JUST IN: Trump On Fox Business States Mueller Illegally Terminated Strozk And Pages Emails

I just watched a video clip featuring an interview between President Trump and Maria Bartiromo, host of the Fox Business program. Trump stated to Bartiromo that Robert Mueller committed a crime, when he intentionally deleted emails between former FBI employees Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

Trump: “Wait till you see the rest of their – here’s the problem, Robert Mueller, they worked for him, and two lovers were together and they had texts back-and-forth, e-mail back-and-forth…Mueller terminated them illegally. He terminated the emails, he terminated all stuff between Strzok and Page, you know, they sung like you’ve never seen. Robert Mueller terminated their text messages together, he terminated them. They’re gone! And that’s illegal! That is a crime!”

I wonder whether GOP committee members will bring this up when Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17.

Above content and video clip of interview found at this LINK.

Here's some more information just released:

President Donald Trump on Wednesday accused former special counsel Robert Mueller of committing a crime, without providing evidence, by deleting certain text messages sent between two former FBI officials who had been critical of Trump during his 2016 campaign.

Trump’s comments were a roundabout reference to a report from the Justice Department’s inspector general last year that noted the iPhones used by Strzok and Page during their short stints on Mueller’s staff had been reset to factory settings, erasing the messages they contained. Though Trump and his allies have pointed to that fact as evidence of a conspiracy, the inspector general noted that Strzok’s phone was reviewed before it was erased and that the move to wipe the data was a standard practice

“It never ends. We had no obstruction, we had no collusion,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo, the host of Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria,” in a wide-ranging phone interview. “It’s hard to have obstruction when you have no crime. … You didn’t have crime. You had crime on the other side.”

www.politico.com...

Just watched this clip. Guess that means charges will be forthcoming. Unless he's talking sh*t.

Though Trump and his allies have pointed to that fact as evidence of a conspiracy, the inspector general noted that Strzok’s phone was reviewed before it was erased and that the move to wipe the data was a standard practice

But it's a conspiracy !

Trump says stuff , rarely is it true.

“It never ends. We had no obstruction, we had no collusion,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo

Bless him.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Even though his terminology is incorrect, the context is correct. It is illegal to destroy evidence in an ongoing or unprosecuted case. In most cases it is illegal to destroy evidence period and the rule of thumb is, if you do know, you keep it to avoid being charged with obstruction and other legal instruments. I have this problem and I know a bit about it first hand. I have half a dozen boxes of evidence relating to military and government of south Africa and the $150 million in tax and public funds frauds relating to government and universities in 1997-2000. I was instructed by the judge that the evidence cannot be destroyed in case a higher Court (superior) wishes to revisit the fraud charges at a later date or international Court wishes to pursue charges.

It's kind of a bitch, I have to drag around 12 cubic feet of boxes dull of paper to protect criminals in government and elsewhere, because injunctions/gag orders. Maybe one day the CRA in Canada will become less corrupt and set the information free :-) I am not holding my breath for it though.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: gortex

Though Trump and his allies have pointed to that fact as evidence of a conspiracy, the inspector general noted that Strzok’s phone was reviewed before it was erased and that the move to wipe the data was a standard practice

But it's a conspiracy !

Trump says stuff , rarely is it true.

“It never ends. We had no obstruction, we had no collusion,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo

Bless him.

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

And Mueller is a straight shooter that has never hidden evidence, destroyed evidence, lied to cover up whomever he was working for at the time?

Why bless your heart.

a reply to: gortex

This is not true

The IG never reviewed the iphones mueller gave strzok and page

Muellersteam reviewed the phones, knowing full well the IG would want to see them, and decided there was nothing work related in the phones and deleted them

So politico is lying

a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Seems clear enough.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Seems clear enough.

It isn't a prosecutor's job in America to prove innocence.

In America, one is innocent until proven guilty.

It is a prosecutor's job in America to establish that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

Mueller could not.

You may want to brush up on American law before posting an opinion on it.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Careful or we'll read about your suicide in the near future.

Hope you have backup plans.... People will probably be looking for you.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Seems clear enough.

Our legal system says one is innocent until proven guilty

That seems clear enough

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Seems clear enough.

If we had confidence that we could prove a negative, we would do so.

That's what it says.

a reply to: gortex

It is standard practice to destroy evidence in the middle of an ongoing case? Since when?

Related ATS thread, "Strzok and Page cell phones contained secret database of text messages," by yours truly has some relevant information.

Also linked is the OIG report, "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election-(direct .pdf link)," in which it was found that Strzok used his personal email for FBI business:

During our review, we identified several instances where Strzok used his personal email account for government business.Examples included an email chain forwarded to Strzok’s personal email account on December 10, 2016, discussing a draft congressional response,and draft versions of emails on his personal email account that Strzok eventually sent to other FBI employees using his government account. Most troubling, on October 29, 2016, Strzok forwarded from his FBI account to his personal email account an email about the proposed search warrant the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop. This email included a draft of the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern District of New York and information obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued in the Eastern District of Virginia in the Midyear investigation.

Strzok really should be facing seditious conspiracy charges.

An interesting footnote in the above linked OIG report:

We requested access to Strzok’s personal email account. Strzok agreed to produce copies of work-related emails in his personal account but declined to produce copies of his personal emails. Strzok subsequently told the OIG that he had reviewed the emails residing in his personal mailboxes and found no work-related communications. We determined that we lacked legal authority to obtain the contents of Strzok’s personal email account from his email provider, which requires an Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) search warrant to produce email contents. Strzok’s email provider’s policy applies to opened emails and emails stored for more than 180 days, which ECPA otherwise permits the government to obtain using a subpoena and prior notice to the subscriber. See18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), (b)(1)(B)(i); COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION,U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,SEARCHING AND SEIZING COMPUTERS AND OBTAINING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONSat 129-30 (2009). In addition, although we learned that a non-FBI family member had access to Strzok’s personal email account in 2017, Strzok told the OIG that no one else had access to his personal email account during the period in question (i.e., late October 2016)

emphasis mine

So they asked Strzok if he had any other work related information in his personal email account and he said, "nope," and it was left alone. Anyone think Strzok might have been lying about that in the same way it was shown he was lying about anyone other than himself having access to that account?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo...

You are one of those odd people that think that even though nobody found enough evidence to refer a charge of obstruction of justice, it still happened because ~feelz~?

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Seems clear enough.

If I had confidence you did not sexual abuse a child I would say so.

So does that mean you did?

a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps it wasn't the law that saved him but a political decision taken by Mueller and others in an effort to stop your country tearing itself apart should they have returned a guilty verdict.

Napolitano disagreed with the special counsel’s decision not to make a determination on obstruction of justice.

“Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump,” he wrote, “from asking former deputy national security adviser KT McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn’s chat with Kislyak, to asking [former campaign aide] Corey Lewandowski and then White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI’s investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.”

“The essence of obstruction,” he wrote, “is deception or diversion – to prevent the government from finding the truth.”
www.theguardian.com...

Mueller.... The Terminator.....


WTF is he talking about? Terminated them?

Sounds like his investigation into the investigators isnt going so well.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps it wasn't the law that saved him but a political decision taken by Mueller and others in an effort to stop your country tearing itself apart should they have returned a guilty verdict.

Napolitano disagreed with the special counsel’s decision not to make a determination on obstruction of justice.

“Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump,” he wrote, “from asking former deputy national security adviser KT McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn’s chat with Kislyak, to asking [former campaign aide] Corey Lewandowski and then White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI’s investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.”

“The essence of obstruction,” he wrote, “is deception or diversion – to prevent the government from finding the truth.”
www.theguardian.com...

Ridiculous

Has the country stopped focusing on obstruction because of muellers decision?

Nope, the beat goes on

Meanwhile the very people screaming about it didn’t say one peep when Hillary’s team destroyed subpoenaed evidence, which is actually obstruction of justice

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
Just watched this clip. Guess that means charges will be forthcoming. Unless he's talking sh*t.

Another question that Mueller will not answer on July 17th.

a reply to: Grambler

Exactly.

One set of rules for them, an entirely different set for rest of us. Trust me, any one else would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for even one thing those people did, especially killary.

Today's legal system is no longer based on "Blind Justice", which is no longer blind, it's prejudiced.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Im sure they know it and they did not do that.
The phones are recycled and the personal stuff is removed before they are given to another agent.
The emails and texts have been archived like all federal employees are supposed to do, Christ they are probably all online somewhere too.
trump is just making noise again.

Lets ask him why HIS staff deleted their e mails before Mueller got to see them.... That is actually in the investigative report while trump is F.O.S..