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

Another recently released text message in the "Strzok and Page" catastrophe seems to confirm further that the DOJ/FBI was deep into giving specific talking points to the Democrat MSM.

Now we see one about the New York Times being "upset" because the Washington Post got a story.

Looks like the entire threat of "Trump" was real and they were gonna do something about it.

Strzok and Page were high level DOJ/FBI people and they were following their orders from higher-ups like Loretta Lynch who was following orders from the nervous and jealous zer0Bama.

Keep in mind the Inspector General's report cited some specifics and much of that is classified.

FISA-Fushion-Fireship 😃

Vote Democrat to keep the corruption alive !!!

Damning New Strzok Text to Page: “The Times is Angry With Us About the WP Scoop”

A series of text messages released Wednesday reveal that former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok was in contact with reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post regarding stories they published about the FBI’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign during the spring of 2017, according to a series of texts obtained by SaraACarter.com.

The text messages suggest that Strzok, along with his paramour, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, had been in contact with reporters from both newspapers. Strzok specifically mentioned two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writer Michael Schmidt his text message to Page.

Strzok wrote, “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. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.” (The New York Times did not respond immediately for comment. The Washington Post also did not respond immediately for comment.)

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.

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.

a reply to: xuenchen

But I thought they wanted to stop leaks.

a reply to: introvert

What were they dealing in good faith about to the media that turned out untrue?

a reply to: introvert

Yea, yea, you've made your position clear already.

You want all texts ever they sent and received, what they had for lunch on the last 2 years, their favorite color and the name of their puppet to "get the real context" of the texts.

a reply to: vinifalou

And then it will be prove that's everything, with a claim we can't ever understand context.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

What were they dealing in good faith about to the media that turned out untrue?

Good question.

Suppose we need to figure out the answers/context before we knee jerk too far.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: introvert

Yea, yea, you've made your position clear already.

You want all texts ever they sent and received, what they had for lunch on the last 2 years, their favorite color and the name of their puppet to "get the real context" of the texts.

Well, your hyperbole aside, my assertion stands true.

Does it not?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: vinifalou

And then it will be prove that's everything, with a claim we can't ever understand context.

That is a possibility. Even with all the information available, some are prone to not being able to understand what they are seeing.

Some see what they want to see.

The texts already tell us. An article written by Schmidt that had inaccuracies and he's mad at him because of it.

The context is all there. Strzok said he was dealing in good faith, making him a source.

I am happy for you to explain any other scenario where Schmidt is mad at Strzok for inaccuracies abd Strzok said he acted in good faith where Strzok is not the source.

a reply to: introvert

No. It does not.

If you can't see the context that's on you.

Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.

originally posted by: introvert

Some see what they want to see.

but not you?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: vinifalou

And then it will be prove that's everything, with a claim we can't ever understand context.

That is a possibility. Even with all the information available, some are prone to not being able to understand what they are seeing.

Some see what they want to see.

Quoted for incredible irony.

a reply to: vinifalou

No. It does not.

If you can't see the context that's on you.

I believe it does still stand. This text alone just creates more questions that have to be asked.

Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.

I've not said I was smart at all. Are you projecting an inferiority complex?

You must be. Otherwise, why would you even bring something like that up?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

Some see what they want to see.

but not you?

I am just as human as anyone else.

Do you agree that we need more context behind this text, or is this the smoking gun, stand alone evidence that creates an open-and-shut case?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: vinifalou

And then it will be prove that's everything, with a claim we can't ever understand context.

That is a possibility. Even with all the information available, some are prone to not being able to understand what they are seeing.

Some see what they want to see.

Quoted for incredible irony.

Irony indeed.

Do you dispute what I said? Is it not true that some people cannot comprehend what is in front of them?

What was the scoop?

I could not find it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another recently released text message in the "Strzok and Page" catastrophe seems to confirm further that the DOJ/FBI was deep into giving specific talking points to the Democrat MSM.

Now we see one about the New York Times being "upset" because the Washington Post got a story.

Looks like the entire threat of "Trump" was real and they were gonna do something about it.

Strzok and Page were high level DOJ/FBI people and they were following their orders from higher-ups like Loretta Lynch who was following orders from the nervous and jealous zer0Bama.

Keep in mind the Inspector General's report cited some specifics and much of that is classified.

FISA-Fushion-Fireship 😃

Vote Democrat to keep the corruption alive !!!

Damning New Strzok Text to Page: “The Times is Angry With Us About the WP Scoop”

A series of text messages released Wednesday reveal that former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok was in contact with reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post regarding stories they published about the FBI’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign during the spring of 2017, according to a series of texts obtained by SaraACarter.com.

The text messages suggest that Strzok, along with his paramour, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, had been in contact with reporters from both newspapers. Strzok specifically mentioned two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writer Michael Schmidt his text message to Page.

Strzok wrote, “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. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.” (The New York Times did not respond immediately for comment. The Washington Post also did not respond immediately for comment.)

I find it hilarious that regardless of how much has come out, how many have been fired or quit and easily connected players that there are those that are still fighting this entire thing.

How do they explain those fired and quitting? That doesn't happen without them doing something very wrong....especially for the ones employed by the government.

a reply to: introvert

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

Trump isnt the real enemy