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: 15
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Weird the IG report quotes a prosecutor who says she clearly set up the private server to avoid FOIA disclosures. That is intent to break federal record keeping law.

It is also stunning that he could read her mind without talking to her! He tells the future and mindreads. I'm not sure how he didn't see his firing and own investigation in his future.




posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She had no idea that the information she asked the classified headings be stripped from was classified. So clearly there could never be "willful" unfollowing of the law.

Also, re: "gross negligence" ask a few people convicted of GN-manslaughter about their "intent" and how it played out in their manslaughter charge.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That was explained too. I have company I can't look it up now but it wasn't any nefarious thing.
Look it up if you really want .



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Because she wanted to keep a system she knew.

Which is not an affirmative defense that can be used in court. She violated the law with a home-brew server. She broke the law by transferring classified info to that server. Finally, and I think she should be charged with murder for doing it, one of the emails she had contained the real name of one of our intel sources in Iran. We no longer have that source because Iran was able to identify him and executed him. This is why you dont use an amateur home server with no security.

Iranians Execute Scientist Mentioned in Clinton’s E-Mails



originally posted by: Sillyolme
There also were fewer guidelines and requirements for emails back then.

and yet the records act required it all be turned over to an archivist who is to go thru to determine whats covered and whats personal. Secondly using a private server was illegal at the time she did it. Transferring classified material from secured networks to non secured was also illegal at the time.



originally posted by: Sillyolme
Of course she knew about security which is probably why her computer wasn't filled with top secret files or anything like that and of course she handled top secret data all of the time in the course of her duties.

Except it was loaded with classified material and again, Comey confirmed this and so did the IG report. One of the emails contained code word clearance SCI/SAP. The fact she knows what classified is because of her duties then she was intentionally criminal in her handling of the material.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
Anyway I stated what I think. I'm not in the business of trying to change minds here.

As long as you understand your opinion differs from the facts of the case and the testimony given to Congress and by the IG report.
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: xuenchen

She had no idea that the information she asked the classified headings be stripped from was classified. So clearly there could never be "willful" unfollowing of the law.

Also, re: "gross negligence" ask a few people convicted of GN-manslaughter about their "intent" and how it played out in their manslaughter charge.


This is how I know Comey was lying and making stuff up.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Apparently, this happened before, or when Strzok was escorted out of FBI Headquarters last week.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Newsmax TV on Thursday night that embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok no longer has an active security clearance.
Source: www.newsmax.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

She didn't need to use it in court because she wasn't indicted.
My views don't have to be popular. That's not a sign that something is right.
The facts are that the IG report didn't investigate the the email or server it investigated the FBI and found they were in the wrong with their announcement. It did not find fault with their investigation only how they handled the announcement.
The FBI investigated Hillary's server and email situation and found she had not committed a crime.
Those are actually the facts you are asking me to discard for some other theory that is unproven speculation. The facts speak for themselves and here is where we are based on the facts.
We're not re-examining the server. We're not litigating Clinton. That is not happening. That is never going to happen.
Anything that claims otherwise is wishful thinking.
There may be more fallout for the FBI I don't know. But there won't be any reopening of Hillary's case.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Gloating is an unattractive trait.
Answer the question. Was he fired?



who is gloating, and why would you assume anyone cares how you define attractive?
you answer the question first, was he escorted out of the building as you previously dismissed this



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   
China, Israel, Russia, North Korea ... have been able to hack our systems for years. (And we hack theirs.)

Department of Defense, Department of State, whatever they want, whenever they want.

That includes the "official" email channels.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Apparently, this happened before, or when Strzok was escorted out of FBI Headquarters last week.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Newsmax TV on Thursday night that embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok no longer has an active security clearance.
Source: www.newsmax.com...

At this point, I imagine that Strzok's firing is in the works, and it's just a question of going thru all the proper motions.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




The facts are that the IG report didn't investigate the the email or server it investigated the FBI and found they were in the wrong with their announcement. It did not find fault with their investigation only how they handled the announcement. 


OIG re: Strzok texts:



is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.

And:



potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,



It also has some interesting sections on decisions made on the investigation like the failure to use subpoenas and willingness to accept "Noone knows where that is" for an answer. Too, it says the IG report is not an endorsement of controversial deci or incompetence (failures and delays to subpoena, deference to 'high-powered legal team', handing out immunity like candy), only that they could not prove the decisions were made due to political bias.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

So again ...Strzok had bias and an apparent willingness to act on his biases.

Now, here's the big question: what evidence is there that Strzok acted on his bias using the power of his position to harm Trump's campaign?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You are right that the IG did not investigate the emails or server.
In fact, the IG said in his statement to the Oversight Committee:

This determination by the OIG does not mean that we necessarily endorse the decisions or conclude they were the most effective among the options considered, or that our finding should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions made during the course of the investigation by FBI employees who sent inappropriate political messages.

and:

It was necessary to select particular investigative decisions for focused attention because it would not have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made in a year-long investigation

and:

Thus, a determination by the OIG that a decision was not unreasonable does not mean that the OIG has endorsed the decision or concluded that the decision was the most effective among the options considered. We took this approach because our role as an OIG is not to second-guess valid discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation, and this approach is consistent with the OIG’s handling of such questions in past reviews.


He also said:

As detailed in our report, we found that the inappropriate political messages cast a cloud over the Midyear investigation, sowed doubt about the credibility of the FBI’s handling of it, and impacted the reputation of the FBI. Moreover, we found the implication that senior FBI employees would be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.


IG Statement

The IG did not validate the evidence, there is reason to look at the evidence again. The IG never said that the evidence or investigation was free from bias - quite the opposite. He only said the prosecutors made their decisions based on the evidence presented to them by investigators.

So, since the IG and Congress are still investigating, and there are doubts about bias among the investigators, they may still decide to reopen and investigate the emails and server again.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

What new information will a new investigation reveal?

The IG report repeatedly states that Strzok was continually working in the framework of dozens of agents and prosecutors which makes it unlikely that he could take nefarious action that went unnoticed.

So ... How many investigations? Eight like Benghazi?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme


Probably went to lunch with other agents and that became escorted out.


So what do you think happened?

Was Peter Strzok escorted out of the building or not?

Has Peter Strzok maintained his security clearance?

What might have been the reasons for either of the above?


...still waiting for an answer to these questions.

(author's note - ex tags used so the entire quoted quote would be visible)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If they start from the beginning with unbiased investigators, they may find that evidence was ignored or manipulated. They could also address other shortcomings the IG identified in the evidence collection process. There are a long list of faults he found, including allowing subjects to delete evidence, allowing subjects to voluntary choose what evidence could be looked at instead of subpoenas, allowing subjects to sit in on the interview of other subjects, etc. etc.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

"May find"

"Could be"

The IG stated clearly that all investigative decisions were reviewed.

The IG stated clearly that Strzok was always working in a group of agents and prosecutors.

We can keep investigating ... But we know the relevant facts. Clinton used an unsecured server and received classified material.

What other facts are needed?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
She didn't need to use it in court because she wasn't indicted.

and if she were she couldnt use it because it is not a valid legal defense.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
My views don't have to be popular. That's not a sign that something is right.

No, facts do.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
The facts are that the IG report didn't investigate the the email or server it investigated the FBI and found they were in the wrong with their announcement. It did not find fault with their investigation only how they handled the announcement.

Wow.. stop seeing what you want while ignoring everything that doesnt fit your agenda. That is what makes you wrong. The IG investigation was into the FBI/DOJ actions during the Clinton investigation. The announcement was one aspect. Bias was another. Policy violations were one. Legal violations were one. Corruption was one etc etc etc.



originally posted by: Sillyolme
The FBI investigated Hillary's server and email situation and found she had not committed a crime.

and the IG investigate the FBI can found they acted in a biased manner in that investigation, causing AG Sessions to reopen the case.



originally posted by: Sillyolme
Those are actually the facts you are asking me to discard for some other theory that is unproven speculation. The facts speak for themselves and here is where we are based on the facts.

Those are the talking points you keep repeating while ignoring the facts presented by the OIG.



originally posted by: Sillyolme
We're not re-examining the server. We're not litigating Clinton. That is not happening. That is never going to happen.
Anything that claims otherwise is wishful thinking.

No it will happen courtesy of the DNC chair when he filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, Russia and others for "collusion" in hacking the DNC / Clinton. The geniuses who filed that suit apparently fell asleep the day in law school when they covered discovery. To prove their case they have to prove her server / DNC server were hacked. That means the defendants get to examine the evidence and depose people.

We will call that lawsuit "Operation: Out of the frying pan".



originally posted by: Sillyolme
There may be more fallout for the FBI I don't know. But there won't be any reopening of Hillary's case.

Lol ok..

Justice Department Reopens Hillary Clinton Email Investigation After Trump Tweets By Davis Richardson • 01/04/18 6:06pm

What you fail to realize is what the FBI/DOJ did in the Clinton investigation is obstruction of justice. That was verified with the IG report and I imagine, since her case was reopened back in January of 2018 the IG report will be a part of that investigation.
edit on 22-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, the IG said:

This determination by the OIG does not mean that we necessarily endorse the decisions or conclude they were the most effective among the options considered, or that our finding should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions made during the course of the investigation by FBI employees who sent inappropriate political messages.


and:

It was necessary to select particular investigative decisions for focused attention because it would not have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made in a year-long investigation


As posted above.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Thanks for scrolling the screen with the exact same quotes I've already responded to.

So tell us instead of more cut and paste ...

What evidence did the IG fond of Strzoks's actions against Trump.

Not bias, not willingness ... What did he do???



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join