FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Pure speculation but surely he has some proof of his innocence or has some major bombshell proof.

What's he charged with?

Let the evidence be presented to a Grand Jury and see what they say. I do know how those work and don't need spin to change my mind. Nor does it matter if you or I know exactly what goes on inside a GJ, other than data being shared and a decision of if there is enough evidence is the jest of the matter.

Lunacy, sedition it doesn't matter what I say. What facts and data to support them are there? That is all that matters.

a reply to: Justoneman

So. No charges of committing a crime? Then what reason to want to "prove his innocence?"

It sounds more like he wants to testify than he is being compelled to. Trump used to want to do that. At least, he used to say that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

So. No charges? Then what reason to want to "prove his innocence?"

It sounds more like he wants to testify than he is being compelled to.

GJ makes the call on charges. Evidence is matched up to laws to compare for evidence worthy of any charge. There is suspicion of several charges that deserve a fair investigation. You can figure that out despite my not enumerating any.

I'm interested to see if this is open or closed testimony.

I'm betting Mr. Strzok can serve some T ... on a LOT.

a reply to: Justoneman

Did the IJ make any recommendations yet? He did for McCabe.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Did the IJ make any recommendations yet? He did for McCabe.

Some posters here said so I recall on these threads but that is not my area of focus. It appears there is enough for evidence to be presented to a GJ to decide if charges are called in this matter.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm interested to see if this is open or closed testimony.

I'm betting Mr. Strzok can serve some T ... on a LOT.

I would join you in your bet.

So ... if Democrats AND Republicans prove to be dirty, through all these indictments and whatnot ... then ...

who do we trust?



OH, that's right.

Nobody in government, the media, the military-industrial corporate complex, etc.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Actually, I'd love to see Huber go after Clinton for Uranium One, the email server, all of it.

Ummm...Holy Eff...the mandela effect is...real...cause this must be the statement from an alternative timeline Gryphon...

Eh Gryph...?

Fess up my alternate reality friend...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

LOL ... I do often feel like a stranger in a strange land.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Did the IJ make any recommendations yet? He did for McCabe.

Possibly.
We don't know what was in the Appendixes. They were marked "Classified" and "Law Enforcement Sensitive".
That sounds like sections where criminal charges would be discussed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen


Strzok, along with 28 other lower level FBI agents are ready to spill the beans on Comey, McCabe, Lynch and Obama.

Source?

I wondered about that "28 FBI agents willing to testify" too, since I've heard it brought up somewhere this weekend.

A brief search found Daily Caller as the first hit, quoting Sean Hannity.

So no actual realistic source I can find....

~shrug~

a reply to: BlueAjah

That sounds like sections where criminal charges would be discussed.

Appendixes are generally where sources and things are detailed.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I would bet this guy is just going to spew garbage, no matter what he says. He will make up stuff to try to cover his butt. He will make it up about Trump or about others in the FBI....I do not know how pissed he is at Trump, nor do I know how pissed he is at those in the FBI that threw him under the bus. It doesn't matter what he says, I am not going to believe him unless he supplies some hard proof. I will not even accept him turning in a Democrat that was running this crap he was doing.

You never know... Maybe he knows just how deep the rabbit hole goes :-) Maybe it's not about Trump. Let the canary sing. I don't think they'll let him testify, I bet he has dirt on everybody and if Hillary doesn't have him ended, somebody in the GOP will. The Dem and Rep handlers are the same people, all of them work for the same boss. It doesn't matter if you call it international bankers, the imf, bilderburgers, Rothchild's, the deep state, the intelligence community or the Illuminati, it's all the same bunch of corrupt scumbags that use politicians and people like pawns in a sick game of distraction and division. A few people can't control billions of people, unless they get them fighting amongst themselves in a constant battle for table scraps.

We are just observers and what we are observing, is Hell.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Phage

Appendixes are generally where sources and things are detailed.

The one marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive"--if you caught that--could be just sourcing but I doubt it. Grand Jury evidentiary material is left out of these reports so as not to taint evidence. With all the various problems found it would be more surprising if there isn't a grand jury or two empaneled

a reply to: The GUT

The one marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive"--if you caught that--could be just sourcing but I doubt it.

I said "sources and things."

a reply to: Phage

Nope,

Page 35 of the IG report:

We also include a non-public classified appendix, which discusses highly classified information relevant to the Midyear investigation (Appendix One), and a non-public Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) appendix containing the complete, unmodified version of Chapter Thirteen (Appendix Two).

We are providing copies of our unclassified report and the classified appendix to Congress, and are publicly releasing our report without these appendices. We also are providing copies of our unclassified report to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for its consideration.

Appendix One is referenced in many places throughout the report. It includes information that could not be made public. There are references to further information including allegations of partisan bias or attempts to impede the Midyear
investigation by Lynch. It also includes discussion of information that was available to the FBI, but that they never sought access to include in their investigation.

Appendix Two is the complete version of Chapter 13: CHAPTER THIRTEEN: WHETHER FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED FROM CERTAIN MATTERS.

There is quite a bit in Chapter 13 about the Clinton investigations, etc. So, we still don't know the whole report.

Also in the classified section:

Our review also included the examination of highly classified information. We were given broad access to relevant materials by the Department and the FBI, including the sensitive compartmented information (SCI) discussed in the classified appendix to this report and emails and instant messages from both the FBI’s Top Secret SCINet system and Secret FBINet system.

Page 33

a reply to: BlueAjah

There are references to further information including allegations of partisan bias or attempts to impede the Midyear
investigation by Lynch.

Not in the quote you provided. But the Appendix would contain details about that. Details considered sensitive.



Why would recommendations for criminal investigation be classified? The IG came right out and said McCabe needs to be investigated.

It's entirely possible the IG will make a recommendation at some point. Just hasn't done so, yet. As I said. So as it stands, there are no charges and the subject is volunteering to testify before Congress.

here's the problem in organized crime

A you can't trust anyone and B when one person sings THEY ALL DO

a reply to: Phage

Comey cited other factors to us that he said caused him to be concerned by early May 2016 that Lynch could not credibly participate in announcing a declination: ... Concerns that certain classified information mentioning Lynch would leak, which we describe in Chapter Six and in the classified appendix.

Page 5

FBI had obtained highly classified information in March 2016 that included allegations of partisan bias or attempts to impede the Midyear investigation by Lynch ... As we describe in more detail in the classified appendix, Yates and Axelrod told us that the FBI mentioned this information to them sometime in the Spring of 2016 and provided a defensive briefing on it on July 12, 2016.

After being shown the documents in her OIG interview, Yates expressed frustration and said that, had she been informed that the FBI had concerns about the information, she would have engaged Comey in discussions about the impact on the Midyear investigation.

Page 201

Lots more on those pages, especially around 200 and the next few pages.