- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPoliticsOn Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok wrote: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in*[Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …”
Peter Strzok, the second-highest ranking counterintelligence agent at the FBI, was involved at key junctures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe.
Sorry, wore out from all the wolf crying.
Thank you both for more examples of typically fallacious diversionary responses. :coffeepap:
.....
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.
Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.
Why care?
How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"
FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics
That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.
Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.
If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.
Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."
Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider
So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."
I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.
An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.
Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
Thank you for once again bringing up the Clintons to distract from what is going down in the White House, and who is going with it.
Trump thought it would make his life easier to just fire Comey...as he confided to the Russian diplomats/agents a few days later. He is responsible for the appointment of a special prosecutor who is charged with investigating suspected wrong doing. He asked Comey to drop an investigation....obstruction of justice, which is a crime...and then
he fired Comey when Comey would not. So the basis for starting the investigation is not a pack of lies, but rather the actions of Mr. Trump.
Except the Comey memo/speech didn't really help Clinton win now did it? In fact, I always thought, and Clinton would agree with me here, that it was the final nail in her proverbial coffin. I think Peter's emails/text messages are just that. A liberal freaking out about the possibility of Trump getting elected and being taken seriously as a candidate. You guys really need to stop masturbating to them because your guy is not very popular.
There is no indication that Comey (a republican) shared that view (even with the changes).
There is one thing I would like conservatives to answer that they haven't before. Why does bias matter? If Trump is guilty, he is guilty.
This whole thing just smacks of desperation.
The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.
The simple fact that this same individual, who all evidence shows was a Hillary supporter, states he has an insurance policy to impede Trump if despite all predictions he does win.
The email issue was brought up to show a pattern. Whether you accept it or not, it is a normal part of considering a possible criminal investigation.
You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.
IMO the Comey speech was a cover his own a** tactic. That is after current evidence seems to indicate that the fix was already in, and both Obama, and his boss Loretta Lynch did not want the FBI to pursue something that would affect Hillary getting elected. Why would he balk, when all indicators pointed to her becoming his future boss? :shrug:
Hmmm....just like all that "desperation" voiced by the losing side after the shock of his election; which is reflected in Mr. Strzok's own emails btw?
My point is, hypocrisy shows in all the "this is a nothing burger" from the same people who tut tutted Trump supporter's use of that term after seeing "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" turn out to be blanks.
All I am saying is the same as your side...if there is nothing to hide, why not investigate. :coffeepap:
You clearly are no champion of liberty, or you wouldn't have made such a gross endorsement of authoritarian ideals.You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.
The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.
The simple fact that this same individual, who all evidence shows was a Hillary supporter, states he has an insurance policy to impede Trump if despite all predictions he does win.
The email issue was brought up to show a pattern. Whether you accept it or not, it is a normal part of considering a possible criminal investigation.
You clearly have not been following along with the facts of this case. There was no obstruction even if it turns out that Trump fired Comey for failing to complete or stop the investigation. Comey was not a prosecutor or special counsel, and like any other police "investigator," his boss can simply say, stop investigating or I will fire you. Try again.
IMO the Comey speech was a cover his own a** tactic. That is after current evidence seems to indicate that the fix was already in, and both Obama, and his boss Loretta Lynch did not want the FBI to pursue something that would affect Hillary getting elected. Why would he balk, when all indicators pointed to her becoming his future boss? :shrug:
Hmmm....just like all that "desperation" voiced by the losing side after the shock of his election; which is reflected in Mr. Strzok's own emails btw?
My point is, hypocrisy shows in all the "this is a nothing burger" from the same people who tut tutted Trump supporter's use of that term after seeing "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" turn out to be blanks.
All I am saying is the same as your side...if there is nothing to hide, why not investigate. :coffeepap:
Captain Adverse said:The issue is not with "The Clintons" as you well know, it is with the evidence showing that her investigation may well have been a sham, handled by the same individual who started the Trump investigation.
There are few arguments stronger than expressing your assumptions about a hypothetical situation that never occurred.Count me as compelled.Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.
What exactly is the "something"?Are you making the case that this one guy didn't like Trump and single-handedly by way of this text created the entire Russian fiasco?'Cause that sounds far-fetched.I"m willing to believe, but you're really gonna have to walk me through the process of how this single text creates the reporting from around the world and creates Manafort's conspiracy against the US stuff out of whole cloth.If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.
Don't forget part two of this accusation where you demonstrate that this action was wrong on his part.I'll come back for that episode when it premiers.I'm not saying the guy was right, just that your case is lacking a seeming crucial element.ymmv
An accusation of criminal activity!Please share it with Sessions.Sessions has really been falling the **** down on the job when it comes to investigating and prosecuting all of these "obvious" crimes.I think it's time you considered the possibility that Sessions and Trump are in on this conspiracy.Surely you have some evidence which implicates this FBI texting guy in this matter. You're not just trying to tie him to that based on your personal feelings are you?'Cause I'm pretty sure law enforcement works based on evidence w/o regard to personal feelings.Most cops are biased against the folks they're investigating, but somehow we get by.I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.
Don't forget part two of this accusation where you demonstrate that this action was wrong on his part.I'll come back for that episode when it premiers.I'm not saying the guy was right, just that your case is lacking a seeming crucial element.ymmvMeanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."
To be fair, the "less evidence" involves confessions from the parties involved.So maybe we need to put an asterisk next to the word "less"?On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
As has been noted, the USIC received reports from friendly foreign intel services letting us know tat Trumpco were palling around with Russian nogoodniks.And Manafort's Russian money laundering and conspiracy against the US did not happen in a vaccuum.Maybe the thing to to is for you to re-examine you assumption that the investigation into Russian interference in our election is based solely on innuendo.Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
So you lack the context for this text.Awww, bummer.I asked you for the context above.But I guess that moot.Maybe we should just decide the context is w/e you assume it is.That'd make you argument work better wouldn't it?I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
I thought someone had already talked the OIG into investigating?And Rosenstein offered to add a whole other Special Counsel just as soon as someone bring credible allegations that a crime has been committed.So what more do you want done exactly?:shrug:But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
ftr, all of my new lines were removed during the posting process.There exactly?
Thank you for once again bringing up the Clintons to distract from what is going down in the White House, and who is going with it.
I mean - please. Do continually bring them up. We certainly don't see enough threads about them around here.
I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.
Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.
Why care?
How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"
FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics
That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.
Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.
If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.
Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."
Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider
So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."
I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.
An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.
Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
Actually, this thread isn't about the Clintons. It's about Strzok and his fellow conspirators.
Trump thought it would make his life easier to just fire Comey...as he confided to the Russian diplomats/agents a few days later. He is responsible for the appointment of a special prosecutor who is charged with investigating suspected wrong doing. He asked Comey to drop an investigation....obstruction of justice, which is a crime...and then
he fired Comey when Comey would not. So the basis for starting the investigation is not a pack of lies, but rather the actions of Mr. Trump.
I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.
Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.
Why care?
How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"
FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics
That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.
Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.
If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.
Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."
Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider
So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."
I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.
An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.
Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."
On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.
Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"
I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.
But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?