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.

 

FBI agent Strzok reportedly texted 'we'll stop' Trump from becoming president

page: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Well done, much closer to the mark.

I'm curious though, why didn't you post the following statements that come right after your bolded?



We searched for evidence that the Weiner laptop was deliberately placed on the back-burner by others in the FBI to protect Clinton, but found no evidence in emails, text messages, instant messages, or documents that suggested an improper purpose. We also took note of the fact that numerous other FBI executives—including the approximately 39 who participated in the September 28 SVTC—were briefed on the potential existence of Midyear-related emails on the Weiner laptop.


So, prioritizing the Russia investigation over the lead about Clinton's emails from the Weiner laptop may not have been free from bias by Strzok?

Fair enough. How did that possible LACK OF ACTION aon Strzok's part affect the election of Donald Trump?

Isn't that your argument? That Trump was harmed? That the whole Mueller Investigation is somehow compromised??

Show us!




posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I notice your posts still paraphrase when it is convenient.

There is no statement in the IG report that "the FBI showed a willingness to let bias dictate their actions to stop Trump."

That is false, utterly false, and you know it.

Quote this statement from the report if you can, can you?



Yes there is.
The fact you don't know that shows you have not even read it and are only interesting in lying to push a false narrative.


You're just repeating the same nonsense; I quoted from the IG report.

What are you citing from? Oh yes, your own agenda.




posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

Page 95

Prosecutor 4 told the OIG that Obama’s statement was the genesis of the FBI’s suspicions that the Department’s leadership was politically biased. This prosecutor stated, “I know that the FBI considered those [statements] inappropriate. And that it...[generated] a suspicion that there was a political bias...going on from the Executive Branch.”


So the FBI (which you're trying to argue is the biased actor) was concerned that Obama was biased? Your statement proves that the FBI was working to AVOID political bias.

Are you trying to implicate the FBI or Obama in ... something? What?


edit on 16-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I notice your posts still paraphrase when it is convenient.

There is no statement in the IG report that "the FBI showed a willingness to let bias dictate their actions to stop Trump."

That is false, utterly false, and you know it.

Quote this statement from the report if you can, can you?



Yes there is.
The fact you don't know that shows you have not even read it and are only interesting in lying to push a false narrative.


You're just repeating the same nonsense; I quoted from the IG report.

What are you citing from? Oh yes, your own agenda.



See above.
Thanks blueajah for the texts.

By the way. Even for the Clinton investigation the report does not rule out bias.

You can keep pushing the same propaganda that the likes of CNN are all you want. Those that have read the report know you are lying. But I guess informedpeople are not the audience for your propaganda.


edit on 16/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I notice your posts still paraphrase when it is convenient.

There is no statement in the IG report that "the FBI showed a willingness to let bias dictate their actions to stop Trump."

That is false, utterly false, and you know it.

Quote this statement from the report if you can, can you?



Yes there is.
The fact you don't know that shows you have not even read it and are only interesting in lying to push a false narrative.


You're just repeating the same nonsense; I quoted from the IG report.

What are you citing from? Oh yes, your own agenda.



See above.
Thanks blueajah for the texts.




See above responses to Blueajah.

Don't try to squirm out of it. You made serious accusations against me.

Can you back them up? Or not?

Please, do your own work and quote from the IG report. Blueajah's quotes do not support your position as I have demonstrated.

C'mon UK....



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That section is about "others in the FBI". Not Strzok.

And it was specifically about the delay of investigating emails on Weiner's laptop.
If Strzok was the one sitting on the information, the others would not have had a chance to investigate.


edit on 6/16/18 by BlueAjah because: eta



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

With regard to the number of attendees, Page sent the following text message in support of fewer agents and prosecutors attending Clinton’s interview: “[S]he might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”
...
Nevertheless, we found that Page’s statement, on its face, consisted of a
recommendation that the Midyear team consider how Clinton would treat the FBI if
she were to become President in deciding how to handle Clinton’s interview.
Suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was
inappropriate and created an appearance of bias.
...
We also were concerned that Agent 1 was one of the two agents who
questioned Clinton during the interview given certain instant messages that we
identified from Agent 1, including some that expressed support for Clinton and
hostility toward Trump.


Page 160-161
edit on 6/16/18 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

That section is about "others in the FBI". Not Strzok.


Yes, which proves that Strzok took no actions to compromise any investigations as he was surrounded by "others in the FBI" and lacked the opportunity to do so even if he had the motive.

Plenty of watchdogs in the FBI!

Well done, you've just proven my point!



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I notice your posts still paraphrase when it is convenient.

There is no statement in the IG report that "the FBI showed a willingness to let bias dictate their actions to stop Trump."

That is false, utterly false, and you know it.

Quote this statement from the report if you can, can you?



Yes there is.
The fact you don't know that shows you have not even read it and are only interesting in lying to push a false narrative.


You're just repeating the same nonsense; I quoted from the IG report.

What are you citing from? Oh yes, your own agenda.



See above.
Thanks blueajah for the texts.




See above responses to Blueajah.

Don't try to squirm out of it. You made serious accusations against me.

Can you back them up? Or not?

Please, do your own work and quote from the IG report. Blueajah's quotes do not support your position as I have demonstrated.

C'mon UK....


The section in the report highlighting the FBIs willingness to take official action based on bias against Trump had been highlighted for you. You can't wriggle out of your lies now.

As for my own work, not necessary. The IG report makes it clear. You may need to read it.
YOUR work seems to be trying to mask what the report says. You are wilfully lying. Please just stop with the nonsense.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Ms. Page was concerned about Clinton's attitude toward the FBI if she became President?

Seems reasonable.

Are you finding any actions taken, by anyone in the FBI, that helped Clinton and/or harmed Trump in the IG report?

That's the issue.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no proof that his bias did NOT affect his decisions. As Lead Analyst, he had access to evidence and could have used this position to influence information supplied to others.

The IG report hits hard on Strzok, Page and others for their bias. Just because they could not find documented evidence that their bias has not affected results is not proof.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You are grossly generalizing again and you bloody well know it.

The only concern, based on all quotes, is that Strzok's actions exhibited a "willingness" ... not that he or Page or anyone else took any negative actions.

I keep asking you to quote from the IG report, but you can't and don't. There's a reason for that; you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Stop with the personal garbage and stick with the facts and use some logic.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You really think that was reasonable?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

That section is about "others in the FBI". Not Strzok.


Yes, which proves that Strzok took no actions to compromise any investigations as he was surrounded by "others in the FBI" and lacked the opportunity to do so even if he had the motive.

Plenty of watchdogs in the FBI!

Well done, you've just proven my point!


Wrong again.
The willingness to take official action against Trump based on bias is directly related to Strzoks texts. Even in the Clinton investigation bias could not be ruled out by the IG report when it considered Strzok.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no proof that his bias did NOT affect his decisions. As Lead Analyst, he had access to evidence and could have used this position to influence information supplied to others.

The IG report hits hard on Strzok, Page and others for their bias. Just because they could not find documented evidence that their bias has not affected results is not proof.



There is no proof that his bias did not affect his decisions? Are you now suggesting that we should be able to read the minds of FBI agents?

That's absurd. You are merely trying to muddy the waters. There is ZERO evidence after more than a year's investigation Strzok compromised anything.

Really? Who besides Strzok and Page were biased? What actions did any of these folks take to compromise this investigaton?

The answer is: none.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

That section is about "others in the FBI". Not Strzok.


Yes, which proves that Strzok took no actions to compromise any investigations as he was surrounded by "others in the FBI" and lacked the opportunity to do so even if he had the motive.

Plenty of watchdogs in the FBI!

Well done, you've just proven my point!


That quote was specifically regarding the emails found on the Weiner laptop. There was a detailed section in the report where the IG slammed the cover-up and delay of that part of the investigation. Strzok was a principle person involved in attempting to push that under the rug.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Did Strzok take any actions against Trump? You tried to argue that this was about the Clinton email and not about Trump, are you now reversing that position?

Again, list these alleged actions you're referring to by Strzok.

What are the actions produced by his "willingness"?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

You really think that was reasonable?


Do I think it reasonable that Hillary Clinton might hold grudges?

Absolutely.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

There was no cover-up. There was no delay. If you have evidence of that from the IG report, show it; you haven't so far.

Ajah, you're interpreting the report now. Can you show me where Strzok is cited for any actions he took?

Not "willingness" not "bias" but actions that he took?

Your citations have shown that Strzok was working within the framework of 30 or more FBI agents on this. There is frankly no way he could "cover it up."

But please, feel free to show us your evidence.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Did Strzok take any actions against Trump? You tried to argue that this was about the Clinton email and not about Trump, are you now reversing that position?

Again, list these alleged actions you're referring to by Strzok.

What are the actions produced by his "willingness"?



The narrative you tried to push that the FBI have been cleared of taking action based on bias has been debunked.
The thread now adequately shows that.

edit on 16/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join