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.

 

Strzok text and why isn't anyone asking the obvious?

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Except im not partisan. So how is that going to work for me?


Not sure. Facts are facts. There is no way around it. So the only way facts look "suspect" is if those facts are dismissed outright or viewed suspect through a biased/partisan filter.

The optics of it all is irrelevant to what is known to be fact.



Do I lean right? Sure. But I lean left, too. So that "its through a partisan filter"nonsense just doesn't cut it.


Ok. Perhaps partisan was not an apt word to use.

Biased maybe, or perhaps I should say that how we look at facts can depend on one's world view and what fits their sensibilities.

Even so, it is illogical because facts are facts.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Orwell cautioned against trying to make "fact" a synonym with "truth".

Nonetheless, even the "facts" in this case don't point to anything other than the people that Hillary had worked with in the past were scum, and were still scum when Donald hired them.

Oh, and the FBI has blown what little credibility they have left.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Orwell cautioned against trying to make "fact" a synonym with "truth".


If we take that approach, we put ourselves in a position to never believe the truth or facts of anything, regardless of the evidence presented.

That is what leads to conspiracies being concocted, contrary to what real evidence and facts present.



Nonetheless, even the "facts" in this case don't point to anything other than the people that Hillary had worked with in the past were scum, and were still scum when Donald hired them.


True. As of yet, the facts do not actually prove any wrongdoing.



Oh, and the FBI has blown what little credibility they have left.


No. The FBI's credibility is still intact. What we have done is let the propaganda and narratives drive people to believe they have no credibility. Which casts doubt on their investigations.

That is exactly what people were trying to do. The facts do not matter to most people anymore. The only thing that matters is the optics and the optics create the narrative that the FBI is corrupt, in Hillary's pocket and their credibility is shot.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The FBI has no credibility. THis case is only part of it. The with holding of evidence in the Bundy case. The entrapment of "terror suspects" who are carrying out terror plots concocted by none other than the FBI.

They can restore some credibility if they would come clean. Especially on the FISA warrant. But the way their handling has favored Clinton shows that there is a bias to the investigation itself. Perhaps yet another case blown by their bungling, like the Bundy case.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



THis case is only part of it.


How can we make such an absolute statement with very little to no information on this case?



The with holding of evidence in the Bundy case.


There is a lot more context to that issue and from what I have read it is not as simple as they simply withheld evidence.



They can restore some credibility if they would come clean. Especially on the FISA warrant. But the way their handling has favored Clinton shows that there is a bias to the investigation itself. Perhaps yet another case blown by their bungling, like the Bundy case.


What do they have to come clean on in regards to the FISA warrant?

Also, there is evidence of bias from a couple players, but what evidence is there of bias in how the investigation was concluded?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

or when information about those facts are omitted / withheld / hidden to change the perception people have of those facts.

As an example it is a fact the FBI used a FISA warrant to monitor Trump and others on his team however when they leave out the facts about how the dossier came into existence and how it was used to illegally obtain the FISA warrant the facts surrounding the Democrats narrative are questionable as are the facts they are using to push their agenda.

The way it looks right now the entire case Mueller is pushing just collapsed hard. I will be surprised if we dont see an exodus from the FBI and DOJ from people (resignations / terminations / prosecutions) who thought they were more intelligent and more important than the voters and who illegally used their positions to perpetrate a fraud in order to sabotage a presidency and engage others in a massive conspiracy to defraud the American public in order to effect the outcome of a Presidential election.
edit on 15-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




How can we make such an absolute statement with very little to no information on this case?


Well...i'd say that opinions can change with new information, right? "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" and all that.

But if their handling of other cases is any indication, along with the information we do have....I have a rational reason for having my opinion that is founded in actual fact.





There is a lot more context to that issue and from what I have read it is not as simple as they simply withheld evidence.


You are right. They did so much more, along with the DOJ and BLM. But for this instance, i am referring to the with holding of their threat assessment.




What do they have to come clean on in regards to the FISA warrant?

Also, there is evidence of bias from a couple players, but what evidence is there of bias in how the investigation was concluded?


Coming clean = did they use the Dossier to gain the warrant?

A good piece of evidence is how Flynn's lies were criminal, but Hillary and teams were not.
edit on 12/15/2017 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



As an example it is a fact the FBI used a FISA warrant to monitor Trump and others on his team however when they leave out the facts about how the dossier came into existence and how it was used to illegally obtain the FISA warrant the facts surrounding the Democrats narrative are questionable as are the facts they are using to push their agenda.


Has it been proven the dossier was used alone to get the FISA warrant?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If it was used at all its a problem.

And that is why im so interested. From where im standing, we have the potential for there to be a conspiracy (not the kind you and I talka bout on ATS, but the legal definition) of actors attempting to subvert the vote by using official government agencies.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



But if their handling of other cases is any indication, along with the information we do have....I have a rational reason for having my opinion that is founded in actual fact.


Without proper context or complete information we cannot come to any conclusion on this case.



You are right. They did so much more, along with the DOJ and BLM. But for this instance, i am referring to the with holding of their threat assessment.


I will look in to it more.



Coming clean = did they use the Dossier to gain the warrant?


True. Did they?

We don't know.

Some are stating is as fact, though.



A good piece of evidence is how Flynn's lies were criminal, but Hillary and teams were not.


As a plea deal in exchange for dropping much bigger charges and for his cooperation in the investigation.

Context is key.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

If it was used at all its a problem.

And that is why im so interested. From where im standing, we have the potential for there to be a conspiracy (not the kind you and I talka bout on ATS, but the legal definition) of actors attempting to subvert the vote by using official government agencies.



How would they attempt to subvert the vote?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What was the plea deal that Hillary had to accept, then? If there is obviously no bias, one would expect that she had a plea arrangement for lying to the FBI like Flynn, right?

"Subvert the vote" means trump up a bunch of baloney against a sitting president, and then use official law enforcement agencies (and intelligence agencies) to pursue these made up charges.

Like you said...he's had no wrong doing shown yet. But (even without proof right now) there are quite a few things that it seems the agency investigating him may have done wrong. Criminally wrong.

No, we don't know much more now. But does it seem reasonable to let the agency that is being alleged against to continue without having those allegations vetted?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



What was the plea deal that Hillary had to accept, then? If there is obviously no bias, one would expect that she had a plea arrangement for lying to the FBI like Flynn, right?


Did they prove she intentionally lied? If not, why would she need to accept a plea deal?

What many don't seem to understand is that there is a huge difference between purposefully lying and being factually incorrect.

Hillary may have been wrong in what she said, but she still may have not lied.



"Subvert the vote" means trump up a bunch of baloney against a sitting president, and then use official law enforcement agencies (and intelligence agencies) to pursue these made up charges.


Which does not appear to have happened.

Trump and friends put themselves in this position. Not anyone else.



Like you said...he's had no wrong doing shown yet. But (even without proof right now) there are quite a few things that it seems the agency investigating him may have done wrong. Criminally wrong.


The agency did what wrong? I have yet to see any accusation to be valid.

So they had a couple people send some texts that were biased. So what?

Is that proof whatsoever that the agency itself is compromised, or even criminally liable?



No, we don't know much more now. But does it seem reasonable to let the agency that is being alleged against to continue without having those allegations vetted?


Why would or should we consider conspiracies blown out of proportion and context to be reasonable enough to shut down the FBI's investigation?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There was a reason when the FBI interview Clinton that it was not recorded like all other interviews. That way she cant be charged with lying to the FBI. Her word verse FBI / prosecutor and with no evidence of the interview = no charges. Keep in mind a person does not have to be placed under oath to be charged with lying to the FBI.

Even when she lied to Congress, and Congress referred it to justice, the FBI found she did not lie although the agents responsible for that review and decision are tainted.
edit on 15-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Listen, I can completely respect wanting to wait for more details to form a strong opinion, but when you denigrate others for basing a preliminary opinion on what evidence we do have, it seems hypocritical to me. Basically, reading your posts, it is obvious you have an opinion. It is that there is nothing to see here -- not based on the evidence we have, but on the assumption there is other evidence we don't have. That is certainly a possibility, but again dismissing all other counter-evidence as propaganda out of hand while you hold faith in the existence of some other evidence existing isn't incredibly honest discussion.

Also, I watched you derail another thread with an extremely bad legal opinion regarding intent/negligence. It makes me think you have an axe to grind.

Just my tuppence



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pavil




They talk in the texts about how they think texting is safe compared to other methods of communication. Why are they worried about be uncovered?
Hmmm


They were having an affair? Maybe???
. Nope. Not in the context of the discussion they were having. Go look it up.

Try again to explain it.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Orwell cautioned against trying to make "fact" a synonym with "truth".

Nonetheless, even the "facts" in this case don't point to anything other than the people that Hillary had worked with in the past were scum, and were still scum when Donald hired them.

Oh, and the FBI has blown what little credibility they have left.


not to me, just because all of you republicans have been told by talk radio, FOX NEWS, and trump that the "FBI is in tatters" doesn't make it so....and you, BFFT should know, having some life experience along with common sense, that Trump wants to derail the Mueller investigation into his own Russian connections.....geez, a majority of FBI agents are conservative, and trump's pick, Chris Wray, is a conservative, and has donated money to republicans



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


Did they prove she intentionally lied? If not, why would she need to accept a plea deal?

What many don't seem to understand is that there is a huge difference between purposefully lying and being factually incorrect.

Hillary may have been wrong in what she said, but she still may have not lied.


You are correct. If they would have only had a recording of the meeting. Im sure had Flynn known he was to be interrogated prior to it happening, he would have had counsel present just like she did.

But we have proof that she gave information that was incorrect, and that she should have known the correct answer to. Whether that is a lie....who knows. WIthout her straight out admitting it, and without the FBI doing any due dilligence at all, we may never know. But if they would have treated her like Flynn, he would have had a lawyer present, and wouldn't have been struck with the guerilla tactic they used.



Which does not appear to have happened.

Trump and friends put themselves in this position. Not anyone else.


Trump and friends put themselves in no position. You said it yourself: there does not appear to be any wrong doing by Trump.

The evidence, however, does not support the same assertion for HRC and her team. Nor for Obama and his team. But that latter one is still a bit down the road. There is ample evidence of tomfoolery by HRC and the FBI. The same FBI that can't seem to find any real dirt on Trump.




The agency did what wrong? I have yet to see any accusation to be valid.

So they had a couple people send some texts that were biased. So what?

Is that proof whatsoever that the agency itself is compromised, or even criminally liable?


Do I need to list this stuff again? The texts, sure. They seem to insinuate that there was some collusion going on to "take down Trump". Add to it that HRC was handled differently than Flynn, that the dossier is proving to be a really hot potato. The meeting on the tarmac. Etc, etc, etc.

Im unsure how you don't see any valid points. At least points worthy of digging in to.




Why would or should we consider conspiracies blown out of proportion and context to be reasonable enough to shut down the FBI's investigation?


Well...you say they are blown out of proportion. I say that the allegations are at least as serious as the allegations that led to this current investigation, and deserve their own investigation. Further, I would allege that the people involved have shown themselves to be untrustworthy enough that the efforts they put into the investigation have a good chance of going the way of the Bundy trial, thus being a boondoggle for the DOJ to pursue. Even further, i would allege that if after a year of investigating all we have is someone lying to the FBI during an impromptu questioning (where no attorney was present), the investigation is a waste of time.

On the one hand we have accusations of collusion with Russia where the best evidence was a dossier that people within our own government seem to have commissioned its creation. Further, we have evidence that this dossier may have been used to justify a FISA warrant. Even further, we have evidence that the government then unmasked the targets in the FISA warrants, and shared the information illegally within our own government, and without foreign governments.

You are saying that none of this needs to be investigated?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Orwell cautioned against trying to make "fact" a synonym with "truth".

Nonetheless, even the "facts" in this case don't point to anything other than the people that Hillary had worked with in the past were scum, and were still scum when Donald hired them.

Oh, and the FBI has blown what little credibility they have left.


not to me, just because all of you republicans have been told by talk radio, FOX NEWS, and trump that the "FBI is in tatters" doesn't make it so....and you, BFFT should know, having some life experience along with common sense, that Trump wants to derail the Mueller investigation into his own Russian connections.....geez, a majority of FBI agents are conservative, and trump's pick, Chris Wray, is a conservative, and has donated money to republicans



REally dude?

Not once in my life have I ever voted for anyone in the republican party, other than local elections where party affiliation means squat.

Everything I say is me. I don't watch the news (i work and play call of duty when im not online goofing off).

Untl the dossier is dug into and investigated, the FBI is in shambles from where I stand. You can argue this as much as you want....but a large portion of the nation agrees. And it won't go away.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



But we have proof that she gave information that was incorrect, and that she should have known the correct answer to. Whether that is a lie....who knows.


Exactly. We cannot say for certain it was a lie, unless we have proof she intended to lie or she knew what she was telling others was false.

That is the difference that is very important.



Trump and friends put themselves in no position.


Yes, they did. People surrounding Trump put themselves in their particular positions. No one else.



You said it yourself: there does not appear to be any wrong doing by Trump.


True, except for the potential obstruction of justice issue in regards to Comey. Though I don't see much coming out of that.



Do I need to list this stuff again? The texts, sure. They seem to insinuate that there was some collusion going on to "take down Trump".


I disagree. It shows bias among a couple people within the FBI. Nothing more.

We need a lot more context to extrapolate any further than that.



The evidence, however, does not support the same assertion for HRC and her team. Nor for Obama and his team. But that latter one is still a bit down the road. There is ample evidence of tomfoolery by HRC and the FBI.


Tomfoolery does not equal illegal or unethical action being taken.



The same FBI that can't seem to find any real dirt on Trump.


How do we know that? Investigation is not over yet.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here.



Do I need to list this stuff again? The texts, sure. They seem to insinuate that there was some collusion going on to "take down Trump".


They show that some people were biased. Without a lot more info, we cannot say much more.



Add to it that HRC was handled differently than Flynn, that the dossier is proving to be a really hot potato. The meeting on the tarmac. Etc, etc, etc.


The situations with Hillary and Flynn are different altogether.

The dossier has become a distraction and the meeting or the tarmac was a dumb idea.



Well...you say they are blown out of proportion.


Completely out of proportion. We have very few facts and conspiracies have taken over...being pushed by many in order to obfuscate are deflect.



I say that the allegations are at least as serious as the allegations that led to this current investigation, and deserve their own investigation.


I'm sure they will be.



Further, I would allege that the people involved have shown themselves to be untrustworthy enough that the efforts they put into the investigation have a good chance of going the way of the Bundy trial, thus being a boondoggle for the DOJ to pursue.


Depends on the gravity of the evidence, I would suspect.



Even further, i would allege that if after a year of investigating all we have is someone lying to the FBI during an impromptu questioning (where no attorney was present), the investigation is a waste of time.


Considering that two people have plead guilty for lesser charges and cooperation with the investigation, I think we will see just a wee bit more than just lying to the FBI.



On the one hand we have accusations of collusion with Russia where the best evidence was a dossier that people within our own government seem to have commissioned its creation.


Collusion is a misnomer.



Further, we have evidence that this dossier may have been used to justify a FISA warrant.


You have the allegation, but you do not have evidence of it being absolutely true.



Even further, we have evidence that the government then unmasked the targets in the FISA warrants, and shared the information illegally within our own government, and without foreign governments.


Again, we do not know the complete context of all of that.



You are saying that none of this needs to be investigated?


Investigate all you like. I don't give a #.

All I am saying is this should be presented in complete context and we should not get caught-up in the unfounded accusations and conspiracies...and try to push those off as being truth.




top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join