbiased much less "bipartisan." Yet you keep saying this to me as though you caught me at something. I lean left, this ain't a secret.

The difference is my political leanings don't prevent me from acknowledging that when politicians from the "left" commit crimes, they should be held to account. I really couldn't care a less if Clinton is investigated all over again. I'm all for it, let's do it. If there's a Clinton cult, I'm not in it.

I'm going to be frank with you. I've spent way more time posting today than I had planned. I need to prioritize who I'm going to respond to. I know that with Grambler and JAC (when he's not citing True Pundit ffs), they're going to bring a debate worth my time. You, you just seem to talk random smack. So don't read too much into it if I don't continue to respond. (or do)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No, but JAC did and you went right along with it.

Literally everything you said in your previous post was directly from the same MSM sources I was drawing from? No? You've got independent non-mainstream sources that aren't making # up? You know you don't. You're pulling from Fox, DC, CNN, probably even WaPo and the "failing NYT" just like me.

Come on. Let's get real here. True Pundit has a history of straight up fabrication. We're not talking about getting a detail wrong or jumping to conclusions or adding spin or something. True Pundit straight up makes up stories from start to finish and they've done it numerous times.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I honestly emitted bfore your post here.

I didn't parrot true pundit.

I said strzok interviewed Hillary and huma was there.

I have seen this multiple places.

Do you have a source that says otherwise, I will gladly read it.

If huma was there, do you have a problem with that?

If so, do you have a problem with a guy that made such a glaring misjudgement then being the one to interview Flynn?

And here is the Washington examiner saying the same thing.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

As you know, it's vogue to just attack the source.

But a quick Google search would have revealed they were right this time.
edit on 4-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
It is more than obvious that Strzok had ulterior motives right from the beginning.


The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."


You see where it says " as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."

Why would agent of the FBI change the wording of a document written by the director of the FBI?

If not for the wording change Clinton would have faced criminal charges.

Then said agent decides to open an investigation into alleged Russian hacking based upon a dossier that even agents with the FBI doubts are credible.

One might ask was it simply a way to distract from any real investigation of Hillary.

Then you have Obama using said investigation as a reason to expel Russian ambassadors.

Making the Trump administration deal with a political crisis which resulted in Flynn being investigated for collusion.

To me it is more like the Obama administration colluded with the FBI and the Clintons to undermine a duly elected president.

Forgot to mention this news clip is the CNN link in the op.



edit on 4-12-2017 by Diisenchanted because: to add



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Just think how much money that guy has cost the taxpayer over the last ten months. I think he should go to prison myself for making things up and causing a lot of turmoil in this country. He is inciting chaos in our society by opening an investigation when there was really no evidence to show anything illegal was going on.. He should be charged with Treason.

For all the money and time spent on this, they have not found anything they can charge Trump or his people with. Nothing will probably come of this, except great expense.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Its in the first paragraph, he says he didn't share his statement with anyone. It appears that was a lie, as strzok apparently changed language.


I still don't know what you're talking about. This was in his testimony correct? I've search for "statement" "share" and a few other terms and none of the hits are for anything regarding the draft statement, just stuff about the Trump meeting memos.


On Hillary investigated again.

Great let's do it, and let's investigate those that botched the original investigation, namely comey and the fbi.

And let's get any one involved with that out of the current investigation.


I'm not sure who was involved with the Clinton email investigation that is involved with Mueller investigation now. There's an IG review going on right now of the handling of the Clinton email investigation (the IG being the intended mechanism for this sort of review).

I'm assuming that you don't trust AG Sessions and his direct reports to handle addressing the findings of that review? Who should do the investigation? I don't know that this is something that would require a special counsel but even if it did, you'd need people to actually conduct the investigation. FBI agents who weren't involved in the Clinton email case?


If you think there is enough to re interview her based on this shadiness, why should his interview of flymn stand up.

Now I hope he recorded his interview with flynn, if so I see no problem with allowing that to stand as long as the recording shows it was a fair interview.


His interview with Flynn doesn't have to stand up. He pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid being prosecuted for a greater offense that surely wouldn't have relied on that interview. Do you think he confessed to knowingly being an unregistered agent for Turkey and related offenses during this interview? Probably not. And his attorney probably isn't a dummy. So I don't see why this would be a thing.


On Sara Carter and Flynn interview.

Hannitys minion! Ha! Want me to use your vaunted msm sources that are mouthpieces for Hillary and obame, would that be better?


You already are. Every time you say "FISA" and "dossier" you're citing a single CNN article. My point about Sara Carter is she was that her reporting about the Mikerin CI hasn't been corroborated yet. As for the Brian Ross thing, I think ABC overreacted and I don't care if he fell on his sword.

He said "candidate" instead of "President-elect" but the context was what? The communications between Flynn and Kislyak. AFAIK, all of those occurred after the election, right? I don't even think most people picked up on the slip initially. Next thing you know, Trump supporters are acting like it somehow turned all the reporting from the day into "fake news." And of course, it did not.

Can you imagine if Hannity was suspended for a month without pay every time he said something on the air that wasn't accurate? He'd be dead of old age before he was off suspension.


Do you think we should just shut up and ignore these double standards?

Given that we know strzok apparently liked Hillary and not trump and these double standards, you don't have a problem with this double standard?


Are we going to tit-for-tat everything or just what we think we know about these two investigations? Because Trump hasn't really had it all too rough in reality when you compare it to a number of other investigations. I'm not really that interested in trying to compare the two.

If the Clinton email investigation was compromised in some way, do it again.


We know that Mueller and the fbi still haven't commented on why strzok was demoted.

So unless you are claiming the house never asked about tjis, the proof is obvious.


I went back and read the statements and it's "DOJ and FBI." Mueller can't demote anyone. He's not in the FBI hierarchy. The only thing I've come up with for Mueller stonewalling was a WSJ editorial from today and it was behind a paywall. Washington Examiner has a timeline here. Notice that nowhere is Mueller mentioned.


As far as nunes asking for shady tjings, whatever. The fbi and Mueller stonewalled about what the dossier was used for. They always do this, they are not held accountable to Congress at all.

I agree nunes should probably not he invloved.

I find your obvious anger at his conflict of interest in this area to be encouraging. It seems to be lacking in other people like lymch, comey, etc.

But fine.


I could say the exact same thing about your lack of concern over Nunes's behavior and obvious conflict of interest. Nunes could literally be acting in his own interest which is different then the allegation that Lynch or Comey were going easy on Clinton. He's a potential target of an investigation he's overseeing.



Hint, Obama weopnizing the Intel community, like his doj and its.

How is that dossier coming?

Was it used for did a warrants?


According to your own source for much of what you've been posting in this thread, the Sara Carter article, Nunes already knows the answers and everyone he's asked to speak to has been cleared to speak to him. The impression her source left me with is that Nunes is playing games.


If so, this whole investigation pales in comparison to the unbelievable corruption of Obama and the fbi using paid oppo research from dems to go after their political opponents.


Which is all still just conjecture based primarily on a couple lines from a single CNN article which later cast doubt on your interpretation.

Whether the dossier was used for the FISA warrants should be one of the easier things to ascertain I'd think as Congress can get access to FISC records. Which would have nothing to do with the FBI or DOJ. What's in it for Wray, Sessions, etc? You make a point of mentioning Mueller repeatedly.

However, Nunes has *never* AFAIK named Mueller in regards to stonewalling. He has however threatened both AG Sessions and FBI Directory Christopher Wray by name.

It's almost as though the Trump shill and Trump appointees are intentionally drawing this out.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

As another member pointed out, this whole situation has been nothing but a big fishing expedition by the deep state to try to nail Trump and people in his administration on some sort of technicality.

Once the old Obama/Bush/Clinton gatekeepers are finally rooted out the real Russian collusion investigation can begin, starting with U1, The Podesta Group, and all the shady dealings with the rest of the swamp creatures over the past decade... Republicans and Democrats alike.

It's time to burn this #er down.




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

No it's more than that and you know it.

First on this issue, comey said he did not share his staement with anyone in government, therefore he lied on his statement, which as shown in the other thread you think is a big deal.

Lets look at what strzok was involved in.

Interviewed hillary. This interview was not recorded, was pretty short, and allowed antother person being investigated, huma, to be present.

Changed the language to not use the language in the statute. This accompined with comey lying saying he didn't share the statement with anyone, and the fact that many people myself included were baffled not only by the fact that comey stepped outside of his bounds to act as a prosecutor, but seemingly ouined the case for Why she should be charged and then went against it was very unusual.

Apparently started the russia investigation based in part on the dossier that was paid for by the dnc, despite other fbi employees allegedly having questions about the dossier.

Did the interview of flymn. This was done questionably, with mcacabe telling Flynn agents were coming for a different reason, and Flynn not having his lawyer present.

Then we find out tjat strzok was sending anti trump pro Hillary messages to his mistress that also worked for the fbi.

Then we find out that Mueller has stonewalled Congress about this for months, and we only find out through a leak.

So yes, it is a big deal.


This is going to get ugly and the whole Trump collusion bull crap is going away as the silent coup become known...




top topics



 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join