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

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

I'm not pushing any narrative; I'm quoting from the IG report.

You haven't debunked anything and you know it. I haven't made any claims that "the FBI" has been cleared of anything, as the FBI isn't charged with anything.

The thread shows the facts, and the desperate efforts of posts like yours to obfuscate and mislead.

Do you have any evidnece that demonstrates that the FBI (not merely Strzok and Page) acted against Trump?

Show it. Proving your case is simple; you have to provide some evidence.

Unless you do so, I won't be responding to any more of your post's dishonest droning on and on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Our review of Strzok’s text messages revealed that McCabe discussed the Weiner laptop with Strzok and Priestap on September 28.

Page 308

We asked Strzok why he created this timeline on November 3, which was days after Comey sent his letter to Congress informing it that the FBI had discovered additional emails.

Page 330

We also asked Strzok about the October 19 entry and why he wrote that it was approximately October 19 when NYO had completed “carving” the laptop.170 As noted in Section 9.IV above, processing of the Weiner laptop was, in fact, completed by NYO around October 4 and the Sensitive But Unclassified attachment was observed by NYO around the same time.

We asked Strzok to respond to the accusation that this inaction on the Weiner laptop was a politically motivated attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the election.

Page 331

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

I'm not pushing any narrative; I'm quoting from the IG report.

You haven't debunked anything and you know it. I haven't made any claims that "the FBI" has been cleared of anything, as the FBI isn't charged with anything.

The thread shows the facts, and the desperate efforts of posts like yours to obfuscate and mislead.

Do you have any evidnece that demonstrates that the FBI (not merely Strzok and Page) acted against Trump?

Show it. Proving your case is simple; you have to provide some evidence.

Unless you do so, I won't be responding to any more of your post's dishonest droning on and on.

You can be upset all you like that your propaganda has been called out.
My point is simple.
The IG report does not clear the FBI of acting in a politically biased manner. Period.
The report itself is clear evidence of such and can be read by anyone.
The pertinent sections that debunk the narrative you tried to push - in lock step with CNN I might add - have been posted.
To be clear your responses are neither required nor desired. This is just about calling out your clear propaganda.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Indeed. I saw that section and Strzok felt it necessary for his legal team to respond to it. Even in the Clinton investigation, the report does not clear Strzok of acting on bias.

a reply to: UKTruth

You haven't called anything out.

You've made the usual empty accusations, and I've quoted from the IG report and proven you wrong.

The pertinent sectons of the report do not say what you claim; your obfuscation is more than obvious.

Peter Strzok's apparent bias and possible willingness to act against Trump are not the issue.

Actual actions are; please show those to us and stop focusing on me.

K? Thx.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: BlueAjah

indeed. I saw that section and Strzok felt it necessary for his legal team to respond to it. Even in the Clinton investigation, the report does not clear Strzok of acting on bias.

The report does demonstrate that Strzok's bias did not affect any investigation.

Why are you misrepresenting something so obvious???

And why desperately try to drag another member in ... can't you make your own arguments?

WHAT ACTIONS DID STRZOK TAKE? Show us!!!

a reply to: BlueAjah

And what was the answers to these questions? Just because someone asks a suggestive question proves nothing.
When did you stop beating your wife kind of thing.
Their answers are what is important. Where is that part in your quoted portion?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

And what was the answers to these questions? Just because someone asks a suggestive question proves nothing.
When did you stop beating your wife kind of thing.
Their answers are what is important. Where is that part in your quoted portion?

Did it get quiet in here, or is it just me?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You haven't called anything out.

You've made the usual empty accusations, and I've quoted from the IG report and proven you wrong.

The pertinent sectons of the report do not say what you claim; your obfuscation is more than obvious.

Peter Strzok's apparent bias and possible willingness to act against Trump are not the issue.

Actual actions are; please show those to us and stop focusing on me.

K? Thx.

Your funny did you know this report was not on the Trump investigation? This report only had one purpose to see if the FBI handled the clinton investigation appropriately. Looks like they didnt and it looks like that may have affected the election.

As for Trump he came out a winner as well he was saying the FBI was bias in his investigation. Well the bias was so bad it was mentioned in a report that shouldnt even been talking about Trump. Imagine what the IG report on the Trump investigation will say about how the FBI handled that. And this report took away any possibility of an obstruction of justice charge. Comey was incompetent and deserved to be fired.

Now several people here are being dishonest claiming this says bias didn't effect the russia investigation. This report shows there was bias but that bias didnt change the outcome of the Clinton investigation. Id argue it did just not on the way comey intended. He attempted to provide cover for Hillary but was so stupid he hurt her campaign.

Now IG report 2.0 will come out and we will see if thr FBI acted inappropriately on the russia investigation. If it is shown they did Yrump will win thr biggeat political win of the century. That would give him enough fire power to end mueller investigation and the public would back the move. If it says they acted appropriately the mueller investigation will continue into his second term lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm glad you think I'm funny.

I've stated several times that the OIG report we're talking about regards the Clinton Email Server investigation.

The findings in the report do not address negative effects on the 2016 election. If they do, please cite those.

The anti-Trump bias referred to was on the part of two agents, and there is no evidence that they took any actions based on their biases. One is now in the HR department, the other has left the FBI.

No, there's nothing in the report that counters President Trump's claim that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. IF that proves to be true, Trump will be charged with obstruction (possibly among other things.)

That however is not addressed in this report we are discussing.

Do you have any evidence that the bias on the part of Strzok and Page biased "the Russia investigation"?

There's certainly no evidence of that in the IG report.

I can't address what you believe about future reports on the basis of this one. Time will tell.

originally posted by: dragonridr
...Id argue it did just not on the way comey intended. He attempted to provide cover for Hillary but was so stupid he hurt her campaign.

Could you explain to us the reasons why you think Comey inteded to provide cover for Clinton? He was a Republican, and as a US Attorney he had pursued the Clintons in the past.

He came out and stated that Clinton was grossly incompetent and unfit.

How can you possibly see that as some kind of "cover"?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

And what was the answers to these questions? Just because someone asks a suggestive question proves nothing.
When did you stop beating your wife kind of thing.
Their answers are what is important. Where is that part in your quoted portion?

In the report, the question was answered by Strzok. Of course he is not going to say, "yes, I delayed the investigation because I wanted Hillary to win the election".

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

And what was the answers to these questions? Just because someone asks a suggestive question proves nothing.
When did you stop beating your wife kind of thing.
Their answers are what is important. Where is that part in your quoted portion?

In the report, the question was answered by Strzok. Of course he is not going to say, "yes, I delayed the investigation because I wanted Hillary to win the election".

His political beliefs as expressed on government equipment were dealt with and will be dealt with according to FBI procedure ... did you catch Director Wray's press briefing?

Did you find any reference to actions by Strzok that harmed any investigation yet?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you find any reference to actions by Strzok that harmed any investigation yet?

If they do find anything he has no recourse since he admitted his intent.

Perhaps it was an empty comment but the totality of the conversation does not really leed a reader in the direction of it being just talk.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is why Comey did not want to prosecute Hillary:

We believe that
Comey’s unequal assessment of these risks was the product of his belief that
Clinton was going to win the election. Comey told us, “I am sure I was influenced
by the tacit assumption that Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President.” This
expectation likely led him to focus too heavily on what he perceived to be the
consequences of not revealing the new information, namely undermining the
legitimacy of Clinton’s presidency and harming the reputation of the FBI.

page 403

Instead, we found that his decision was the result of several interrelated factors that were connected to his concern that failing to send the letter would harm the FBI and his ability to lead it, and his view that candidate Clinton was going to win the presidency and that she would be perceived to be an illegitimate president if the public first learned of the information after the election.

Page 400

Comey only cares about self-preservation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Strzok was dealt with after the harm was done. He already corrupted the Clinton investigation, the Flynn case, and the Russia investigation.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Actually, the phrase was used in personal communications he was having with his girlfriend ... with whom he was having an affairr...

a reply to: BlueAjah

Comey was put in an impossible situation. The only decision he could have made that might have had different results was to follow DOJ and FBI policy to the letter. Instead, he decided to act on his own.

Of note, the IG report says clearly of Comey that he used poor judgement, but did nothing wrong.

The IG report also states, quite clearly, that the outcome of the Midyear/Clinton investigation was agreed to by the investigators involved, and further upon review, the IG concluded that the decision not to indict Clinton was in keeping with polcies of the FBI and the results of the investigation.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

Strzok was dealt with after the harm was done. He already corrupted the Clinton investigation, the Flynn case, and the Russia investigation.

Again, what harm did Strzok do as noted in the IG report?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Clinton investigation (as noted in the IG report)?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Flynn case?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Russia investigatoin?

You keep talking about these things he did ... tell us what those things are!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

Strzok was dealt with after the harm was done. He already corrupted the Clinton investigation, the Flynn case, and the Russia investigation.

Again, what harm did Strzok do as noted in the IG report?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Clinton investigation (as noted in the IG report)?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Flynn case?

What actions did he take to corrupt the Russia investigatoin?

You keep talking about these things he did ... tell us what those things are!

Why are you asking questions about specific actions relating to the Russian investigation when the report deals with the Clinton investigation???
All the report does in regard to the Russia investigation, for now, is debunk your narrative that the FBI have been cleared of allowing bias to drive their actions.
Is that why you've now abandoned that narrative and moved on to a straw man argument?

The report on the handling of the Russian investigation will provide further detail.