Strzok Texts Released

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I honestly believe that FBI investigators have opinions about politics. That they watch TV, that they vote. They probably even put little signs in their yards and go to campaign rallies.

We don't care about it 99.99% of the time because they're not conducting an investigation which has anything to do with politics. I don't automatically assume that having a poor opinion of anyone means investigators are going to conduct themselves unethically.

What do you think will happen with jury selection? That's where bias matters the absolute most. Are we going to take on a new standard where political figures and those connected to them can't be put on trial because most people have political opinions?

Doubtful. Here's a serious question for you:

What do you think this bias would translate to in terms of people who are indicted like Manafort or Gates? Do you think that because a person on the investigative team thinks Trump's an idiot that he would for instance, manufacture evidence against a suspect who was part of his campaign? Do you think that without this negative opinion of Trump, they wouldn't have passed on prosecution?

My bigger concern with bias is that the investigators don't act because of bias. Which is what's been insinuated about the Clinton email investigation, right? Isn't that a much bigger problem?

a reply to: theantediluvian

“Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page wrote.

“I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied.

One message suggests that the pair and perhaps other more senior FBI officials were assessing Trump’s chances while at work.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page in August 2016.

Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

a reply to: Grambler

Yet look at strzok alone. Look at the difference of the way he interviewed Huma, Mills, and Hillary vs. Flynn.

Which proves what sort of impropriety in regards to Flynn?

Look at how we know huma and mills were proven to lie to the FBI but let go, but Flynn and papadopolous were charged with that.

So because a decision was made not to prosecute Abedin or Mills (made by whom? and what do we actually know of the reason?), nobody should ever be held to account for lying to the FBI?

Again, you're not actually arguing impropriety when it comes to Flynn, you're suggesting it in the Clinton email investigation.

Look at how the podesta group got away with admittedly failing to register as a foreign lobbyist, but manafort wasnt.

Nobody has gotten away with anything yet. Don't you think you might want to hold off on this one? And of course, you're ignoring completely the GOP lobbyist from Mercury who were doing the *exact* same thing as Podesta Group. What's your theory there?

It's like Captain Ahab being put in charge of the "Save The Whales" campaign.

a reply to: DBCowboy

b..bb..but opinions.

uhh.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Its pretty obvious that him being fired for ''text messages'' was the cover story the DNC & Mueller created... Even Congress have stated as such..

They told the world Mr Ohr was sacked because he had 2 jobs... (ignore the fact he was involved with Fusion GPS and met with them and his wife worked for them) but yes... he was sacked for 2 jobs... You are probably naive enough to believe that too, right?

You might want to pretend it didn't happen, but he played a part in the Clinton Email investigation (in which laws were broken)... he changed Comeys statement (Comeys the FBI Director.. why is he edited statements?) he interviewed Flynn under false pretenses, he allowed Huma and Mills to lie and get away with it - he's done a lot of shady things all revolving around Clinton and the FBI.. they knew they had to fire him but they couldn't tell people why because it would make the whole charade look like... a charade!

but yes, ante... if you want to pretend like him calling trump an idiot is all this is about you go for it.

your credibility as an unbiased participant in all conversations about Trump/Clinton went out the window a while ago..

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes the podesta group was let off by the FBI. Even if they are now charged (which I think we both agree they should be) the truth is the FBI had them dead to rites and let them off.

Same with Mills and Huma lying.

I am not saying that it definitely played a part in impropriety with flynn.

But its not just one thing. There is the bias messages or actions from multiple people on the mueller team, the conflicts of interest for being lawyers for people on hillarys team, the fact that they are charging trump people with the very crimes they left the hillary people off for, the stonewalling, the leaks.

How much can we take before someone says wait a minute, there appears to be some very shady things going on here.

You are concerned rightfully about russian influence. How do you know that these people are willing to go all the way to finding out if hillarys team was involved with russia? They let them off on the email investigation. They didnt look at the server. They worked with hillary and praised her and disliked trump.

Why would you want people like that looking in to rather or not hillarys team had improper connections to russia.

Just saying well flynn was bad and they got him so its all good is not sufficient for me.

a reply to: theantediluvian

"This man can not be president,"

If my neighbor says that, I don't bat an eye, if an FBI agent says that to another FBI agent that they happen to both be sleeping with, and is investigating a "matter" which has potential to influence the election with clear bias presented? My spidey sense starts tingling.

Seems most of the biased texts were from Page...

& I’m not sure calling someone an idiot is grounds for the belief that it would effect someone’s judgement in legal matters...

Furthermore a great deal of context is missing when going by year old text messages...

And I do have a slight problem with the invasion of privacy involved with regards to accessing people’s text messages, unless a warrant is brought forward based on probable cause...



Having said all that, it is most likely correct to take them off the case just to be safe...

Fact of the matter is, it benefits those who wish to see the guilty punished much more than anyone else, for the simple fact that the agent’s involvement could have been used to destroy the investigation if this was brought forward after people were punished.

Guilty people could have walked on a technicality.



Overall, I think that means nobody from any “side” should have a problem with this outcome.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh, looks like they've updated the story to include more texts. Here's some others:

The pair also took shots at other politicians, with Strzok calling former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley a “douche.”

Page speculated on Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s sexuality, saying he was “long suspected of being gay.”

The agents also don’t seem to have been fans of Attorney General Eric Holder.

“Oh God, Holder! Turn it off turn it off turn it off!!!!” Strzok wrote when Holder appeared at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016.

“Yeah, I saw him yesterday and booed at the TV,” Page replied.

The texts you excerpted are certainly more suggestive but not in of themselves evidence of impropriety, are they? What is it that you're always admonishing me for? Unfairly assuming the worst in people's motivations? I think if one assumes the worst, it's easy to interpret these statements as nefarious.

Do I think that making those statements or having those opinions constitutes a conflict of interest? No. Would you say that agents who believe a mob boss is guilty and a threat to the public shouldn't participate in an investigation of that mob boss? I doubt it.

Because absent the politics, this isn't actually a thing.

Strzok was removed from the investigation in late July. Doesn't Mueller — who has ultimate say on everything — removing Strzok seem to indicate that Mueller took prompt action to address concerns of untoward bias?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Except corrupt politicos aren't whales (with the possible exception of Chris Christie) and the FBI isn't Green Peace. We expect law enforcement and prosecutors to act within the law to bring people to justice for crimes. Or no?

But there are hints in the messages about the concern over Russian influence on the campaign, which was building in the final months of the election contest.

In July 2016, Page expressed concern that the “sandernistas” might undercut Clinton’s campaign.

“I’m not worried about them. I’m worried about the anarchist Assanges who will take fed information and disclose it to disrupt,” Strzok replied, referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published emails hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta

Seems they were pretty well convinced that Russia was trying to screw around with the election.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: DBCowboy

Except corrupt politicos aren't whales (with the possible exception of Chris Christie) and the FBI isn't Green Peace. We expect law enforcement and prosecutors to act within the law to bring people to justice for crimes. Or no?

So you are going to argue that the investigator(s) was/were impartial?




And I thought I made idiotic posts!

Wait, so the big "reveal" here is that this FBI agent called Trump an "idiot"?

Just like Trump's very own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson did?



Oh gawd this is just so sad...

Good on Muller for taking the guy off the case, right decision -- but certainly not the crazy bombshell its been made out to be.

The issue isn't they had an opinion, the issue isn't they hated President Trump...

The issue is texts messages like this one :

"So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it cant be traced,"

- Lisa Page, March 2016

After the cesspool material they slung back and forth, what could possibly be left to discuss that only untraceable phones would be required ? March 2016, would be the time Strzok was interviewing Hillary (C)linton and her aides, while passing out immunity deals and destroying phone/computer equipment/evidence.

a reply to: theantediluvian

My bigger concern with bias is that the investigators don't act because of bias. Which is what's been insinuated about the Clinton email investigation, right? Isn't that a much bigger problem?

It's the same problem because it's the same people.

Manafort and Gates were indicted on activity that took place when and while working with whom?

In another thread (that I'm unable to find at the moment) you excoriated my use of True Pundit to show that Hillary was interviewed with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson 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.

Remember that?

You wouldn't give the story any credence whatsoever an instead set about denigrating anyone who would even dare to mention True Pundit much less use them as a source.

It seems as though, at least for that portion of the story (and to be sure, that bit was what I was relying on to show who was present for Hillary's unrecorded, non-sworn interview), they were right on the money:



FBI vault

I think, perhaps, an apology is in order?