FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I found this bit here....



www.hsgac.senate.gov...

Are they talking about Dina Powell?

a reply to: Boadicea

FTR, when I went back through the text archive, I got the sense that Obama wanted to know everything about how the FBI was prepping and handling the oversight committees and their investigations into the FBI's handling of the Hillary email investigation.

Could not say with complete confidence though.

So...while I don't think it's relevant to the investigation prior to Comey's statement *clearing* Hillary, I do think it may be relevant to the oversight of that investigation.

a reply to: burntheships

Could be...I meant to go back and look into those texts, too.

I could spend weeks trying to unravel the conversations. Now that I know they've been tampered with, I don't think it would be worth my time. In fact...I think *they* want us to waste our time when they know anything really incriminating has been deleted.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I agree, I think someone at the FBI saw to it the most damning things
were erased. In fact, I am sure of it now.

I did a little snooping today and found this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That right there tells me that this goes all the way to the top.
Obama and we know by the texts Page and Strzok were
doing this prep for Comey who then passed it to Obama.
No where in the texts is one sentence on Russia.

Sure, top people are losing jobs but something more
such as transparency must come soon.

a reply to: burntheships

Yeah, the timeline for the Weiner laptop texts is total garbage. The FBI had them for a month. They did not suddenly find out about them on (or close to) October 28, 2016 and bust their butts to review them in a week.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah, among other things. The entire thing stinks to high heaven.

this is also making a lot of sense to me right now.

Another possible motive for the FBI's counterintelligence targeting Page was that he may have been a target of convenience in the aftermath of the FBI's unusual exoneration of Hillary Clinton in July 2016, when FBI Director James Comey ended the investigation with a recommendation that the Justice Department not prosecute her for mishandling classified information.

By opening a counterintelligence probe of Russian targeting of the Trump campaign, Comey may have been seeking to compensate for his apparent interference in the political campaign. Comey approved the initial FISA warrant. The Steele dossier became the centerpiece of the counterintelligence probe even though its information was unverified. The dossier was produced for Fusion GPS, a research firm run by former journalists, and was paid for by funds from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

freebeacon.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

I'm not so sure about that. I kind of think Obama wanted to know about the FBI's prep for the oversight committees.

Could be about Russia though.

Either way, I am not relying on unnamed associates of Strzok and Page.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I found this bit here....

www.hsgac.senate.gov...

Are they talking about Dina Powell?

"302" is the documentation of an interview. In this case likely one with Colin Powell or Hillary Clinton.

They are talking about Colin Powell. Thus the "leak article". He was part of the DNC hacks.

This is the "Leak Article" that they referred to. Same Date. About Powell and Clinton and Powell reportedly telling Clinton he used a personal email server.

Considering this was about to be an issue, it looks they were making sure the "302" with Clinton or Powell was fully filed and available.

from that article (Powell, Clinton, Same Date as texts)

The State Department has asked to review the notes from Mrs. Clinton’s session with the F.B.I.

Hillary Clinton Told F.B.I. Colin Powell Advised Her to Use Private Email
By AMY CHOZICKAUG. 18, 2016

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Could be I suppose, although I doubt the FBI interviewed Powell.

We already know what he thought of her and Bill.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Of course he wants to know everything about a Foreign Power's Campaign to interfere in Our Elections?

Technically, first, I believe such a matter would actually be handled by the Central Intelligence Agency. We are talking about a federal investigative agency which investigates domestic matters -- citizens. We're not talking about a broad investigation of a foreign power interfering generally in domestic matters (such as an election). We are talking about a specific investigation into a specific citizen and that person's activities. A matter which the president -- all presidents -- have refrained from being involved with. And which Obama also specifically said he would not involve himself.

This is not a problem for ANYONE, legally, morally or otherwise.

That's not your call. I am saying loud and clear -- and loud and proud -- that it is a problem for me. And I have stated why. You can be like my teenage kids and keep arguing with me, and I'll tell you exactly what I told them: You don't have to like my reasons, but they are still my reasons.

It is actually his responsibility as President.

No. It is not. Show me that in his job classification specs.

However, thank you for agreeing with the basic premise of the OP: Despite Obama's pie crust promises and false assurances to the contrary, he did in fact want to know EVERYTHING... and probably did. At this point, the only difference is that you think that's okay... and it's a huge problem for me and others.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Citing facts like Dates or The actual Title of reports your OP relies on is not "Tricky".

I assumed you had actually looked at the report your OP cites? All I did was share the TITLE of that report.

I did not cite the report; I cited the article. And since I did not cite the report, only the article, and since I have mentioned earlier in the thread that I had not been able to download and read it myself yet, you had absolutely no reason to assume that I had looked at the report. In fact, you had every opportunity to know that I had not read the actual report. Even assuming such, simply for clarity's sake, knowing that you were thinking and referring to multiple documents, it was your responsibility to be specific -- not assume that it is clear.

It seems to me that you sure make a lot of assumptions and then pretend like they must be true. First the topic, and now me.

Me citing the dates of the texts, dates of HRC Email investigation or the Title of The report your OP is premised on ....is not spin?

Not "Sneaky"...not "spin"...simple facts that exist like Time.

Those two sentences actually contradict each other.... shall I assume I know what you mean?

The Senator can characterize it any damn way he chooses. So can you. So can I. And as I have already noted, these texts -- no matter the date, no matter the subject -- tell us very clearly and explicitly that Obama was a lying liar when he promised and assured us that he would not be involved in any DOJ/FBI investigation. If he lied about one, then I have every reason to think he lied about the Clinton email investigation. Period.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Good eye! That "B)" especially -- there was obviously an "A" preceding it... and have no idea what followed.

I would assume that if called on it, we would be told those were their intimate messages and didn't involve the investigation so they were withheld.

But it's good to know. I still haven't had a chance to go through them.

a reply to: pavil

This will be the hardest stuff to find out. I'm sure he insulated himself appropriately.

Yes. As someone pointed out earlier, without something specifically from Obama, it's anyone's word against his. And I doubt he put anything in writing.

On the other hand, Comey is notorious for taking copious notes of all his meetings. Presuming for now that includes any and all meetings with Obama, it's possible Comey recorded Obama's request in his notes.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And they were talking about someone's 302s, in that example...one of my favorite FBI topics.

As an aside, I noted in another article last night that the FBI failed to write up 302s for many of their interviews/meetings with Steele, so their FISA warrant applications did not include the appropriate 302s.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: soberbacchus

Could be I suppose, although I doubt the FBI interviewed Powell.

They interviewed him because he transitioned HRC to Sec of State.
They wanted to know what he told her about email systems, what he used, etc.
I don't have the energy now to hunt for reporting, but am 85% sure they interviewed him.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: soberbacchus

Of course he wants to know everything about a Foreign Power's Campaign to interfere in Our Elections?

Technically, first, I believe such a matter would actually be handled by the Central Intelligence Agency.

FBI Counter-Espionage was assigned to the task. CIA/NSA informing the investigation.

We are talking about a federal investigative agency which investigates domestic matters -- citizens.

Our elections are about as domestic as it gets.

The rest of your post is ranty and illogical.

This may get even more interesting soon:

Lobbyist offers $25,000 reward for evidence of FBI wrongdoing

A Washington, D.C. lawyer and lobbyist is offering $25,000 to any credible whistleblower willing to come forward with evidence of FBI wrongdoing in investigations related to the 2016 presidential election.

Jack Burkman issued a statement Thursday announcing the reward. He has promised to keep the whistleblower’s identity anonymous.

“Enough is enough, let’s settle this,” Burkman said in a news release. “America is facing too many issues at home and abroad to be preoccupied with infighting. If an issue exits, it’s critical to our society to fix it immediately.”

This guy's name sounds familiar, but I can't place him right now...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Whatever. I'm obviously not real impressed with your posts either, so how about we call it a day, and go our separate ways?

Because I'm done with you.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I would assume that if called on it, we would be told those were their intimate messages and didn't involve the investigation so they were withheld.

Still not buying into any 'intimacy,' B. They were friends, as far as I can tell.

a reply to: Boadicea


That is a shame they would withhold those intimate messages. They are public property, and the full scope of their character is relevant to assessing their credibility.

For instance, the fact that extra-marital affairs require such a huge degree of deception, unethical and malicious behavior is hugely relevant. That fact alone shows that both Strozok and Page are liars with poor moral compasses who are not above malicious intentional wrong-doing.

That alone impeaches their credibility.

Yet another reason why the entire Russia narrative was denied/rejected by this nation.