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 FBI Strzok Texts Reveal Massive Top Level Conspiracy To Evade Security & Monitering

page: 3
93
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
And here's where the "grand conspiracy theory" false apart. The best part about this? Is that it also blows up another narrative that the Trump crowd tried to rally around — that texts were somehow deliberately deleted by the FBI.

But hey? Who's really keeping track?

As has been reported, the FBI was having issues with Samsung phones relaying texts messages for long term storage. Those issues resulted in a lack of retention for about 1 in 10 FBI-issued devices apparently for months.

Guess what phones weren't having problems? Ding Ding Ding! iPhones. Now read the text in proper context.

So they were having problems with retention with the Samsung phones. Right? Page says she's getting an iPhone. To which Strzok replied, "Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?"

What are the issues he's referring to getting around? Problems with the Samsung phones NOT retaining emails.





No, this doesn't make anything fall apart. It actually explains why the FBI said their texts weren't retained for five months, but *voila* suddenly they were all there.

It's like the 'affair' claim.

The FBI knows whats in the Strzok/Page texts...and they have tried to cover their butts ahead of time with the 'affair' story and the story about the Samsung devices having issues.

That's as plausible as what you are suggesting...maybe more. Those texts were in fact retained. Strzok and Page? I am not convinced they were having an affair. I see no evidence of that.


edit on 2/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.

I don't even know who one should trust in government anymore. If they do another Special Prosecutor then who appoints them? Do you really want the guilty appointing their own? Its a stacked deck and the only to play a straight game is get a new deck. How is that going to come about?



Truthfully, I am not up to speed on how a Special Counsel could be appointed.

I don't know if Congress could do this, or if it has to come from the DOJ.

Talk of disbanding the FBI in past years never sat right with me, as we
certainly have issues with the other agencies as well. Maybe it wouldn't
be a bad thing if another Director quits over The Memo.

Heck, let them all quit.

Call me disillusioned.

There must be some decent people out there with qualifications
to fill the slots, just my opinion of course.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

People laughed and scorned when the president said that the FBI is in tatters.


This will go down in history as prophetic.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Easy. There was never actually a relationship. They were discussing business. The business of treason.

Think about it. We all have seen that chick. Do you want that blowing up your personal phone all night? Then your wife thinks your cheating on her with that hyena. No way anyone was cheating with that. Usually it’s a upgrade not a downgrade.

Yuck


Oh well, I guess we wont look a gift horse in the mouth.

Their loss, our gain. Now we know all about it, thanks to these two.




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   
🎱 another "behind the 8-ball" moment for the Strzok & Page Show 🎱

🔥

edit on Feb-01-2018 by xuenchen because: 👁



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Easy. There was never actually a relationship. They were discussing business. The business of treason.

Think about it. We all have seen that chick. Do you want that blowing up your personal phone all night? Then your wife thinks your cheating on her with that hyena. No way anyone was cheating with that. Usually it’s a upgrade not a downgrade.

Yuck


Now we know all about it, thanks to these two.



That's the part that scares me. This really looks planned to me. Has all the trappings of Cia n.o.c. work.
What would better sleight of hand than this.
And if that's what it is, what are we really missing?

Hopefully I've just had too much conspiracy theories exposure.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




As has been reported, the FBI was having issues with Samsung phones relaying texts messages for long term storage. Those issues resulted in a lack of retention for about 1 in 10 FBI-issued devices apparently for months.

Guess what phones weren't having problems? Ding Ding Ding! iPhones. Now read the text in proper context.


That's...incredibly convenient, isn't it?

Not even android phones, just Samsung android phones. Let me guess, it was only specific models as well, right?




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits


If they wanted to be secure they could have run their message and emails through any one of the tor programs and networks. They didn't, it's almost like they wanted this stuff recorded for later.


That's mostly correct. If they wanted to avoid monitoring, they would just communicate via any number of ways that aren't texts on their work phones. There's a ton of apps for encrypted/OTR messaging. They could also just use personal phones, private email, etc.

Switching from the Samsungs that were having problems with record retention to an iPhone which doesn't seem to have been having the same record retention issues, wouldn't have been any way of circumventing monitoring.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Exactly. It really looks like planned/scripted work to me.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.


interesting cause i dont hear them talking about date night or a relationship. if u werent told they were dating would u ever know by those texts?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule. His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . . I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.


And just to be clear, nothing in the above exchange suggests they changed their phones in order to comply with the requirement for text retention, it clearly states they were going to IGNORE the requirement...

You were saying?

Edit to add: Why did all the other organisations suddenly decide they didn't want to follow the rule about the retention of texts? Are you not interested in that angle?
edit on 1-2-2018 by Jonjonj because: addition



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
It's illegal.

Our Founders would of already hanged them.

It's not cute it's treason.

Our Founders made due process a cornerstone of our nation. Has anyone here ever worked for a large organization that had crippling rules about communication and IT security. At the institution I work at, we need to change our email passwords every six weeks. The result? We all use our private emails, just like Hillary Clinton did.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Guess what phones weren't having problems? Ding Ding Ding! iPhones.



Ante,

I think your purposely overlooking the word "failure"

Lets look at the entire text again.


Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule.

His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . .

I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.


thehill.com...

This is very clear. NO one is following the record keeping requirement,
so they plan to join in.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: theantediluvian



Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule. His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . . I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.


And just to be clear, nothing in the above exchange suggests they changed their phones in order to comply with the requirement for text retention, it clearly states they were going to IGNORE the requirement...

You were saying?

Edit to add: Why did all the other organisations suddenly decide they didn't want to follow the rule about the retention of texts? Are you not interested in that angle?




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
At the institution I work at, we need to change our email passwords every six weeks. The result? We all use our private emails, just like Hillary Clinton did.

That's fine for personal emails but if you are using a personal email account for work related things, especially classified things, then you should be punished along with Clinton. Just because Clinton did something does not mean it's the correct thing to do.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Guess what phones weren't having problems? Ding Ding Ding! iPhones.



Ante,

I think your purposely overlooking the word "failure"

Lets look at the entire text again.


Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule.

His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . .

I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.


thehill.com...

This is very clear. NO one is following the record keeping requirement,
so they plan to join in.



This is pretty effing amazing!



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.


She talked to James Turgal who advised her to start ignoring record keeping laws...


Personal texts about a romantic liaison don't really fall under any federal record keeping laws that I'm aware of. Can you point me to one?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


No, this doesn't make anything fall apart. It actually explains why the FBI said their texts weren't retained for five months, but *voila* suddenly they were all there.


As I understand it, the text messages were recovered directly from the devices which were apparently in the possession of the OIG. So no.


It's like the 'affair' claim.


Did you expect sexting on work phones that were susceptible to monitoring by the FBI? The absence of what you consider evidence of an affair in their communications on work phones doesn't mean anything. You're indulging in wanton speculation and ignoring the simplest explanations.


The FBI knows whats in the Strzok/Page texts...and they have tried to cover their butts ahead of time with the 'affair' story and the story about the Samsung devices having issues.


That doesn't make any sense. Think about what you're saying. First off, you're treating "The FBI" as a monolithic entity. You're smart and you know that's not how things work. The FBI is staffed with thousands of people who work in different departments with different duties. Are you saying that they invented a "Samsung story" and the entire agency is just going along with it?

That doesn't seem very likely.

And if there was this grand conspiracy crossing all levels of the FBI, how did the OIG end up with texts that could be dribbled out as potentially incriminating by a yahoo like Johnson? Why not remove them in the first place? Or better yet, replace them with all new text messages?

Let's assume that was a screw up and "they" didn't realize there was a problem until after the OIG had the texts. What would be the point of trying to lose messages when the OIG had the devices? Anyone who wasn't an idiot (i.e. anyone who could have deleted all the text messages from the retention archive) would know that the texts could be recovered from the devices the OIG had (or at least that there was a very good chance of that). It's a grand conspiracy of incompetents apparently.


That's as plausible as what you are suggesting...maybe more. Those texts were in fact retained. Strzok and Page? I am not convinced they were having an affair. I see no evidence of that.


Obviously, I disagree. Why do you expect to see evidence that they were having an affair? Because there's nothing in the texts you've seen? As I said, I don't find that strange at all.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships


Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule.

His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . .

I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.


thehill.com...

In light of this, Senator Ron Johnson has now expanded the investigation
and sent a demand to the DOJ for the records of 16 other FBI employees,
including James Comey and Andrew McCabe.


"According to text messages produced to the Committee, Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok make references to communicating with other FBI employees via text message, phone call, email, and voice mail. Additional text messages suggest that FBI officials used non-official email accounts and messaging programs to communicate about official business," the letter says.

The letter goes on to request the communications of 16 additional current and former FBI officials, including former FBI Director James Comey; ex-Comey chief of staff James Rybicki; outgoing deputy director Andrew McCabe; former FBI general counsel James Baker and many other top officials.


www.foxnews.com...


Oh this is just too much. This demonstrates clear intent to bypass any number of laws, and removes and "benefit of the doubt" arguments we've been bombarded with.

Indictments. Now!

RELEASE THE MEMO
edit on 2/1/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
At the institution I work at, we need to change our email passwords every six weeks. The result? We all use our private emails, just like Hillary Clinton did.


Right, well one is a departmental policy self-policed by an institution presumably privately-held protecting sensitive corporate information.
The other is a departmental policy due to federal record keeping laws concerning both public access and classified material pertinent to national security.
So it's not exactly the same.




top topics



 
93
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join