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

a reply to: Boadicea

See my edit. I think it's two separate conversations but it's understandable that it could be confused. I'm going to check out the texts from Sep 7th to see if anything was said after the meeting that points in either direction.

originally posted by: Grambler
The defense is that these texts were probably about Obama wanting to know everything about the Hillary investigation, not the trump one.

My asnwer; so what?

Obama promised that he would not be discusssing this case with the FBI, and if these texts are true, then he lied.

It is obvious at this point that the investigation into hillary was either corrupt or immensely inept (my money on the first). Obama being kept in the lopp (as anyone with a brain knew was the case) just further points ot how high this corruption went.

And if the FBI was willing to be this corrupt or inept with the hilllary investigation, what makes anyone think they would have been any different with the trump investigation.

Every day, more and more examples of improper action from the FBI comes up in these two investigations.

Its time to get an independent person or commission to investigate the behavior of the FBI; and in the process see how much was known or ordered from Obama and his adminstartion.

IMO, this all points back to Hillary. Obama was a tool. Everything and everyone Hillary touches or gets involved with becomes corrupt.

Like a stench, corruption follows Hillary around wherever she goes.

This whole damn thing... corrupt FBI, Obama, Hillary, dossier, FISA... was to ensure Hillary was the next president.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I distinctly remember trying to understand what the Hades the Republicans were doing putting up that caliber of losers two times in a row...

I sure know that feeling! When McCain was up for re-election, the Pubs managed to ensure that McCain's primary opponent was even worse than him... someone we'd already kicked out of Congress in shame and disgrace years before! Thus keeping McCain in office and well the rest is history.

So I also know and distinctly remember that same WTH feeling.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

See my edit. I think it's two separate conversations but it's understandable that it could be confused. I'm going to check out the texts from Sep 7th to see if anything was said after the meeting that points in either direction.

Good idea. I'll check it all out too as soon as I can...

I meant to say, I'm surprised Johnson dumped the messages. Not that I'm disappointed! Just a little surprised...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok so then basically this is what everyone has been saying.

Obama publicly said he would not be talking to agents about any investigation, but page was saying Obama wanted to know everything about the investigation.

Obama lied.

This also shows that if there was wrong foing, Obama most likely knew.

a reply to: Boadicea

Alright, if you scroll down to the 6th, it sounds like Strzok still isn't sure what "he's walking into" in the meeting the next morning. On the 7th, Strzok is upset about a meeting it looks like where blamed is being thrown around for *something* but then he says that "cyber" is apparently dropping the ball.

I think it's safe to assume what is being discussed here is the burgeoning counterintelligence investigation. It doesn't sound like Strzok thinks the cyber division people are doing their best (he refers to them as having their heads up their asses).

Page also says that Strzok is leaving in 18 months so apparently Strzok has been planning to retire from the agency since 2016.

Side note — this sounds a lot like two coworkers in an intimate affair than other texts we've seen. If you've ever been in an office romance, there's a lot of this sort of thing. Work talk, about how one another aren't fully appreciated, bitching about bosses, bitching about work, lots of reassuring about how awesome one another is.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Nice slight of the hand there comparing Ron Johnson to Wikileaks.

Aka subterfuge.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

Alright, if you scroll down to the 6th, it sounds like Strzok still isn't sure what "he's walking into" in the meeting the next morning. On the 7th, Strzok is upset about a meeting it looks like where blamed is being thrown around for *something* but then he says that "cyber" is apparently dropping the ball.

I think it's safe to assume what is being discussed here is the burgeoning counterintelligence investigation. It doesn't sound like Strzok thinks the cyber division people are doing their best (he refers to them as having their heads up their asses).

He has some choice words for a few people. There's this tidbit too --

I have really no faith the administration will deal with it effectively

So not such a fan of Obama et al either. That tells me he might be more Team Hillary than Team Obama. Or not. Maybe Obama just had different purposes than Strozk... therefore different methods. Just interesting to note for now. But you're right, there are obviously troubles brewing between folks that they're trying to work out.

I have to say though, whatever they were specifically referring to that Obama wanted to know "everything," I sincerely doubt that single matter was where his wants began or ended. He either stayed out of it completely -- as he promised the people -- or he was inserting himself into the process.

Side note — this sounds a lot like two coworkers in an intimate affair than other texts we've seen. If you've ever been in an office romance, there's a lot of this sort of thing. Work talk, about how one another aren't fully appreciated, bitching about bosses, bitching about work, lots of reassuring about how awesome one another is.

Yes, I did note the "yay you!" nature of some of it. And Lisa doesn't seem the lovey dovey type in any way, shape or form -- so I'm sure sweet nothings don't come easy to her lips and she probably doesn't want to hear any either. But it still all strikes me as quite strange. Not quite code... but... maybe certain things are "understood" and unsaid? I'm not sure.

a reply to: Grambler

That's a big jump. (actually a few jumps).

1. It shows them speculating about the purpose of the meeting. There's actually nothing here that proves anything regarding Obama (not in these exchanges anyway) or even informs us whether their speculation about the purpose of the meeting was accurate.

2. The quote from Obama was in regards to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and was from April of 2016. The reason that quote was posted was because of what appears to be an inaccurate assumption that this was about that investigation.

You don't think that the President should be briefed by the FBI on national security threats like Russian interference in elections? Wouldn't it be worse if he didn't? I mean, wouldn't that in fact be not doing his job as President?

3. Getting a talking points briefing would not be the same thing as Obama knowing every detail of what was going on in the FBI.

See this really perplexes me. When it comes to Trump, who we all know lies constantly, all I've heard is about how nothing Trump could do is wrong, up to and including firing Comey because he was pissed about an FBI investigation. We have proof that he requested the FBI declare him personally innocent in an ongoing investigation. We have evidence of him asking the FBI director not to investigate the National Security Advisor *he'd just fired* for lying.

Then he fires the FBI director who isn't playing ball.

We also know that he lied in the letter firing Comey. That his administration lied about the reasons for firing Comey. And we know this because he went right on national television and admitted that his decision was based on being pissed off about the investigation.

How could he have exerted more influence or lied more about doing it? That's not even getting into everything that has transpired since.

The same people who don't have a problem with any of that, are now calling foul because of a text message with mere speculation about a meeting having to do with preparing the FBI director to debrief the President about the investigation and then calling him a liar for saying he doesn't get involved in FBI investigations regarding a political associate?

We're also supposed to accept that Obama would be wrong for asking for a status update on a major national security issue because in April, he said he stayed out of investigations regarding questions about the Clinton email scandal but again, not a problem that Trump fired the FBI director for not doing what he wanted.

How does that work?

To be remotely analogous, Obama would have had to tell Comey not to investigate Clinton and then fired Comey because the FBI didn't drop its investigation.

I realize that this is a politically charged issue but I really don't understand how what we know about Trump is nothing but what is speculated about Obama (which wouldn't even be a thing if it were true) is evidence of something worse?

Hell, Obama should have just told Comey not to investigate Clinton and fired him if the FBI continued to do so.

a reply to: burntheships

On the other hand, no matter how Ante meant it, not all of us will take it as an insult... some of us will consider it a badge of honor for the mighty whistleblower!!!

Or something in between

a reply to: Boadicea

IIRC, Strzok was lamenting his work hours, at one point, and not getting enough time to spend with his family. Also, one of them used the phrase "my friend" to refer to the other at another point in their conversations. I didn't pay attention to which one said it to the other.

I just didn't pick up on any affair. It just seems so strange that there's really not even a hint of an affair....to me, anyway.

I really need some evidence of an affair to believe it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Hell, Obama should have just told Comey not to investigate Clinton and fired him if the FBI continued to do so.

Exactly.

People have to take this information out-of-content to find something to bash Obama for, but Trump has done exactly as you described, without having to twist it's context, and people are not concerned one bit.

Trump has done precisely that which they wish they could pin on Obama.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Shocked, I refuse to believe that Obama would be involved in such mayhem. Must be fake news.

That is my shocked face at this news, I just can't believe it - my world is shattered.

/not

*burp*

The whole Obama's minions we're doing things without his Blessing narrative is about to be blown wide open.

Does. Anyone think the IRS was doing things on it own or Loretta Lynch weaponized the DOJ without her superiors blessing?

Just wait till we uncover BHO's unsecured emails.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

I just didn't pick up on any affair. It just seems so strange that there's really not even a hint of an affair....to me, anyway.

I really need some evidence of an affair to believe it.

I'm not picking up on any affair either... but I am trying to give it an honest effort to see it. It may just be two disgruntled workers who found a kindred spirit to bitch to about their woes.

About the only way we'll find out for sure is if one of them confesses. I don't know how to prove a negative.

But I'm not sure it matters. For our purposes, it doesn't matter what did or didn't happen between them. We just want/need the truth pertaining to the business of the people.

a reply to: Boadicea

So not such a fan of Obama et al either. That tells me he might be more Team Hillary than Team Obama. Or not.

What's not talked about frequently is the smack they talked about people other than Trump. Eric Holder for instance. Bernie Sanders for another. They even spoke ill of Chelsea Clinton.

Bits and pieces have been cherry-picked to paint a picture of two people who were fans of Hillary and hated Trump so much that they would do anything — anything — to prevent his election. There's no actual evidence of them doing anything to stop Trump from getting elected mind you.

What there is, is proof that they thought much the same thing as tens of millions of Americans. That Trump is buffoon who was unfit to be President and that Clinton was a much better candidate. Not even that they were in love with Hillary mind you.

What's missing is any actual discussion of them doing anything improper. What's the "best" evidence of them discussing doing something improper in regards to Trump? The "insurance policy" text. Time to check that out.

a reply to: pavil

The whole Obama's minions we're doing things without his Blessing narrative is about to be blown wide open.

Does. Anyone think the IRS was doing things on it own or Loretta Lynch weaponized the DOJ without her superiors blessing?

Just wait till we uncover BHO's unsecured emails.

I think that sums it up pretty well. Time will tell of course... and for now we have more evidence than definitive proof... but that seems to be changing -- very quickly.!

And Obama's own words condemn him. "I learned about it on the news just like you"... and "I will maintain a strict neutrality on FBI investigations" and on and on. I see a lying liar who will say anything and blame anyone (Hillary... cough! cough!) to cover his own behind.

originally posted by: Boadicea
It may just be two disgruntled workers who found a kindred spirit to bitch to about their woes.

Now this I can believe....

a reply to: Boadicea

Hold on to your hat if you're wearing one and find one to put on so you can hold it if you're not. I have just uncovered a smoking gun, a bombshell proving a massive conspiracy to keep Clinton from being elected.

An August 14th, 2016 text message says, "I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected."

OMG! (*sets own hair on fire and runs around in circles*) OMG!

But really, it's not that big of a deal. They're just doing what everyone else was doing. Talking about politics. But you see how that could easily be twisted into a Fox News Alert (or MSNBC News Alert!).

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

Hold on to your hat if you're wearing one and find one to put on so you can hold it if you're not. I have just uncovered a smoking gun, a bombshell proving a massive conspiracy to keep Clinton from being elected.

An August 14th, 2016 text message says, "I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected."

OMG! (*sets own hair on fire and runs around in circles*) OMG!

But really, it's not that big of a deal. They're just doing what everyone else was doing. Talking about politics. But you see how that could easily be twisted into a Fox News Alert (or MSNBC News Alert!).

More like it's not a big deal because the FBI recommended NOT prosecuting Hillary a month BEFORE that text.

a reply to: theantediluvian

What's not talked about frequently is the smack they talked about people other than Trump. Eric Holder for instance. Bernie Sanders for another. They even spoke ill of Chelsea Clinton.

Bits and pieces have been cherry-picked to paint a picture...

I definitely agree. The inevitable political spin. No argument here!

And it's too easy to do because instead of transparency and therefore facts, we have mis-truths and half-truths and un-truths filling the void.

And what little we do know is just a few pieces to much larger puzzle, and impossible to grasp the big picture. I would say it's evidence of something potentially huge, but proof of nothing.

And beyond Trump and Obama and Hillary, there were obviously issues within the administration and agencies and departments themselves.

BTW, any idea who "Bill" is?

So again we're back to demanding the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.