Latest Strzok / Page text messages and emails from people involved - 500+ pages

500+ pages and that's not even close to all of them. Who texts that much? I mean seriously, why not call them and talk or just meet in person? Oh, that wouldn't have given the public anything juicy to read through for days on end. Very convenient for the narrative being pushed.

500+ pages. Lol, you guys are such suckers.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for the info...

Of course it's a big deal! How could he/why would he draft a "she's innocent and there's no wrongdoing" statement before he'd finished his investigation???

Unless he had no intention of coming to any other conclusion from the get-go?

I'd like to hear an official explanation for this (and it'd need to be a damn good one) because, at face value, that looks incredibly shady.

a reply to: Gin

Who’s “D” and why would he need to contact a US Attorney

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
MYE = Hillary Email Scandal, I assume. But cannot piece together what it stands for.

Mid-Year Exam

I'm not positive but I believe it refers to a mid-year examination of the FBI investigation...

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for the info...

Of course it's a big deal! How could he/why would he draft a "she's innocent and there's no wrongdoing" statement before he'd finished his investigation???

Unless he had no intention of coming to any other conclusion from the get-go?

I'd like to hear an official explanation for this (and it'd need to be a damn good one) because, at face value, that looks incredibly shady.

It was circulated for review and input under the premise it was a 'strawman' exercise to see what such a. statement *might* look like.

Since it was clearly the first draft of his final statement, that's a load of sh*t.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
MYE = Hillary Email Scandal, I assume. But cannot piece together what it stands for.

Mid-Year Exam

I'm not positive but I believe it refers to a mid-year examination of the FBI investigation...

Makes sense.

Another crazy thing about these emails/texts is the extent to which they trade NYT and WaPo articles between each other, fuelling each other's biases with the anti-Trump echo chamber.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Hi,

Can you be a bit more specific about what you're implying with that post?

I get the impression from your post that you are of the opinion that all those texts are fabricated? If so, why have the invloved parties not issued a statement to that effect?

What Is the motivation for fabricating hundreds of text messages?

Thanks

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dammit I need to work out how to reply to multiple people. Apologies if I appear to be spamming the thread, that's not my intention.

So, how much does the "strawman exercise" draft resemble the final statement?

a reply to: Indrasweb

Hundreds? Try thousands upon thousands of texts, hundreds per day between the two, that doesn't seem a bit odd to you guys? People that are continuously together spending days at a time TEXTING each other?

Why not issue a statement? When you sign a contract you are expected to honor it. Convenient that the FBI and other agencies are putting public opinion at the forefront of the investigation by so readily making every bit of evidence available to them.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dammit I need to work out how to reply to multiple people. Apologies if I appear to be spamming the thread, that's not my intention.

So, how much does the "strawman exercise" draft resemble the final statement?

I encourage you to read it yourself, but it appears THIS was in the first (strawman) draft (May 2, 2016):



Two months before Comey made his public statement and two months before Hillary was interviewed by the FBI.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It absolutely does seem odd, I agree.

Though as to why it was happening and why it is odd.... that's less apparent...

I've never actively colluded to try and overthrow a government or stitch up a president (or whatever the hell was going on, who knows) so I'm not really sure how much text messaging might be involved in such an endeavour... perhaps thousands is exactly what it would take? I have no idea.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you think is going on though, I wasn't being antagonistic when I asked that.

I haven't personally drawn any conclusions about any of this yet. There's a LOT of interesting info flying around, circumstantial evidence, half statements and out of context tidbits, lots of he said she said. But what I HAVEN'T seen yet is solid proof of ANYTHING, from ANY side.

So, yeah, I'm open to all points of view

I just thought I was a pissed off American when Comey delivered his exoneration speech of Hillary's email server, but to see how they exactly conspired & colluded to let her off the hook for such a monumental breech has me ready for our next town hall meeting with my representatives.

I WILL be making a lot of noise.

In the past we've seen the elite lawbreakers skate. This time might be different; We have an outsider President who probably won't help cover it all up.

a reply to: avgguy

I think the "D" stands for Director of the FBI, James Comey. Saw them use DD that referred to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe so, makes sense.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ahh ok and here we see where he originally stated "gross negligence" and he was advised to change it to "extremely careless"

It looks less like a "what if" exercise than it does a proof reading exercise i.e. the conclusion was already drawn but it was a matter of how to word it as opposed to "if this was the finding then how might we draft a statement", if that makes sense?

a reply to: Indrasweb

Yes, that's how I see it, too.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Its beyond credulity.

How many of you, while at work, spend your busy days completing various "what if" drafts of your work?

I mean, i may do a "what if" if i am analyzing financial viability, or laying out a budget. Its how you make decisions. But to create several drafts of a memo to account for multiple possibilities....is an utter waste of time.

The only way I'd buy that nonsense is if they produce the "what if" memo for if they were going to indict.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's an excellent point.

Surely if it was a "strawman exercise" then there ought to be a draft covering the possibility of findings of wrongdoing.

If there is not then we're back to where we started; why are you only "what iffing" about finding no wrongdoing before you've finished the investigation...

originally posted by: Gin
a reply to: avgguy

I think the "D" stands for Director of the FBI, James Comey. Saw them use DD that referred to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe so, makes sense.

You are correct.

a reply to: Gin

Thanks, odd that they recommend that

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The only way I'd buy that nonsense is if they produce the "what if" memo for if they were going to indict.

Good point.