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 Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't need to argue anymore.

Truth is already upon is.

Those who have eyes can see it.

Nothing I can do you for you or Silly anymore. You two are waaay gone at this point.

It's sad.


LOL ... fine, don't argue anymore.

The facts are the facts ... it doesn't require any special understanding.

You just can't stay away from the ad hom can you? Shows how weak your argument is.

Best.




posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

God, don't we all hope this wraps up soon.

Even if Mueller does wrap up in the next year or so though ... it won't make any difference.

Congress is going to continue to abuse their investigative powers. If the Democrats do, by some slipping on a bannana peel kind of dumb luck, manage to take back the Senate or the House, you can bet that they're going to continue that trend.

The implied power of Congress to investigate is based on knowledge gathering for possible legislation and oversight of the Exectuive Branch (mostly due to funding).

Congress does not have the right to use its inveestigative powers as a political tool; that is what we are seeing.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're saying that "we're not gonna like the results" ever since the first investigation was announced.

And guess what:

WE ARE LOVING IT!

Fail again.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're saying that "we're not gonna like the results" ever since the first investigation was announced.

And guess what:

WE ARE LOVING IT!

Fail again.


You seem obsessed with my posts ... why don't you quote what you're referring to?

If you want to try to make an actual argument about facts, that is ... if not, fair warning, you're boring me to death.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Good point. You can tell though, by the scale of the deflection, that this is huge.
You can even see it in this thread


Deflection from what, exactly?

Yes, some have adopted the Republican spin on the matter probably see attention to the facts as "deflection."

Here's the summary again:

IG Horowitz's investigation of the Midyear (Clinton Email) Investigation found nothing material compromised because of political bias. (I can provide the quote from the report if needed.)


No, he states that PROSECUTORS didn't seem comprimised by bias. Then again, he isn't the DOJ IG, so who knows. But he was very clear yesterday that he found alarming amounts of bias in the FBI. Which, as i mentioned already, would be all the bias needed to negate any need to stack the prosecutorial deck. A prosecutor will determine how to proceed based on the evidence presented to them.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Horowitz is not the Justice Department Inspector General? Are you sure?

I'd argue that you're taking the "alarming amounts of bias in the FBI" out of context. As I said, perhaps we should pull up the transcripts of what was actually said.

That said, there is political bias in the FBI as we have seen. The ironic thing here is that most FBI agents are Republican and many support Trump. You can do the math on that.

Are you really saying that anyone who has political beliefs/bias is unfit to work in law-enforcement?

Yes, the prosecutors proceed on the evidence, and what do we know about the Midyear investigation?

Mounds of evidence regarding the emails found on Clinton's devices were presented. Do you have any evidence of this evidence that was not presented? Or do you have any reasonable reference for that? If not, it's speculative.

Some folks can't accept that it is well known what Clinton did in the mishandling of classified materials. There's never been any mistake about that.

The fact that the prosecutorial team made their decision on was: can we prove gross negligence?

And they can't, just as they couldn't with Alberto Gonzales (and his case is reference in the IG report).

The focus on "intent" is really ludicrous, particularly as presented.

I like Trey Gowdy when he doesn't have his head up the GOP's nethers, but, he knows as well as any of us do that it's not enough to show "intent" that Clinton mishandled information, but that she intended to so FOR THE PURPOSE of exposing it to foreign actors.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think Mr. Horowitz sums it up nicely here:


Horowitz told lawmakers that as a result of the report's findings, the FBI found two additional FBI agents beyond Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as well as one attorney that exposed political bias during the investigation. While employees have a right to a political opinion, "their job is to check them at the door" Horowitz added.

"The one thing I thought we all understood, you're entitled to be and should be part of the public, government, democracy we live in, when you get in the office you leave your views outside when you walk in the door," the IG said.

Horowitz explained that the most troubling aspect of Strzok and Page's exchanges was the fact that they thought their messages were private when they weren't.

"They were using their FBI devices, sometimes at work, sometimes not at work, to speak about individuals that they were investigating. They weren't just speaking about a generic election," he said, adding that Page and Strzok had "tied their discussions to their investigate work and that's what's concerning."

"My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values of the department," Horowitz said of the largely anti-Trump and politically biased messages exchanged. Horowitz reiterated, however, that through the investigation, "we didn't find or see evidence prosecutors were impacted by that bias."

Horowitz said that Strzok "exhibited" some form of bias but that decisions made by others during the Clinton investigation "were not infected by that bias." As for fired FBI Director James Comey, Horowitz said that from the IG's report "we did not find any evidence Comey acted out of political bias."

"We did have concerns, however about how we thought what was a biased state of mind impacted his October decisions regarding the [Anthony] Weiner laptop. We could not say one way or the other but we couldn't rule it out," said Horowitz.


www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Indeed.

Particularly:


My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values of the department," Horowitz said of the largely anti-Trump and politically biased messages exchanged. Horowitz reiterated, however, that through the investigation, "we didn't find or see evidence prosecutors were impacted by that bias."



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct....prosecutors. Not investigators.

Amend a few 302's and the prosecutors have no need to be biased...the decision is made for them.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct....prosecutors. Not investigators.

Amend a few 302's and the prosecutors have no need to be biased...the decision is made for them.


... And the evidence of that from the IG report?



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct....prosecutors. Not investigators.

Amend a few 302's and the prosecutors have no need to be biased...the decision is made for them.


... And the evidence of that from the IG report?

Rep. Mark Meadows just accused them of changing the 302's, and the IG has confirmed he is investigating that exact subject, for both the Clinton e-mail and Mueller investigations.

Meadows also revealed the names of "Agent 1" and "Agent 5". They work for the FBI's general counsel. The FBI was lying when it claimed their names were redacted because they were counterintelligence agents.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Right, I understand McCabe altered 302s in the Flynn case?

Good I'm glad they're looking at all angles.

As to what Horwitz said in the report and before Congress there's no evidence that the INVESTIGATION was compromised by bias so that includes the work of the prosecutors AND investigators .

I'll post the appropriate references briefly.
edit on 20-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Evidence of what? Amending 302s? That was just an example of how a biased investigator could lead to a prosecutor that didn't have accurate/complete information.

Since the 302 issue seems to be a reasonable example to use, I chose to use it.

Point being (so it doesn't get missed here): Horowitze doesn't feel prosecutors were biased. Investigators, however, were.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What evidence???

Evidence of this alleged tampering/compromising/corrupting of the investigation that you seem to think happened.

So maniupated 302s were only a possible example?

Another "might have been"?

More "could be"?

Investigators were found to have bias.

Investigators have not been found to have acted on that bias.


You and others are trying hard to make the connection that ASSUMES that bias means illicit action.

Like Ms. Graham argued ... well it's obvious they hated Trump so they must have done SOMETHING.

Except no evidence of that SOMETHING that these investigators with bias actually DID that harmed the investigation.

Again, just to be clear ... do you have any evidence of something that was DONE that harmed the investigation or somehow got Clinton "off"?


edit on 20-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My evidence is that the IG claimed there was clear bias by the investigators.

Now, if anyone can elucidate what that means, great. But what I read of Horowitz statements:


(1:13:34) Horowitz: "We were not saying that for every single decision … there are hundreds of decisions being made."

(1:13:34) Horowitz: "We did not find no bias with regards to the October events." (Read that carefully.)

(02:25:30) Horowitz: "What we say here is not that there was no bias ... ." (Again, read that carefully.)

(1:18:56) Horowitz (referring to FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok focusing more attention and energy on Trump-Russia collusion and away from the Hillary Clinton email probe): "We were not convinced that was not a biased decision."

(3:00:09) Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.): "… your investigation found fault in an exchange of text messages that you identified that demonstrated some political bias. Is that right?" Horowitz: "Correct."

(3:02:12) Horowitz: "The one area where we were concerned about bias was in the October time period, and the weighing of Agent Strzok between focusing on the Russia investigation versus the Weiner laptop [Clinton emails] and our concern about his decision given the text messages."

(2:05:15) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) "What you’re telling us is you found bias … those who you found the bias among said, ‘Well, we didn’t let it bleed into our work performance' and you don’t have evidence to disprove that." Horowitz: "Correct."

(2:02:46) Horowitz: "When we got to October we had concerns that there may be bias impacting the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation … ."

(2:02:46) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): "You’re not saying you didn’t find bias … ." Horowitz: "… I think it’s clear … Strzok had, as we say here, a biased state of mind."


thehill.com...

Looks to me like he is saying that the agents bias caused them to investigate the Trump issue as a priority over the Hillary issue.

So...back to my prior point....if the investigator isn't bothering to investigate, how would the prosecutor follow through with prosecution?



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Is there a difference between having bias and acting on that bias?

Reading your same citation above ... if there were issues discovered with the investigation (procedural, inculpatory evidence found and hidden, etc.) wouldn't IG Horowitz have told us in his report?

He did not do that because no negative actions were found and they obviously combed through every single point of evidence, every decision, etc.

The only thing that comes CLOSE is Strzok's apparent decision to focus on the Russia investigation (his own efforts, presumably) over the Weiner laptop.

How did that affect the Clinton case in her favor in the election? It didn't.

How did that affect the Trump case against his favor in the election? It didn't.

Again, in sum, does the mere presence of bias mean compromising actions were taken?

No, it doesn't.

So I ask again: is there any evidence that any FBI agent with whatever biases tooki action to harm Trump or to help Clinton?
edit on 20-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Is there a difference between having bias and acting on that bias?

Reading your same citation above ... if there were issues discovered with the investigation (procedural, inculpatory evidence found and hidden, etc.) wouldn't IG Horowitz have told us in his report?


I do not know. But he seems to allude to the concern several times (i.e., prioritizing investigations, changing terminology to soft peddle investigative results). What I do know is that there is a classified section that we don't have access to, and that Wray was pretty clear that there were criminal investigations occuring related to the report.



He did not do that because no negative actions were found and they obviously combed through every single point of evidence, every decision, etc.


I like and respect you quite a bit, but you aren't Horowitz. Ill also point out that no negative actions isn't the same as a preponderance of positive actions.




The only thing that comes CLOSE is Strzok's apparent decision to focus on the Russia investigation (his own efforts, presumably) over the Weiner laptop.

How did that affect the Clinton case in her favor in the election? It didn't.

How did that affect the Trump case against his favor in the election? It didn't.

Again, in sum, does the mere presence of bias mean compromising actions were taken?

No, it doesn't.

So I ask again: is there any evidence that any FBI agent with whatever biases tooki action to harm Trump or to help Clinton?


I am unsure, as we only got the redacted report. But, again, what we did get to see was evidence that one candidate was given preferential treatment, and that there was a willingness to use the FBI to influence the election. I'd suppose that if the investigation continues, we will get more details.



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Any proof yet?



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The terminology of "gross negligence" was changed because the prosecutors AGREED they couldn't prove it.

Considering that Strzok has got to be one of the DUMBEST FBI agents ever, prioritizing his attention on Russia/Trump probably helped Trump, not Clinton.

Yes, there's a classified section the we don't have access to, i.e. no evidence about.

Yes, there's bias but no evidence of illicit action on the part of the investigators.

I like you too Texan, and I haven't claimed to be Horowitz ... c'mon.

This was a report on PROBLEMS with the Clinton Investigation.

Are you genuinely telling me that if PROBLEMS were found, Mr. Horowitz didn't point those out???

What I TRULY do not understand, unless one is motivated by political bias themselves, how anyone can repeatedly read in the IG Report and in the IG's testimony that there were no issues found with the investigation ... so that means that there still may be issues with the investigation.

That is, not to put too fine an edge on it, utterly irrational.
edit on 20-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
You should be the last person to request proof.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join