FBI Agent Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

He knew he didn't have enough to charge her in April I can't figure why he took so long to get the word out.

He knew he didn't have anything to charge her with before he talked to her, Mills and co, and other witnesses, before he gathered key evidence (or entirely failed to try to obtain it in some cases documented by the OIG-DOJ report). That's astounding.

Was he DirFBI or the Oracle of Delphi?

a reply to: Guyfriday

Well I followed Hillary for many many years. Decades actually and trust me the Whitehouse was the prize. She'd been preparing for that since college days.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What crime? Not liking trump.
Take me away and lock me up. You know I've said worse about him than Strozk. Isn't that just about the most awkward last name? I always have to stop and think about where the Z goes. Lol

a reply to: Sillyolme

Comey knew Hillary broke the law. He told us so. He let her go because of lack of intent.

So... How did he know that she had no intent before they even interviewed her?

originally posted by: BlueAjah

So... How did he know that she had no intent before they even interviewed her?

He shook his Magic 8 Ball. The answer came up "Signs Point to No".

a reply to: BlueAjah

He didn't "told us so" otherwise he would have recommended that to the DOJ and if he had the goods Lynch couldn't not prosecute. There would have been hell raised throughout the justice delartment. Look at the drama about it still and tell me it would not have been a # storm if they had evidence and the DOJ didn't prosecute.
Her issue was one of hardware . Not espionage. No one ever thought she was sharing info with those who shouldn't have had it. no one suspects her of anything like that.

The criticism is in Comeys announcing it the way he did and the way he did is what you are focusing on. He condemned her when he had no right to. He wasn't even supposed to say anything.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bulwarkz

He was talking about Anthony Weiner. That was the crime against children. He was sexting a fifteen year old. That list was notes from a meeting. Doesn't make everything on it the same issue.
The Clinton e mail on his laptop was her connection. The crimes against children was Weiners connection.
Two separate cases. Two separate issues. Both involved the same laptop.

Not a chance for that interpretation.
Not a chance!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Gloating is an unattractive trait.
Answer the question. Was he fired?

a reply to: Sillyolme


Then why did she just hand it over in 2008? She was ahead in the poles, she was running a good campaign, and she didn't have all the attack baggage that was there in 2016.


Seems to me that when she was in the White House she learned a few things about to run the place (a'la Nancy Reagan) without having to expose yourself to the dangers of being the head of state.

I've said it before, she's crafty when she wants to be, but she's also kind of lazy about stuff to.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What crime? Not liking trump.
Take me away and lock me up. You know I've said worse about him than Strozk. Isn't that just about the most awkward last name? I always have to stop and think about where the Z goes. Lol

I had no clue how to pronounce it until i heard it. Who has a silent "Z" in their name? If you knew my maternal family name you'd have a field day making fun of it. it was wholly made up as my great grandfather immigrated. He tried to take a hungarian name and make it sound anglo...with hilarious results. But anyone with that name is my family.

I don't know the details of the criminal investigation as Wray was pretty showy about not disclosing any information.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Comey was Bad Boy.

😎⚖

Peter Strzok Has Lost His Security Clearance, Says Jeff Sessions

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that former FBI official Peter Strzok has lost his security clearance amid an internal disciplinary review.

“Mr. Strzok, as I understand, has lost his security clearance,” Sessions told radio host Howie Carr.

Strzok was escorted out of FBI headquarters on Friday, the day after the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released its long-awaited report about the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. (RELATED: Strzok Was Escorted From FBI Headquarters)

What's NEXT !!

💥⚖💥

a reply to: Sillyolme

Probably went to lunch with other agents and that became escorted out.

So what do you think happened?

Was Peter Strzok escorted out of the building or not?

Has Peter Strzok maintained his security clearance?

What might have been the reasons for either of the above?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Another question:
What would happen to recent and current high profile cases for which the lead investigator lost credibility?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Another question:
What would happen to recent and current high profile cases for which the lead investigator lost credibility?

Investigations would require fresh eyes to make sure nothing was tampered with. Convictions and ongoing prosecutions would have to be reviewed. The fallout from corruption at the upper levels of the FBI would be disastrous.

a reply to: RadioRobert

He had all the information he needed. She didn't set this up to break the law.

mens re·a

menz ˈrēə/

noun

LAW

the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused

She did it for convenience. Not great as excuses go but cell phone technology was not as automatic ten years ago and switching wasn't as easy as it is now. And she didn't want to learn a new phone. And everything had been routed through her home computer for a long time before that. People say there were security issues but the system was secure and well managed. She or Huma backed up everything to the state department regularly. There were requirements for maintaining records but no regular time requirement. There is now.
I don't remember how often they backed up the email. If you think about it there really isn't such a hugh deal here.
Questions of classified material were answered as either being retroactively applied or poorly marked but there was no indication that this was to relay classified data to unauthorized persons or destinations.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah but given her vast experience in government as first lady of Arkansas, a career lawyer, first lady of the US, Senator and Secretary of State she knows what is right and wrong and whats legal and whats not.

If we are to believe Clinton's explanations she was the least qualified person to run for office given all the crimes she committed but didnt know they were crimes.


Do you not see the problem here?

As for retroactively classified - no. Comey debunked that bs at his appearances to Congress before he was fired.
There were laws that required her to keep records - namely the federal records act of the 1950's for starters.
Her computer was not secure and was compromised by foreign actors. This was confirmed by the IG in his report.
She nor Huma backed anything up. They turned over their "work" emails when they left and did so in violation of established law by going through it themselves and with their personal lawyer instead of an archivist as required by law.

Then we find out she deleted thousands of work emails.

Your inability to accept facts and reality in this area is highly disturbing.

a reply to: bulwarkz

That exactly what it is. Anything else requires a lot of assumptions. My explanation assumes nothing. That was what they were investigating Weiner for crimes against a child for which he is now in jail.
And they in the investigation of his laptop for other child porn found Clinton emails.
These things are not related except for where they resided in Weiners laptop.

Explain any other reason for those notes with fewer assumptions than the simplest ones I have applied to known facts. And I actually assume nothing.
What's your theory?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Because she wanted to keep a system she knew. There also were fewer guidelines and requirements for emails back then.
Of course she knew about security which is probably why her computer wasn't filled with top secret files or anything like that and of course she handled top secret data all of the time in the course of her duties.
Anyway I stated what I think. I'm not in the business of trying to change minds here.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No intent at all. Just "convenience" eh.

Here's just one of thousands....

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

💥Documented !! 💥🤷