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.
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.
Our review of Strzok’s text messages revealed that McCabe discussed the Weiner laptop with Strzok and Priestap on September 28.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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".
Did you find any reference to actions by Strzok that harmed any investigation yet?
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.
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.
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.
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!