FBI Agent Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

a reply to: Gryphon66

That sounds great until you make a timeline (always, always make a timeline) and realize Comey's exhonoration letter was drafted before key witnesses were interviewed, before key evidence was obtained/requested (or not requested), and the EDVA prosecutors assigned to the investigation never received a formal long-form because of Comey's premature decision not to refer. Which is why the EDVA guys got a pass in the IG report. They never got key information on which to base a decision to prosecute. How can they make a determination (or by extension, an improper or biased decision) before the investigation is ever completed? Because the determination was made by Comey before the investigation went anywhere and was never formally referred for prosecution.

I read it as, "somebody took out the trash, on trash day". A non-event. I hope this P.O.S got his "office belongings" in a "box" off company, (tax payer) property. He was getting "paid" to enforce "law", not have an opinion... If one/he didn't have the moral collateral to uphold his outh. He should be grateful, he only got "escorted", out of the building.
The OP makes it sound like Strzok got fired from McDonald's.
This pos had not just power, but authority. Which should always be questioned. Add infidelity to "wife" in the "caricature" mix?... America will survive. Strzok's kind, are a dime a dozen. This ain't "news"! This is what should happen when you are a traitor to your outh and think you can work outside Constitutional "law". The law of "feelings" and "opinion", is not "the law of the land". This pos needed to get a,.."trip down the stairs"... He seems to be just getting fired. If I was him, I'd STFU and not make an issue of it.

a reply to: RadioRobert

So, your scenario offered previously was NOT ACCURATE then in regard to Strzok making the sole decision regarding "gross negligence."

Fair enough.

Yes, Mr. Gowdy made a great deal of hay about the timing of the DRAFT of Comey's memo. Gowdy's big deal is "how can you determine intent without talking to the subject???" in his ridiculous leading questions to Horowitz. He knows better than that crap. He knows he'd NEVER get away with it in an actual courtroom.

First of all, Comey's letter is ANYTHING but an exoneration. IN point of fact, the IG stated very clearly that the castigating tone of the letter was yet ANOTHER way in which Comey departed from DOJ/FBI protocol. There is simply no precedent for an investigation ending in the decision not to prosecute being revealed with the laundry list of incompetencies Comey laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton (which, in theory at least, I don't disagree with.)

The ridiculously funny thing is that you guys are trying to say all this HELPED Clinton somehow.

At any rate, the facts are clear. The prosecutors are the ones that made the decision not to persue. The IG's report notes this over and over and over (I only provided 3 examples out of dozens.)

That fact is why the Republicans are so pissed about the report, and so many ... er ... supporters are here trying any and all measures to misrepresent the IG report.

I loved the IG report.

It raises a lot of questions that needed to be raised.

Now all that remains is to get the answers to the questions, which should come out in time.


The more that comes out, the easier it be for a defense attorney to use "reasonable doubt" to their advantage in a jury trial.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know that the IG report says that Comey approached Justice in APRIL about how they wanted to present a declination. That's months before the July announcement, interviews with everyone, etc. I know he wrote a draft detailing why she was in violation of the statute (literally using the language of the statute) in May while also declining to prosecute. I know that Strzok modified language that reflected the statute 's, softening it, and further removed other references to the classified information being accessed, among other factual redactions, and that the IG report says Comey usurped the role of the AG and Justice by unilaterally deciding the case would not be acted on (which is the role of Justice, not the Bureau), and that it explicitly states the OIG's silence on the unsoudness of decisions made does not reflect an endorsement of their judgement, only the extent to which their propriety can be meted.

But hey, continue parsing words to ignore the gross misconduct in an investigation that came to a conclusion before it bothered to collect evidence or talk to key witnesses and apparently slow-rolled further investigation when new evidence came to light. Let's talk about literally anything else.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vinifalou

You should bathe more regularly.

Wow great point!! I see you once again bring great intelligence to the boards...

MODS what is up with these spam comments being allowed here?

Yup. That's my question too. Some posts containing insults and just one word. Others using just an emoji. All you need to do is scroll through her friends list and there's your answer.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Solid case, Counselor. 👍

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know that the IG report says that Comey approached Justice in APRIL about how they wanted to present a declination. That's months before the July announcement, interviews with everyone, etc. I know he wrote a draft detailing why she was in violation of the statute (literally using the language of the statute) in May while also declining to prosecute. I know that Strzok modified language that reflected the statute 's, softening it, and further removed other references to the classified information being accessed, among other factual redactions, and that the IG report says Comey usurped the role of the AG and Justice by unilaterally deciding the case would not be acted on (which is the role of Justice, not the Bureau), and that it explicitly states the OIG's silence on the unsoudness of decisions made does not reflect an endorsement of their judgement, only the extent to which their propriety can be meted.

But hey, continue parsing words to ignore the gross misconduct in an investigation that came to a conclusion before it bothered to collect evidence or talk to key witnesses and apparently slow-rolled further investigation when new evidence came to light. Let's talk about literally anything else.

Yeah those actions are also called obstruction of justice.

a reply to: RadioRobert

He knew he didn't have enough to charge her in April I can't figure why he took so long to get the word out.
Like he wanted to drag it out or something.
I have questions about his motives in everything involving this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It definitely did NOT help Clinton.
How could they come to that conclusion?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

It definitely did NOT help Clinton.
How could they come to that conclusion?

That's true "IF" winning the White House was the prize. It would seem to me that it wasn't, and that getting away with something (be it a crime, control of the DNC, or some unseen conclusion) may be the real prize and the White House was just a bonus.


That's just my opinion though.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

It definitely did NOT help Clinton.
How could they come to that conclusion?

They gave her a free pass after she committed gross negligence with classified information. People have been sent to prison for far less serious offences. That's a pretty big gift.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So what is up because he has not been fired.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I believe Wray coyly let slip that there were criminal investigations happening. Perhaps he's in that whole deal?

Still draw a check, we can't trust you in the building, but we need you to testify.

a reply to: bulwarkz

He was talking about Anthony Weiner. That was the crime against children. He was sexting a fifteen year old. That list was notes from a meeting. Doesn't make everything on it the same issue.
The Clinton e mail on his laptop was her connection. The crimes against children was Weiners connection.
Two separate cases. Two separate issues. Both involved the same laptop.

a reply to: GuidedKill

It is not debunked.
Much of it has been verified.
Deny deny deny
You'll see.

a reply to: Muninn

That's a lie.
I can link hundreds of posts with back up.
Not every comment I make needs to link to a news source you know. I do have my own opinions. Should I private message you with a list?
You can start with every thread I ever started here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Every one is complete with a source. oops there goes never up in smoke.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

He is still his "lawyer" and that title is quite questionable.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

So what is up because he has not been fired.

Oh have you finally joined reality and admitted he was escorted from his job???

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The thread where you didn't even know who Michael Cohen is?
You said...

a reply to: Sillyolme 




Do you not know who Michael Cohen is? 

A former Trump lawyer .just a guess.. but I don't know him as intimately as you do . Is he still Trumps lawyer

And Stormy Daniels is a prostitute.

Ok so I had it correct ...good guess eh 

 I am guessing that Stormy Daniels is a past hooker ...Is she still working her trade ?

And the I've never been debunked comment was tongue in cheek. That means sarcasm, a joke.

Peter Strozk is still employed at the FBI. Can you debunk that?