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.

 

New Texts Reveal FBI Strzok Knew Odds Were Zero Mueller Would Find Wrongdoing

page: 8
49
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, I use the term colloquially since its generally understood Flynn wouldn't have taken a deal if they hadn't gotten him to work with them on providing further evidence in the case.




posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Ah, so an agent who wasn't part of the investigation, and not privy to any of the findings later discovered by the investigation, is capable of such amazing prognostication that she could determine there was nothing to find? Heck, sounds like firing her was a mistake, and we should just close all agencies and use her oracle like abilities for our national intelligence and defense.


He was on the investigation.

The texts were discovered through a Judicial Watch FOIA.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, I use the term colloquially since its generally understood Flynn wouldn't have taken a deal if they hadn't gotten him to work with them on providing further evidence in the case.



You don't actually know what a plea deal, is do you ? Taking a plea deal, or being offered a plea deal is not anywhere near the same as being sequestered as a state's witness ; Which is what "Flipping people" means.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, I use the term colloquially since its generally understood Flynn wouldn't have taken a deal if they hadn't gotten him to work with them on providing further evidence in the case.


Ill be interested to see what that means in the end. Were I a crook working for a crook, i'd just keep mum and accept a presidential commutation. Since that didn't happen, its all the more interesting.

Nonetheless....a procedural violation. Its not much leverage.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




Again I don't think your arm chair legal expertise is something anyone here should rely on as weighty legal opinion 



I'll bow to your pure speculation and opinion which you formed and tried to articulate before you even knew Strozk was a he or that he was involved at all in the investigation.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Wayfarer




Again I don't think your arm chair legal expertise is something anyone here should rely on as weighty legal opinion 



I'll bow to your pure speculation and opinion which you formed and tried to articulate before you even knew Strozk was a he or that he was involved at all in the investigation.


Well I applaud you for falling back on the least cogent argument/retort you could muster. Well Done!



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Wayfarer




Again I don't think your arm chair legal expertise is something anyone here should rely on as weighty legal opinion 



I'll bow to your pure speculation and opinion which you formed and tried to articulate before you even knew Strozk was a he or that he was involved at all in the investigation.


Well I applaud you for falling back on the least cogent argument/retort you could muster. Well Done!


I gave you a star, not because your aimless rambling from "wasn't even part of the investigation" to "well, they have tons of evidence and besides that happened before" was "cogent", but because I like $5 words like cogent.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, I use the term colloquially since its generally understood Flynn wouldn't have taken a deal if they hadn't gotten him to work with them on providing further evidence in the case.


Ill be interested to see what that means in the end. Were I a crook working for a crook, i'd just keep mum and accept a presidential commutation. Since that didn't happen, its all the more interesting.

Nonetheless....a procedural violation. Its not much leverage.


Ha ha.

You don't know at all what it was Mueller bargained for.

Mueller could easily have had him on MANY other things, conspiracy, tax-evasion, acting as an agent without registering, among others, and Mueller chose to go with the easiest felony to prove - lying to the FBI in the White House, in order to get the real truth about Trump.

Flynn had a great deal of leverage to get the deal, Flynn might very well have offered the evidence as to what Trump knew about the Russians, which is worth a great deal in a trade, e.g. all the mob underlings who get away with murder, literally, in exchange for the testimony that takes down the top guy.

That would certainly explain why Trump so obviously walked straight into the clearest Obstruction charge ever by telling Comey to drop the matter, and then firing Comey when Comey didn't "law off" Flynn.

Also explains why Trump asked McCabe who he voted for, a big no-no, and that ought to be obvious to all of you.

As for the OP???

Ooooohhh, 2 FBI agents didn't like Trump!!??

Did Judicial Watch release all the texts-emails of the FBI agents that didn't like Hillary? Including the ones that told Guiliani about the coming Comey letter 5 days before the letter issued, when Guiliani promised Fox something "big" for an October surprise?

I think Mueller won't care one wit about anything except the testimony of Flynn, Page, Bannon, Sessions, and Kushner (who is next).

And it seems that while Mueller will be issuing his report on possible evidence of Russian collusion, you guys will be talking about the awful FBI,



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   


That would certainly explain why Trump so obviously walked straight into the clearest Obstruction charge ever by telling Comey to drop the matter, and then firing Comey when Comey didn't "law off" Flynn. 





Why didn't Comedy find that it was obstruction? Why did McCabe say there had been no obstruction in the investigation? Wouldn't that be the perfect time under oath in front of congress and the cameras for either the fired Comey or his buddy Andy to drop obstruction allegations?

Maybe "clearest" isn't the best word here?



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
By the way, the enthusiasm in the OP about what the FBI agent "Knew" regarding wouldn't amount to anything, when the dam thing said it was his "GUT SENSE" e.g. meaning "I don't know for sure, just my gut" is just precious.

Jesus, you people.

If there was "No there, there" then Trump is the stupidest president of all time, given all he did to end the investigation, and continues to do.

Mueller is the one who knows whether there is a "there, there" and there is sure one hell of a lot of lying (Kushner and Sessions) about Russian contacts if there is no "there, there."



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert



That would certainly explain why Trump so obviously walked straight into the clearest Obstruction charge ever by telling Comey to drop the matter, and then firing Comey when Comey didn't "law off" Flynn. 





Why didn't Comedy find that it was obstruction? Why did McCabe say there had been no obstruction in the investigation? Wouldn't that be the perfect time under oath in front of congress and the cameras for either the fired Comey or his buddy Andy to drop obstruction allegations?

Maybe "clearest" isn't the best word here?


Who says Comey didn't find it to be obstruction? He was the one in charge of the investigation at the time, he got fired before he brought charges.

The guy couldn't exactly have arrested him right then and there.

I am not familiar with what McCabe said and/or when, but McCabe was never in charge of the investigation that I know of.

Speaking of McCabe, why is Trump using unprecedented pressure to get that guy fired? Wray almost resigned it got so bad? Obstruction, again.

Don't worry about it. I don't think the Republicans would impeach Trump over the most clear case of obstruction ever brought. The only way that Trump will step down or be forced down is if Mueller finds something so clear and so bad that even Congressional Republicans can't stomach it.

Trump's fully compromised either way. You guys can cry hoax all you want, it's simply not normal to have nearly everyone and everything around you tied to Russia in some way.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scrubdog
By the way, the enthusiasm in the OP about what the FBI agent "Knew" regarding wouldn't amount to anything, when the dam thing said it was his "GUT SENSE" e.g. meaning "I don't know for sure, just my gut" is just precious.



I actualy agree with this, but it also shows Strozk thought there was "zero" cause to believe Mueller would find anything after Strozk was already involved in the FBI's "Russian collusion" investigation for months. In other words at the time the Special Prosecutor was appointed there was zero factual basis to assume anything would come up. That's actually big news. FBI had nothing after months of investigation, and a key guy thought it was a deadend.

That doesn't definitively mean nothing has come up since. But it doesn't look good, either.
edit on 24-1-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
LOL someone doesn't know what they're talking about... It's like listening to little kids trying to talk like adults, using phrases they don't really understand.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Who says Comey didn't find it to be obstruction?


Uhm... Comey....



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog




Who says Comey didn't find it to be obstruction? He was the one in charge of the investigation at the time, he got fired before he brought charges. 


Comedy did. After being fired. Under oath. In front of Congress. (ETA: I was going to fix the Comey autocorrect, but I'm going to leave it haha)



I am not familiar with what McCabe said and/or when, but McCabe was never in charge of the investigation that I know of. 



He was asked as AD. Under oath. In front of congress.




Speaking of McCabe, why is Trump using unprecedented pressure to get that guy fired? 

Because of the texts that mention an insurance plan discussed in Andy's office, is my guess.
edit on 24-1-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Out of curiousity, do you know what the legal definition of "obstruction" is?

If so, could you explain how Trump can obstruct when he is acting completely within his legal right?

You should stop throwing around words with specific legal meanings, as it only confuses the discussion.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scrubdog

If there was "No there, there" then Trump is the stupidest president of all time, given all he did to end the investigation, and continues to do.


And what insurance policy was Mueller using?



Mueller is the one who knows whether there is a "there, there" and there is sure one hell of a lot of lying (Kushner and Sessions) about Russian contacts if there is no "there, there."



Your overlooking the simple fact that knowing a few people
A that are Russian does not amount to,a,hill of beans,
Let alone an impeachable offense.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Holy crap!

You really don't know when to keep your mouth shut do you?

Are you aware that you have just came along and done exactly what the thread originator and friends said someone from your team would be along shortly to do?

As a lib you are FAR more likely to have taken at least 101 level sociology in college and should thus have been smart enough to know that what you just did is the WORST POSSIBLE THING YOU COULD DO IN THIS SITUATION!

Because as someone who has taken sociology will tell you, even a PERCEIVED breaking of the social contract of this magnitude is enough to violently rip a society to shreds!

If enough people (and in the case of something like this, enough is a shockingly small number) perceive the social contract to have broken this egregiously, and then even worse see someone like you smugly playing word games about it because you perceive "your side" to have been the ultimate beneficiaries of this violation and thus are PLEASED that it occurred...

Yeah, that's how you get people suddenly deciding en masse that the social contract is null and void and then acting accordingly!

It's a stunning and horrifying level of short sighted idiocy AT BEST!

Really though, it's people like you and comments like that which will be the match that lights the fuze to the explosion that irrevocably rips our society apart!

It's shameful and irresponsible and entirely counterproductive, and I hope you feel truly horrified by what your comments like that are poised to bring about.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

This tidbit leaked from Johnson.

The same guy that just admitted he was full of BS when he claimed a secret society in the FBI.

Release the entire context of the text messages or nothing.

This deal of snipping passages and making claims to suit conspiracy is ridiculous and not credible.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Scrubdog

Out of curiousity, do you know what the legal definition of "obstruction" is?



I am pretty sure Bob Mueller does.



If so, could you explain how Trump can obstruct when he is acting completely within his legal right?


How so? Presidents can break the law and be held accountable.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join