FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

a reply to: Sillyolme

you should go to DC and tell your story to the folks there. If you hurry, you may be able to convince them before they put the investigation team together.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

That was me. It doesn't seem . It's fact. The request came two months after the Clinton case was closed. The dates are not subject to interpretation. That is a known fact. It can't be debated.

Hmmm... and that would be the same case that was re-opened, yes? So obviously, it wasn't dead and buried and forever forgotten, yes? Because, obviously, when new information came to light, voila! The case was re-opened. And, yes, that is in fact what we've been told. But we have no independent knowledge of all the ins and outs and whys and wherefores... and we have no knowledge at all of what if anything else they considered after "closing" the case and before re-opening the case. Especially since it seems to have been a faux investigation all along. In which case, we can be sure the interested parties would be watching their backs to make sure nothing came back to bite 'em in the backside.

Get over it .

No, thank you

At the end of the day, everything in those text messages can be explained away individually... there's no 'smoking gun' to point at. But, taken in their entirety and in context with the recent happenings in the political arena, there is certainly enough there to raise suspicion. And that's all these memos (the Nunes memo, the Grassley memo, and the Schiff memo) are all about: formally establishing suspicion.

As for what Obama knew, wanted to know, should have known, shouldn't have known... he was, as many of us lament over, President of the United States at the time. Obama had every right... and indeed, it can easily be argued a duty... to know what was going on under his administration. That includes the FBI investigations. I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his statement to Chris Wallace included the implied word 'improper,' just as I give Trump the benefit of the doubt that his conversation with Comey was a statement of desire and not an order. Fair is fair.

I would have preferred that Obama have used the word 'improper.' I would have preferred that Trump had used different words. But my personal preferences toward language are irrelevant. The point of all these memos and released texts is to establish suspicion and nothing more. I see plenty of suspicion: I see this reference to an "insurance policy" and a subsequent reference to "OUR task," in direct context of not having to do with national security. Was it a mis-speak? Maybe. Was it a reference to something proper? Perhaps. But where's the harm in checking it out? We may find out it was a misinterpretation of the agents' meanings, or we may find out it was a secret plot to kill Trump a'la JFK. The FBI has extreme authority and extreme power; with that comes extreme responsibility.

We've had a special prosecutor investigating the Trump campaign, Trump himself, Trump's family, Trump's breakfast choices, Trump's business, Trump's money, Trump's family's money... I wouldn't be surprised if we found out tomorrow the FBI has a dossier documenting what time of day Trump washed his butt on what day and how much soap was used each time! And so far, after a year now, that investigation has released nothing, not one single allegation concerning Trump and collusion with Russia.

Yet, we are told there was election interference from Russia. OK, again, let's give the benefit of the doubt. If there were, and we have not been able to pin it on Trump after a year, we need to look into who else may have been involved. We already know there were some surrounding Trump who acted, let us say, questionably... we have indictments for this... but their roles were inconsequential for the most part and there has been nothing on Trump himself. It stands to reason that someone else who might have been involved with Russian collusion might likely have tried to throw suspicion on someone else, like the sitting President. So it makes sense to investigate who had motive and authority to frame Trump to cover their own tracks. That includes Steele, Clinton, Obama, Strzok, Page, Comey, McCain, McCabe, Rosenstein, Lynch.... all have either made very strong personal statements against Trump or have a vested interest in Trump being impeached, and all have the means and opportunity to conspire to frame Trump due to their position. So all need to be investigated.

What was that we used to be told? Oh, yeah: "If you haven't done anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about."

It applies to all, or it apples to none. I say, let the investigations begin and the chips fall where they may!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for saying all of that -- and saying it so well! I wish I could be so eloquent!!!

I've been thinking of it all as possible evidence of wrongdoing, but not proof of anything. In the context of current events, it looks quite incriminating. But we have no idea in what context they were speaking.

And this is the problem when truth -- the whole truth -- is hidden: We only have mis-truths, half-truths and un-truths to fill the void.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

That was me. It doesn't seem . It's fact. The request came two months after the Clinton case was closed. The dates are not subject to interpretation. That is a known fact. It can't be debated.
Get over it . This is just another secret society thing. ( And that was the same dude wasn't it? Yeah tee hee He needs to take off his wizards Hogwarts robes and come back to earth). Please. It's more than obvious.
They are really overpaying their hand. America isn't going to tolerate it.
Special elections since 2016 prove it more than anything.

Considering what we now know, you must consider WHO "Closed" the Clinton Case 🐇

😦

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ultimately, the texts about Obama being released served an interesting purpose.

It forced people who would defend Obama to admit, of course he was being filled in on the Russia case.

Is that nefarious in its own, of course not.

But now if we find out there was wrong doing, these people won't find it as easy to make the claim Obama has no idea about the investigation.

a reply to: Boadicea

Your OP fails on logical timing.

It was right before Obama met with Putin and confronted him about meddling in the election.

Keep the BS going though..

hang on to something..

It gets crazy painful from here IMO.

Bobby 3 sticks is all facts and no conspiracy.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ultimately, the texts about Obama being released served an interesting purpose.

It forced people who would defend Obama to admit, of course he was being filled in on the Russia case.

Is that nefarious in its own, of course not.

But now if we find out there was wrong doing, these people won't find it as easy to make the claim Obama has no idea about the investigation.

WTF are you claiming?

Pres. Obama is and was guilty of not acting quickly and severely enough to the Russian effort to elect an Orange Menace that is likely compromised to lead the free world.

Pres. trump is guilty of pretending the Russians never did anything wrong and Putin is his back door lover.

So the real problem is the previous administration actually didn't do enough to suppress their political opposition. Frightening.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Boadicea

Your OP fails on logical timing.

Not my emails.... not me saying Obama "wants to know everything"... And I have absolutely no logical reason to believe that you know more than these two FBI agents. So if you find their "timing" off, okay, but I would suggest it's because you don't know as much as you think you do. Someone had their reasons.

It was right before Obama met with Putin and confronted him about meddling in the election.

Lying Liar Obama? Yeah, that'd be the one... no logical reason to believe anything he says.

Keep the BS going though..

Again, not my emails, not my leak, not my investigation... not my anything that I can "keep going" or stop. Those folks are doing what they're doing with neither my advice nor my consent.

hang on to something..

It gets crazy painful from here IMO.

Indeed. That's good advice for all of us

a reply to: Boadicea

In a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange, Page writes that she was preparing the talking points because "potus wants to know everything we’re doing."

Sept 5th 2016

Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin held what the US president described as a “candid, blunt and businesslike” meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, on Monday.

Photographs suggested that the exchange between two of the most powerful men in the world had been frosty, and Mr Obama said afterwards that "gaps of trust" between the rival powers had hindered negotiations.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

He wanted an update on election meddling by Putin.

reality matters.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Crickets...

Effen ATS has become a BS factory for the far right wing.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Boadicea

"In a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange, Page writes that she was preparing the talking points because "potus wants to know everything we’re doing."

Sept 5th 2016

"Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin held what the US president described as a “candid, blunt and businesslike” meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, on Monday.

Photographs suggested that the exchange between two of the most powerful men in the world had been frosty, and Mr Obama said afterwards that "gaps of trust" between the rival powers had hindered negotiations."
www.telegraph.co.uk...

He wanted an update on election meddling by Putin.

reality matters.

But the talking points were being prepared for a meeting with Comey on September 7..."because POTUS wants to know everything we're doing." Read the texts immediately prior to the one about 'POTUS wanting to know...'



So, it doesn't make sense Obama would already have the update when he met with Putin on September 5.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Shhh, you're providing context. The important thing is to not look at the big picture and thr rope formed by the threads of all the little "coincidences", but to examine each coincidence minutely as an island, a tiny, tenuous thread by itself, and see if you can come up with any conceivable answer that might placate or confuse people who don't have the time or inclination to look at things themselves. That way no one sees the rope.

a reply to: Grambler

To be honest, I don't care if Obama hangs or not. I don't see these accusations as a way to punish, as much as I see them as a way to ferret out the corruption and put things on a more lawful footing. The personalities involved are fun to make fun of, but the real purpose is to stop the corruption.

Come to think of it, where is Obama now? I haven't heard much from him in a while... which is a good thing. That's the problem with Clinton. She was rejected, soundly, in favor of an orange-skinned egotistical real estate tycoon... and she still won't go away! At least Obama went away.

There will be some jailbirds appear if the corruption is stopped, of course. That's just the way justice works. But jailing someone will not, by itself, improve the country... it is the removal of their corrupt influence, as well as the fear of actual consequences for future would-be corrupters, that will do so.

It's the same logic I would use if I came across an angry bear while hunting: the goal is not to kill the bear, but to survive the bear without losing body parts I may have a need for later. Killing it may or may not be a necessary part of that goal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The OP claims this about Hillary.

The FBI investigation into HRC's email server was closed in July of 2016,

and re-opened in October 2017

The text in question was sent on 2 September, 2016.

????????

OP is BS.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: soberbacchus

Crickets...

Effen ATS has become a BS factory for the far right wing.

Oh dear... did I not jump fast enough for you? What a bummer.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Ok, I agree with that. It's not relevant to the Hillary email investigation and even the *new* emails from Weiner's laptop weren't in the FBI's hands at that time.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I dont see them anywhere there discussing their positions.

I'm revising my opinion. After referring back to the PDF and looking at the entire chain, I think they're talking about attendance for a briefing of Comey, scheduled for the next day at 3:30 or if not then, Wednesday. Kinda wish I had arrived at this earlier but so be it, I'll move on.

a reply to: Grambler

Why would the fbi be setting around McCabes office 3 months before an election discussing the fact that Trump has no chance to win?

And then after that, why would Page be telling strzok that she wants to believe that, but is suggesting an insurance policy in case Trump wins?

Have you downloaded the PDF yet? I've read ahead a bit and it looks like they were discussing this briefing (put together by James Rybicki, Comey's chief of staff) of Comey (with dd add ead GC, down to Strzok and Page in attendance) before and after the text in question.

Whatever the briefing was about has been redacted but it appears to be maybe 2 capital letters wide. So it's not "Trump" and it's not "Russia" unless it's DT or RU maybe (it's not HRC, it definitely doesn't fit, I tried it in PS). Also, "svtc" is secure video teleconference.

Whatever it is, Strzok says McCabe isn't going to do it but he (Strzok) is apparently down for 3:30 the next day or Wednesday.

I'm trying to figure out the text from Page right before her "election" one. OLA is almost certainly Office of Legislative Affairs. Toscas is Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas. Steinbach is Michael Steinbach, ex-Executive Assistant Director, National Security Branch (that's what the "ead" abbreviation referenced).

Then the next text from Page is the one with the election bit. My first thought is that it's referencing a conversation from that morning in McCabe's office. It also would seem that at least the three of the them were there but it's also possible that she's referencing a conversation that was only between Strzok and McCabe.

So it does appear Page is saying that she wants to believe that he (presumably Trump) won't get elected based on "the path (Strzok) threw out for consideration" but that's she's afraid "we" (Who is we? Americans, the two of them, the DOJ/FBI?) can't risk him being elected.

To answer your question, why would they be discussing the election, let's look at what's happening around this time. The FBI's counterintelligence investigation reportedly started in July (I've yet to read a day), after the Papadopoulos intel came from the Aussies. We do now know that the FBI agents met with Steele in Rome on October 3rd to debrief him. (and that by October 21st they were getting a FISA warrant for Carter Page)

This was also 4 days before Paul Manafort resigned from the campaign (almost two months to the day after the black ledger stuff from Ukraine).

Could it be that based on what they knew/suspected, Page was concerned that Trump or at least people in his campaign were in league with the Russian government? If that's the risk, is the insurance policy the investigation? It could be. But what does that actually mean? That the investigation would do Trump in if he was elected? That seems to be what the Trump crowd has gone all in on. Could it also mean that the investigation would reveal the truth, either way? Like, "he's probably not, but just in case he is a Russian puppet we should investigate?"

Could it refer to some plan to keep the investigation alive after Trump came into office, in the event that Trump turned out to be a Russian stooge and tried to kill the investigation?

It's all possible that the risk they were talking about is something specific to a "we" that isn't America. It could very well have something to do with their careers. It could be a fear that Trump would appoint somebody who would replace them. What then would be the "insurance plan?"

I dunno and there's not enough to tell if that conversation/meeting/whatever in McCabe's office had anything to do with the briefing so there might actually not be any other context here in the text messages.

You could essentially speculate that the "we," the "risk," and the "insurance policy," were absolutely anything you wanted them to be.

Page is still walking around.

He's being accused of being a Russian spy!

Why isn't he in jail?

It's all BS.

These guys have nothing. It was fake since day 1.

The pattern of treasonous behavior is clearer on the obama/hillary side than Trump's side.

Obama was telling pilots when/where to drop their bombs, you really think he didn't know anything about what was going on? Micromanager in chief.

They had his blessing to take out Trump.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: soberbacchus

Ok, I agree with that. It's not relevant to the Hillary email investigation and even the *new* emails from Weiner's laptop weren't in the FBI's hands at that time.

The article linked to in the OP does specifically say about the text message -- "“potus wants to know everything we’re doing” --

Senate investigators told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

But I took that as referring to Obama's multiple declarations that he would remain neutral in all judicial matters:

In the fall of 2016, Mr. Obama’s spokesmen at the White House were stating repeatedly that the president didn’t know details of the probe, and didn’t want to know.

“The White House is going to be scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of political interference in prosecutorial or investigative decisions,” said then-press secretary Josh Earnest on Oct. 31, 2016.

Washington Times

-- so if Obama wanted to "know everything" they're doing in any matter, contrary to his promise to be "scrupulous" about no political interference, then perhaps he also wanted to "know everything" about other matters or every matter -- and therefore, also the email investigation.

The text message later in the month about the Weiner laptop messages also shows that at least one of these two were working on the email investigation as well as the Russian collusion investigation -- perhaps also raising investigators' suspicions.