Strzok Text to Page says -- The Times is Angry With Us About the WP Scoop

a reply to: introvert

You are that person though. These texts prove he was leaking.

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.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The problem is Egyptian River Fever.

🎻

a reply to: Butterfinger

Time to get your head out of the sand, and wake up.

I can only hope that day ever comes.

Trump isnt the real enemy

I never said he was.

You give a good example of what I am talking about.

You have access to all my posts, right in front of your face, yet you believe something that is not true.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

You are that person though. These texts prove he was leaking.

No. It proves that there were leaks and they were talking to the media about certain pieces.

We need to have a lot more context to understand exactly what was said, who was leaking what and to whom they were leaking.

This is not proof positive that they were the ones that were in fact doing the 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.

Why? Your hypothetical situation makes assumptions that I cannot answer or explain myself due to the need of more context.

The most important aspect is we need to know who he refers to when he says "them". Was he referring to the media, or to Mike and Andy?

Also, what does "dealing with good faith" mean?

In what context?

The criminal investigation "expansion of scope" that CNN and MSNBC had orgasms over when Mueller did it, is now occurring with the McCabe Grand Jury. Yippie-Ki-Yay Mother F_ckers!

The Federal Grand Jury looking investigating former FBI Asst Director Andy McCabe, is now expanding it's scope:

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.

FULL ARTICLE AT: www.commdiginews.com...

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.

Yes, it does.
It is very clear, except to idiots who can't grasp the obvious.

a reply to: carewemust

Would be kool if one grand jury snares all of em.

💥😎💥

This is running a psyop. Plain and simple.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"Psycho Strzok" made fun of not only Trump supporters, but disabled people too. From a newly discovered text msg:

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.

More at: www.judicialwatch.org... /

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Would be kool if one grand jury snares all of em.

💥😎💥

They'd have to use some kind of rotation to replace jurors who go nuts. There are currently 42 government officials who can be charged with crimes. Too much for any one juror to endure for months on end.

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.

No, my hypothetical only uses information we know.

Strzok wrote, “Also, apparently Times is angry with us

So we know the NYT was mad at Strzok and Page.

about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies.

We know they were angry because the WP got a scoop the Times wanted and there were inaccuracies in information leaked to Schmidt.

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.”

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.

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.

a reply to: xuenchen

awww. so we know how why these news take the headlines..awww.

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.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

angry with us over the post scoop. Why cant you just read? Us is inclusive of Strzok.

What exactly are they angry about? Who else is involved, other than Strzok?

See. These are questions you cannot answer and can change the entire context of what you think is being said.

I notice you skipped over the vast majority of what I posted and I can understand why. You cannot answer the questions I posted, which further proves my point.

a reply to: introvert

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.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

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.

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.

Post the exact quote that shows specifically that "they" were angry the leaks given to them were untrue.

And post the exact quote that shows specifically who he was referring to when he said "them".

Those are all facts. There is no spin that doesnt include Strzok being involved with leaking.

No. Those are assumptions you have made. Unless you can post the quotes I have requested.

If you think there is then give me the example.

I do not need to give an example, nor do I need to spin. You have still yet to provide the proof of what you have already claimed. You have a lot of explaining to do and evidence to provide.

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.

originally posted by: introvert

Ok. Where exactly does it say that?

On the OP you didn't even bothered to read.

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.

Maybe that's because all the questions you've asked are right in front of your face but your blinders do not allow you to see.

Let's see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.

Yea, you're the most dishonest person on this forum yet asking for honesty from everyone.

How ironic.