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.
Time to get your head out of the sand, and wake up.
Trump isnt the real enemy
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert
You are that person though. These texts prove he was leaking.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert
Give me an example of a situation where a journalist would be mad at Strzok about information that was given by Strzok in good faith that turned out to be untrue that doesn't include Strzok being the source of the information.
McCabe’s co-conspirators include, but are not limited to, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, John Brennan, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Powers, Hillary Clinton, The DNC, Valerie Jarrett, and Barrack Obama.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: vinifalou
So this confirms the speculation about they leaking info to the WaPo, while lefties were screaming on the previous thread that the texts were out of context.
Figures.
No. It doesn't confirm it.
Even the source in the OP does not speak in absolutes about the topic, because we need a lot more, wait for it...context... in order to know exactly what they are referring to and what exactly they mean by what was said in the texts.
More at: www.judicialwatch.org... /
In a January 28, 2016, email to Page, Strzok apparently mocks people with developmental disabilities when he complains to Page about the inefficient mail handling system:
“Cool — I have three pieces of mail for 7th floor – what’s the easiest way to get them into the system there rather than waiting on Melwood mail system?”
Melwood is a nonprofit organization which helps those with developmental disabilities get jobs (such as sorting mail). The FBI employs and has even given awards to people placed by Melwood.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust
Would be kool if one grand jury snares all of em.
💥😎💥
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert
Give me an example of a situation where a journalist would be mad at Strzok about information that was given by Strzok in good faith that turned out to be untrue that doesn't include Strzok being the source of the information.
Why? Your hypothetical situation makes assumptions that I cannot answer or explain myself due to the need of more context.
Strzok wrote, “Also, apparently Times is angry with us
about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies.
Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.”
No, my hypothetical only uses information we know.
So we know the NYT was mad at Strzok and Page.
We know they were angry because the WP got a scoop the Times wanted and there were inaccuracies in information leaked to Schmidt.
Dealing in good faith means you were not trying to mislead/be honest.
So now I will ask again, why would the NYT be mad at Strzok and Page about leaks given to the Post and wrong information given to the NYT if they are not the leakers?
Then after you answer that we can get on the topic of Strzok's lie about the leak strategy. He claimed it was about stopping leaks. Well we have zero texts about them being angry over leaks, and we have texts where they are apologetic about leaks being inaccurate and they wanted the leaks accurate (dealing in good faith).
I love how you refuse to answer.
angry with us over the post scoop. Why cant you just read? Us is inclusive of Strzok.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
No, my hypothetical only uses information we know.
Incorrect. It makes an assumption about why the media outlets would be mad at Strzok. The text mentiones that they are mad about specific topics, but it does not specify why.
So we know the NYT was mad at Strzok and Page.
Another assumption. We know that he said they were angry with "us".
Who's us? Strzok and Page, the FBI in general...who?
We know they were angry because the WP got a scoop the Times wanted and there were inaccuracies in information leaked to Schmidt.
Where does it say they were mad because the WP got a scoop they wanted?
See. You are making assumptions that are not proven by the text.
Dealing in good faith means you were not trying to mislead/be honest.
Dealing in good faith about what, specifically?
So now I will ask again, why would the NYT be mad at Strzok and Page about leaks given to the Post and wrong information given to the NYT if they are not the leakers?
You cannot even say for sure who exactly they are mad at. Can you?
No. You cannot. Your question makes too many assumptions to be taken seriously.
Then after you answer that we can get on the topic of Strzok's lie about the leak strategy. He claimed it was about stopping leaks. Well we have zero texts about them being angry over leaks, and we have texts where they are apologetic about leaks being inaccurate and they wanted the leaks accurate (dealing in good faith).
Yes, "leak strategy". An internal strategy within the FBI to deal with the media leak issues.
And it is highly illogical to say they were not angry about leaks because there are zero texts discussing it. It's also an assumption.
I love how you refuse to answer.
No. You do not like the fact that I am not saying what you want to hear.
That's fine. You will get over it.
What matters is that this is not as cut and dry as you had hoped. I've asked very simple questions that make a world of difference in regards to context and you cannot answer them.
angry with us over the post scoop. Why cant you just read? Us is inclusive of Strzok.
They are angry that the post got the leaks not them and angry about leaks that were given to them that were untrue, and they are mad at Strzok and Strzok said it was done in good faith.
Those are all facts. There is no spin that doesnt include Strzok being involved with leaking.
If you think there is then give me the example.
originally posted by: introvert
Ok. Where exactly does it say that?
Post the exact quote that shows specifically that "they" were angry the post got the leaks and not them.
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017
Post the exact quote that shows specifically that "they" were angry the leaks given to them were untrue.
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017
And post the exact quote that shows specifically who he was referring to when he said "them".
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017
No. Those are assumptions you have made. Unless you can post the quotes I have requested.
Again, you have not been able to answer one single question I have asked and there is a reason for that.
Let's see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.