The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Comey wrote his letter to Congress because of the fear of leaks. The news leaked from Congress. This is the entire point of this thread and what I've been saying from the first post. If the NYC FBI agents hadn't been leaking, Comey wouldn't have written his letter and there would not have been an October surprise. The leaks by the FBI agents was far more influential on the election than the texts between two lovers.

The American people deserved to know. They should have been told earlier. But, one thing for sure, had the FBI done its job correctly, they would have had possession of Weiner's laptop months before. They should have had access to all of Abedin's devices.

[Anonymous]

The American people deserved to know. They should have been told earlier. But, one thing for sure, had the FBI done its job correctly, they would have had possession of Weiner's laptop months before. They should have had access to all of Abedin's devices.

Plus--this just illustrates Clinton's carelessness that her emails were floating where they did not belong. And, we now know that it is likely that Russia did have access because she emailed from Russia. The IG report mentions that a foreign nation had access. It is likely Russia;

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

The American people deserved to know. They should have been told earlier. But, one thing for sure, had the FBI done its job correctly, they would have had possession of Weiner's laptop months before. They should have had access to all of Abedin's devices.

Plus--this just illustrates Clinton's carelessness that her emails were floating where they did not belong. And, we now know that it is likely that Russia did have access because she emailed from Russia. The IG report mentions that a foreign nation had access. It is likely Russia;

The FBI is not in the habit of revealing evidence before an investigation is completed. How would you like it if the FBI started publicizing what they seized from Cohen's office? If Wray wrote to Congress about what was discovered in Cohen's shredder and it leaked, you would scream bloody murder.

[Anonymous]

How would you like it if the Trump campaign started smashing cell phones and deleting emails to destroy evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would you like it if the Trump campaign started smashing cell phones and deleting emails to destroy evidence?

....or sending Ivanka out to have a secret meeting with the head of the DOJ a few days before it is announced that Trump has been cleared?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Comey wrote his letter to Congress because of the fear of leaks. The news leaked from Congress. This is the entire point of this thread and what I've been saying from the first post. If the NYC FBI agents hadn't been leaking, Comey wouldn't have written his letter and there would not have been an October surprise. The leaks by the FBI agents was far more influential on the election than the texts between two lovers.

If only Comey and crew were able to hide the information from the public to protect Hillary, then none of this would have happened..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Comey wrote his letter to Congress because of the fear of leaks. The news leaked from Congress. This is the entire point of this thread and what I've been saying from the first post. If the NYC FBI agents hadn't been leaking, Comey wouldn't have written his letter and there would not have been an October surprise. The leaks by the FBI agents was far more influential on the election than the texts between two lovers.

The American people deserved to know. They should have been told earlier. But, one thing for sure, had the FBI done its job correctly, they would have had possession of Weiner's laptop months before. They should have had access to all of Abedin's devices.

I think the American people also deserved to know about the investigations - and evidence - into coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian interests, in advance of the election. Surely you think this is as important for the American people to be aware of as Clinton’s use of a private email server, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would you like it if the Trump campaign started smashing cell phones and deleting emails to destroy evidence?

....or sending Ivanka out to have a secret meeting with the head of the DOJ a few days before it is announced that Trump has been cleared?

No need to send Ivanka. Trump meets regularly with Rosenstein who is playing the effective head of the DOJ for the investigation into Trump. You guys make a big todo about the plane meeting, but say nothing about one on one meetings between Trump and Rosenstein.

As far as destroying evidence, what do you think was in Cohen's shredder?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Regardless of what the IG thinks in June 2018, the NYC FBI office had already leaked about the laptop in late September 2016. There is no way they would know at that time what would happen. You are trying to justify actions post hoc.

The only thing I have read is that Nunes said he learned at the end of September. It certainly was not "leaked" to the public. Wasn't it an "October Surprise" from Comey. Sure surprised me when he came out with that announcement.

Comey wrote his letter to Congress because of the fear of leaks. The news leaked from Congress. This is the entire point of this thread and what I've been saying from the first post. If the NYC FBI agents hadn't been leaking, Comey wouldn't have written his letter and there would not have been an October surprise. The leaks by the FBI agents was far more influential on the election than the texts between two lovers.

If only Comey and crew were able to hide the information from the public to protect Hillary, then none of this would have happened..

Yes, improper behavior by investigators is a very laughable matter. The improper disclosure of information related to investigations is probably very funny to you when it relates to Clinton. Let's see how you like it when evidence about Trump starts leaking. You bet you won't laugh so much then.

[Anonymous]

January 2017, Louise Mensch

lection.

Your agents within the FBI Field Office then did a number of additional things.

Firstly, they illegally spoke to any friendly press and the Trump campaign about putative ongoing criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation and the matter of her email server.

They told Fox News’s Brett Baier that Hillary Clinton “Would soon be indicted” and this was reported on TV, and then retracted after the damage was done.

They told your agents of influence, Rudy Giuliani and X Kallstrom, that ‘a group of active FBI agents’ had demanded Comey release his letter. Both of them stated as much, Mr. Giuliani specifying ‘active’ FBI agents.

They used your agent General Flynn – I scorn to use ‘of influence’ in this case, Flynn knew what he was doing – to say on live television that active FBI agents were talking to him about an going ‘criminal investigation’

And they told the New York Times that the FBI ’Saw No Clear Ties to Russia’ in the matter of the Russian bank servers. And the New York Times printed it, even though they, the Times, knew it was false.

Before the election, only I reported, correctly, that the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence division in Connecticut had obtained a FISA warrant for ‘any US persons’ relating to the two banks involved in the Trump Tower server; Alfa Bank and SVB Bank.

[Anonymous]

Link https://patribotics.blog/2017/01/17/dear-mr-putin-lets-play-chess-louise-mensch-trump-russia/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

And he did such a great job of stopping it

[Anonymous]

Heroes. Make a movie. Love them!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would you like it if the Trump campaign started smashing cell phones and deleting emails to destroy evidence?

....or sending Ivanka out to have a secret meeting with the head of the DOJ a few days before it is announced that Trump has been cleared?

No need to send Ivanka. Trump meets regularly with Rosenstein who is playing the effective head of the DOJ for the investigation into Trump. You guys make a big todo about the plane meeting, but say nothing about one on one meetings between Trump and Rosenstein.

As far as destroying evidence, what do you think was in Cohen's shredder?

I have heard countless liberals state that the plane meeting was wildly inappropriate, so to hear you defending it gives me even greater insight into your mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I can name several actions, and have already, that raise a lot of suspicion about whether or not there was a valid reason to start investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. And that's what matters at this point, because the election is long over, yet the quest to find evidence of the Trump campaign's collusion carry on and on. It began on bogus grounds.

The investigation into the Trump campaign absolutely did not begin on bogus grounds. You have to be willfully ignorant of a considerable number of facts to suggest as much. You have Manafort who has committed an laundry list of crimes involving Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians acting as campaign manager, George Papadopoulos drunkenly telling an Australian diplomat that the Russians have the DNC's emails, and a host of contacts between campaign officials and Russian intelligence figures. The FBI would have been delinquent not to investigate.

Also, keep in mind that the IG report was about the Clinton email investigation, not the Trump investigation. So, you are actually going off-topic.

Patently false. None of those things started the investigation. The investigation was started by the dossier and only the dossier. That does not meet the standards for FISA action. Even the writer of the dossier, Christopher Steele stated it's 50/50 accurate on it's claims.

Nope, the investigation started months before the dossier. There are scores of timelines that demonstrate this. Please stick to the facts. the real ones, not the ones that are alternative and are contorting to this false narrative.