FBI Agent Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Gryphon66

What would you like to see Mr. Strzok prosecuted for?

That would be determined after the investigation into him . He's not a newbie and has a history . Looking very close ate his past work is in order to find out what crime or crimes he may have committed .

you don't care what he's charged with as long as he's found guilty of something??

LOL.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is deflection at its finest

ATS should win some kind of internet forum award, if there’s any.

a reply to: RadioRobert

By the time HRC was appointed SOS, the technology had evolved and gov't email systems were a lot different. With Hillary, it wasn't just email. She had three private servers, multiple non-gov't devices in use, and multiple non-gov't email accounts in use. Several other high officials, including President Obama, were using those private systems and communicating with pseudonyms.

A bit different from the early 2000's, I think. She knew better by then and so did everybody else.

a reply to: vinifalou

You like to talk about me; I understand, I'm pretty kewl.

Can I ask you though to address the topic of the thread, or at least the actual context of my posts?

Thanks.

a reply to: queenofswords

Pesky facts, all.

I am sure Dan Bongino will have something to say about this . So you are a FBI counter intelligent officer near the top who fly's all over the world talking with the Five Eyes Network and one day you are escorted out of the FBI building ....mmm just what does that even mean Dan ? inquiring minds want to know

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Finally!!!

Now, can we also finally reopen the Clinton investigation, and do it for real this time?

Sessions was asked directly if that was reopened and he refused to comment.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RadioRobert

By the time HRC was appointed SOS, the technology had evolved and gov't email systems were a lot different. With Hillary, it wasn't just email. She had three private servers, multiple non-gov't devices in use, and multiple non-gov't email accounts in use. Several other high officials, including President Obama, were using those private systems and communicating with pseudonyms.

A bit different from the early 2000's, I think. She knew better by then and so did everybody else.

Barring the differences in technology, though ... what is the crime?

Is it mishandling of classified material?

Isn't the law in play like the Espionage Act of 1917 and/or the National Security Act of 1947?

Obviously, at least in this universe, these laws existed before computers and email was widespread, yes?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Don't you figure that's what Huber is working on?

Along with *snicker* the Uranium One deal?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: RadioRobert

I'd be concerned about raising too much ire when the statute of limitations on the charge may be expired. As well as, as you mentioned, predate the laws created for the new technology platforms.

Of everything Clinton could be charged with she wont be clear of statute of limitations until 2025. The espionage charges have SOL of 10 years. Any financial crimes the SOL doesnt start until the last corrupt transaction.

If its true that a Clinton advisor during the campaign coordinated with Lynch then you have a whole new box of worms that got opened. You are moving into the territory of conspiracy, obstruction, RICO violations etc.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Don't you figure that's what Huber is working on?

Along with *snicker* the Uranium One deal?

No idea.. for some reason Hubers investigation is not being leaked to the media by democrats *snicker*

a reply to: Xcathdra

Texan might have been thinking about Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, et. al.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Don't you figure that's what Huber is working on?

Along with *snicker* the Uranium One deal?

No idea.. for some reason Hubers investigation is not being leaked to the media by democrats *snicker*

Or by the New York Field Office of the FBI to Guiliani and pals. *giggle*

originally posted by: Gryphon66


What would you like to see Mr. Strzok prosecuted for?

Breaking an FBI regulation about personal use of company property?
.

Start with criminal conspiracy.
Then move on to Sedition

And if the date is true in this story then the FBI had a plant inside the Trump team months before a official investigation was even started ... It looks more and more like the FBI was trying to set Trump up ..this guy had only 17 years with them

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66


What would you like to see Mr. Strzok prosecuted for?

Breaking an FBI regulation about personal use of company property?
.

Start with criminal conspiracy.
Then move on to Sedition

Well, at least that's an answer ...

Criminal conspiracy to do what?

What were his acts of Sedition?

Because, I'll be honest with you ... if you go on a strict definiton of sedition, most of us at one point or another here have challenged government authority.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm sure there were things disclosed today in the classified
Sections of the I G Report that brought about his removal from the
FBI building.

Many "deleted" texts out there were recovered, perhaps
It is true that he threatened the president!?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your post reminded me that it took over ten years to bring the Rosenberg's to justice, from the time they were recruited by Soviet Intelligence to their execution for espionage in 1953. It may take longer than that to bring Hillary to justice. We'll see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Criminal conspiracy to frame the trump campaign for seditious purposes. The steps they took were planting people in the campaign, pushing narratives onto low level staffers and leaking investigation information and classified information to the press.

The sedition was to undermine the duly elected president using the powers of the DoJ. Comey admitted to doing this when he said he hoped to get a special counsel appointed by leaking classified information.

That ticks all of the boxes for criminal conspiracy and most of the boxes for sedition.

So to recap, today we learned Strzok was escorted out of the offices, there is indeed an investigation into the oft rumoured 302 manipulation (Strzok interviewed Flynn, for example, who was prosecuted on the basis of the 302 statements), there is in fact an investigation into whether political bias played a role in the Russia investigation (Strzok led the FBI investigation before joining Mueller's team when he was appointed Special Prosecutor).

And that there are some who would rather talk about any number of tangents instead of those facts.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Conspiracy to frame the Trump Campaign? Ok. Hard to prove given that three of four have pled guilty to various crimes associated with Russian influence in the US.

We'll see about the "planting people in the campaign" bit ... Horowitz is on that.

That is not the definition of sedition.

I hesitate to say that I can appreciate that it is your opinon that "all the boxes are checked" however, I'm not convinced that a court of law will agree with you.

I guess we'll see. Thanks for your response.