New FBI Strzok Texts Reveal Massive Top Level Conspiracy To Evade Security & Monitering

a reply to: burntheships

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

IT DOES!

These two deserve a cell. The evidence is going to be overwhelming.

I know why they still have a job/security clearance... because apparently everyone else is complicit... the whole agency should be DRAINED!

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: DJW001
At the institution I work at, we need to change our email passwords every six weeks. The result? We all use our private emails, just like Hillary Clinton did.

Right, well one is a departmental policy self-policed by an institution presumably privately-held protecting sensitive corporate information.
The other is a departmental policy due to federal record keeping laws concerning both public access and classified material pertinent to national security.
So it's not exactly the same.

Dayum, I heard the slap on the back of the head from here...

a reply to: DJW001


Then you clearly have no idea just how vulnerable that setup is. Do you have any clue how easy it is to compromise an endpoint by even the most unskilled attackers these days? Look no further than the leaked NSA tools, which are of course now in enemy hands thanks to their poor security.

If SCI NSA tools are vulnerable, then your private email stands no chance. But at least using private emails on services like Google provide an extra level of security, since their data center has stringent security measures. It still is not SCIF, but better than YOU physically hosting the server in your basement.

Nevermind the physical vulnerabilities to every single uncleared person that set foot on her property, her security measures were simply nowhere nearly as complex as even a private datacenter provider like Google. Ridiculous to even make this equivocation.

a reply to: burntheships

So, everyone else was ignoring the rules?

Wow.

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.

you dont actually believe they were lovers do you?

its pretty clear from the texts that not one romantic/lovey conversation has occured.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Moresby

They need to get their own phones for their affairs.

I work in IT and have handed over alot of instances of people misusing company devices for personal use, some minor like accessing youtube on cell data, all the way to emailing server IPs by accident to home email.

Everyone of them were fired.

you sound like a right bell end

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

People laughed and scorned when the president said that the FBI is in tatters.

This will go down in history as prophetic.

Donald Trump already knows what the history books will say. That's why he can enjoy driving the Mainstream Media crazy, by being his natural self, instead of "presidential" so often.

a reply to: burntheships

When I read that, I see people who are fatigued from an ongoing issue with long term retention and basically just throwing their hands up.

Let's go over this a line at a time.

Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Switching to an iPhone.

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Switching to an iPhone is expected to "get around" security/monitoring issues. What issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule.

*No* the "security/monitoring issues" are not going to be fixed. So far so good right? So... he's proposing that they just stop following them. He being Turgal. The problem here in your thinking is that if the "issue" with monitoring is that they didn't want to be monitored, then Turgal proposing that they stop following the OMB requirement, would have resulted in a reply of "Yes."

Do you see what I'm getting at?

His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . .

Sounds like Turgal is giving up on a resolution to the problem.

I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.

A problem that seems to be really widespread. Now bear with me because this isn't your fault but for some unimaginable reason, The Hill source that you used, didn't include the rest of the exchange from the letter sent by Johnson. Here's the rest:

Ms. Page: Helps that Dd had a terrible time with his phone [redacted] which made him concerned for our folks all over the place.

Ms. Page: These phones suck as much as they do because of the program we use to capture texts, full stop.

Again, more about how they're having terrible times with their phones. Does it really make sense that if this was a conversation about a grand conspiracy to circumvent monitoring that she would say something as banal as, "These phones suck as much as they do because of the program we use to capture texts, full stop?"

No of course not. Which is probably why it was excluded from The Hill reporting (not your fault). In fact, it clearly demonstrates that they were just bitching about how bad the phones were.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.

you dont actually believe they were lovers do you?

its pretty clear from the texts that not one romantic/lovey conversation has occured.

It's possible they just haven't released any of those. Doesn't change the clear meaning of texts, including the latest that discuss "joining the failure" institutionally regarding federal law. No reason to consult your boss about using a burner phone for romantic texts. Those aren't relevant to the laws being discussed in these texts. This is getting clearance to do government work on private phones to skirt the law.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: burntheships

They did "join in failure"

These people, our government, our institutions, those charged with sacred duties, those asked to be noble custodians of something bigger than themselves, have failed us all.

Please do something about it if can.

I think these were at least some of the people Trump was referring to when he said:

All Americans deserve accountability and respect -- and that is what we are giving them. So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers -- and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.

He's talking about getting rid of the self-interest.
I think he was also speaking to the BLM as well as the FBI. He's seen the whistleblower reports on the Bundy boondoggle. He knows it isn't just this Trump thing that is corrupt beyond imagination. It began with Bush the First (at the very least) and continued until this day. That's why us non-partisans call the past two decades the Bush/Clinton/Obama cabal.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.

you dont actually believe they were lovers do you?

its pretty clear from the texts that not one romantic/lovey conversation has occured.

It's possible they just haven't released any of those. Doesn't change the clear meaning of texts, including the latest that discuss "joining the failure" institutionally regarding federal law. No reason to consult your boss about using a burner phone for romantic texts. Those aren't relevant to the laws being discussed in these texts. This is getting clearance to do government work on private phones to skirt the law.

''lovers'' in my mind is a clear cover story for the extreme amount of communication between the two.

If they were lovers, why wouldn't they discuss these matters when lying in each others arms in their love nest?

They were colleagues, but not FBI Colleagues... Their text messages are damning but I want to see the text messages they have with other people.. ie Congress, Clinton Foundation Members, Obama administration members, UK parliament...

Strzok also co-wrote the letter to Congress announcing the FBI's re-opening of the Hillary Clinton investigation, a few days before the 2016 election.

Source: CNN dtd 2.1.2018

He must have been very torn between doing his job, and protecting Hillary.

I keep thinking: out in the regular world, any one of us would have been fired IMMEDIATELY for any of these offenses that our public servants have been been committing. All of them involved and implicated in this disgusting mess; in the real world we all would be out on our asses in a heartbeat for MUCH less than the shenanigans these walking a-holes have done. Someone working the counter at McDonald's would be dismissed for things much less serious.

Yet here they all sit, deflecting and making a circus in an attempt to escape detection. And you have our "representatives" crapping themselves with indignation (Schiff, crazy ass Pelosi) that the "other side" is trying to get this information out to the people who pay their damn salaries (We the People).

I think the worst thing about this (besides the fact that the people at the highest levels of institutions that are charged with keeping and enforcing laws and policies for our country are breaking the laws they are entrusted to protect and enforce) is how it's gotten We the People all up in arms yelling at one another. WHY are the people on the left side of the aisle so rabid in protest at the possible release of this information? Don't they want to know if these charges are true? Don't they? Why are they so convinced that this memo business is a sham? Shouldn't they then be completely NOT worried about it? We should all be uniting together to find out what has been done against We the People.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Would the 2 work together often enough to feel comfortable breaking the ice on any conspiracy to do something so dark? Risk ending their careers instantly with a few words asked in trust?

If they arent lovers....spooks is the next most reasonable answer. CIA assrts are likely nested in every department.

originally posted by: Moresby
All those texts reveal is how two people act when they just start dating.

Embarrassing? Yes. But only in a human (we've all done it) way.

Politically significant? Nah.

Yeah, sure people just dating always say things like...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Again, more about how they're having terrible times with their phones. Does it really make sense that if this was a conversation about a grand conspiracy to circumvent monitoring that she would say something as banal as, "These phones suck as much as they do because of the program we use to capture texts, full stop?" 

No of course not. Which is probably why it was excluded from The Hill reporting (not your fault). In fact, it clearly demonstrates that they were just bitching about how bad the phones were.

Adds context, but you've still got a "grand conspiracy" to just "join in the failure" (of following the law) by using private devices to conduct government work, by ironically the DOJ charged with enforcing those laws. It's a crime.

Also:

We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Needs to be a line of investigation. It raises legitimate concern regarding the Trump investigation.

You can find a way to explain away many of these things individually, but when you add in the Mueller(retired) influencing McCabe text and the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office, and the "there's no there there", etc it paints an ugly picture. And it doesn't mean Strozk is not innocent of a "grand conspiracy" re: Trump, but there is plenty of cause for concern, IMO.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


When I read that, I see people who are fatigued from an ongoing issue with long term retention and basically just throwing their hands up.


A problem that seems to be really widespread. Now bear with me because this isn't your fault but for some unimaginable reason, The Hill source that you used, didn't include the rest of the exchange from the letter sent by Johnson. Here's the rest:

Ms. Page: Helps that Dd had a terrible time with his phone [redacted] which made him concerned for our folks all over the place.

Ms. Page: These phones suck as much as they do because of the program we use to capture texts, full stop.

Again, more about how they're having terrible times with their phones. Does it really make sense that if this was a conversation about a grand conspiracy to circumvent monitoring that she would say something as banal as, "These phones suck as much as they do because of the program we use to capture texts, full stop?"

No of course not. Which is probably why it was excluded from The Hill reporting (not your fault). In fact, it clearly demonstrates that they were just bitching about how bad the phones were.

Your making an assumption, based upon what you want to see.

But in the process, you have actually confirmed the point I am making
in the OP. This is a widespread practice, a widespread failure,
and no one cares to remedy the problem. Not even upper management
cared, according to Page an IG report had already identified the failures
and nothing was corrected.

So, thank you for confirming the OP. I would like a link to your source if you
would not mind. Thanks.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Moresby

Your kidding, right?

Or, your saying Page is dating her OIG?

Or is she dating the Office of Management?

Obviously, she could be doing them all, right?

Please do enlighten me, because what I am reading is these
two plan to break the law because everyone else is doing it
and the IG knows about it and no one cares.

Busy office.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, this doesn't make anything fall apart. It actually explains why the FBI said their texts weren't retained for five months, but *voila* suddenly they were all there.

As I understand it, the text messages were recovered directly from the devices which were apparently in the possession of the OIG. So no.

Yeah...I didn't understand what 'devices' they were retrieved from and it sure wasn't specified in anything I've read. Either you are assuming they were retrieved from the phones or maybe you have a link to an official statement?

As to the rest of what you wrote...we need more information to meaningfully debate it. For example...when was the text from the OP written?

Always feels like we are intentionally left in the dark and squabble for *their* amusement.

***

ETA: And, yes, I am a believer in huge conspiracies when huge power & money is at stake.

There must be some decent people out there with qualifications to fill the slots, just my opinion of course.

a reply to: burntheships
Trust me, there are people out there with qualifications who are trustworthy. You've probably never heard of them because even if they managed to get elected to office of some sort, if they didn't have dirt on them that party leadership could blackmail them with, they were chased out of the party. This applies equally to both parties. If they applied the law in an nonpartisan (meaning they prosecuted members of their own party) manner, they were gone quicker than a June frost.