Top DOJ official demoted - contacts with Trump dossier firm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

The fact that you wonder this shows exactly how partisan you are.

So in your world, are all investigators supposed to be Trump supporters?

Not at all. They are allowed to have opinions.
But, his involvement in other cases/investigations/document editing combined with his texts demonstrates his inability to be unbiased.

First, he also was disparaging to Eric Holder, Bernie Sanders, Chelsea Clinton and others so he was a bi-partisan complainer. Second,what proof do you have that his opinions clouded his judgement or impacted the investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

The fact that you wonder this shows exactly how partisan you are.

So in your world, are all investigators supposed to be Trump supporters?

Not at all. They are allowed to have opinions.
But, his involvement in other cases/investigations/document editing combined with his texts demonstrates his inability to be unbiased.

First, he also was disparaging to Eric Holder, Bernie Sanders, Chelsea Clinton and others so he was a bi-partisan complainer. Second,what proof do you have that his opinions clouded his judgement or impacted the investigation?

Oh, please. His texts speak volumes. One or two texts about the people above proves nothing.
His texts about Trump AND the supporters of Trump were horrible.
And, I did not need proof. Evidently, Mueller had the proof he needed that he was biased.
And, I suspect that the texts were only part of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

The fact that you wonder this shows exactly how partisan you are.

So in your world, are all investigators supposed to be Trump supporters?

Not at all. They are allowed to have opinions.
But, his involvement in other cases/investigations/document editing combined with his texts demonstrates his inability to be unbiased.

First, he also was disparaging to Eric Holder, Bernie Sanders, Chelsea Clinton and others so he was a bi-partisan complainer. Second,what proof do you have that his opinions clouded his judgement or impacted the investigation?

Oh, please. His texts speak volumes. One or two texts about the people above proves nothing.
His texts about Trump AND the supporters of Trump were horrible.
And, I did not need proof. Evidently, Mueller had the proof he needed that he was biased.
And, I suspect that the texts were only part of the story.

In general, federal employees can and should text political opinions. They've had this protection forever. I assume there's more (or less) to the story than texts alone.

[Anonymous]

This investigation may now turn into an investigation of the FBI and DOJ.

Comey will ultimately have to accept responsibility--but, he was between rock and hard place. There was never going to be an indictment--that comes from DOJ, not the FBI. He knew this. The right thing to do would have been to resign as soon as he knew this. He certainly should have resigned after the meeting on the tarmac. Instead, FBI tried to hide it. That makes him complicit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This investigation may now turn into an investigation of the FBI and DOJ.

Comey will ultimately have to accept responsibility--but, he was between rock and hard place. There was never going to be an indictment--that comes from DOJ, not the FBI. He knew this. The right thing to do would have been to resign as soon as he knew this. He certainly should have resigned after the meeting on the tarmac. Instead, FBI tried to hide it. That makes him complicit.

Sheesh. None of this makes sense. It's all nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I am not going to accept that his personal opinion clouded his professional judgement but just out of curiosity, how long was he actually on the Mueller investigation for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to accept that his personal opinion clouded his professional judgement but just out of curiosity, how long was he actually on the Mueller investigation for?[/quote
Are you talking about Ohr or Strozk?

Strozk was fired last summer--but, he was the investigator on Flynn and, I would guess, others. He was the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn and I would guess that is who Flynn lied to. Bet Flynn is now kicking himself for pleading guilty--as he could probably get off that charge now.

For those who say that agents are allowed to have opinions and biases, that is true. But, now when it interferes with their pursuit of the law. It appears that bias changed some words in the statement on HRC--and, even if it did not, it certainly appears that way.

When you are involved in an investigation of a politician (two, in this case), it would seem wise ot keep your opinions to yourself. And, his opinions appeared to be quite strong.
When you text about a discussion of an "insurance policy" against Trump's election with at least two other members of the FBI (Page and McCabe), this could indicate conspiracy. It could also implicate at least two others who share your "opinions".

Most savvy federal prosecutors and agents would be wise to "keep their own counsel." One DOJ prosecutor that I know well said that he never gave political contributions until his retirement. Why? Because at any time he could be called on to prosecute politicians and did not want anything to taint a case.

Investigations and prosecutions are supposed to conform to law. It appears that opinions and biases outweighed the law in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to accept that his personal opinion clouded his professional judgement but just out of curiosity, how long was he actually on the Mueller investigation for?

Are you talking about Ohr or Strozk?

Strozk was fired last summer--but, he was the investigator on Flynn and, I would guess, others. He was the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn and I would guess that is who Flynn lied to. Bet Flynn is now kicking himself for pleading guilty--as he could probably get off that charge now.

For those who say that agents are allowed to have opinions and biases, that is true. But, now when it interferes with their pursuit of the law. It appears that bias changed some words in the statement on HRC--and, even if it did not, it certainly appears that way.

When you are involved in an investigation of a politician (two, in this case), it would seem wise ot keep your opinions to yourself. And, his opinions appeared to be quite strong.
When you text about a discussion of an "insurance policy" against Trump's election with at least two other members of the FBI (Page and McCabe), this could indicate conspiracy. It could also implicate at least two others who share your "opinions".

Most savvy federal prosecutors and agents would be wise to "keep their own counsel." One DOJ prosecutor that I know well said that he never gave political contributions until his retirement. Why? Because at any time he could be called on to prosecute politicians and did not want anything to taint a case.

Investigations and prosecutions are supposed to conform to law. It appears that opinions and biases outweighed the law in this case.

Lol, Flynn is guilty of so many things, he was publicly begging to confess and make a deal. He was and is so relieved that he was able to be caught lying to the FBI, instead of having to plead to worse crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to accept that his personal opinion clouded his professional judgement but just out of curiosity, how long was he actually on the Mueller investigation for?[/quote
Are you talking about Ohr or Strozk?

Strozk was fired last summer--but, he was the investigator on Flynn and, I would guess, others. He was the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn and I would guess that is who Flynn lied to. Bet Flynn is now kicking himself for pleading guilty--as he could probably get off that charge now.

For those who say that agents are allowed to have opinions and biases, that is true. But, now when it interferes with their pursuit of the law. It appears that bias changed some words in the statement on HRC--and, even if it did not, it certainly appears that way.

When you are involved in an investigation of a politician (two, in this case), it would seem wise ot keep your opinions to yourself. And, his opinions appeared to be quite strong.
When you text about a discussion of an "insurance policy" against Trump's election with at least two other members of the FBI (Page and McCabe), this could indicate conspiracy. It could also implicate at least two others who share your "opinions".

Most savvy federal prosecutors and agents would be wise to "keep their own counsel." One DOJ prosecutor that I know well said that he never gave political contributions until his retirement. Why? Because at any time he could be called on to prosecute politicians and did not want anything to taint a case.

Investigations and prosecutions are supposed to conform to law. It appears that opinions and biases outweighed the law in this case.

Just to note... FBI agents are not permitted to donate to political campaigns. Don’t you think there is a reason for this?
It would appear that attorneys are not held to the same restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Meh, as long as billionaiers can donate unlimited amounts to whomever they want and politicans can pass legislation in their interests instead of the national interest, I am not going to get heartburn over an agent expressing a private thought to a co-worker/lover.

[Anonymous]

So the whole premise here is that a GOP Executive Branch with the support of a GOP congress appointed a GOP former FBI head and prosecutor/decorated war veteran to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and you all think the FBI and law enforcement are a bunch of leftists and have tilted the investigation.

Just wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to accept that his personal opinion clouded his professional judgement but just out of curiosity, how long was he actually on the Mueller investigation for?[/quote
Are you talking about Ohr or Strozk?

Strozk was fired last summer--but, he was the investigator on Flynn and, I would guess, others. He was the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn and I would guess that is who Flynn lied to. Bet Flynn is now kicking himself for pleading guilty--as he could probably get off that charge now.

For those who say that agents are allowed to have opinions and biases, that is true. But, now when it interferes with their pursuit of the law. It appears that bias changed some words in the statement on HRC--and, even if it did not, it certainly appears that way.

When you are involved in an investigation of a politician (two, in this case), it would seem wise ot keep your opinions to yourself. And, his opinions appeared to be quite strong.
When you text about a discussion of an "insurance policy" against Trump's election with at least two other members of the FBI (Page and McCabe), this could indicate conspiracy. It could also implicate at least two others who share your "opinions".

Most savvy federal prosecutors and agents would be wise to "keep their own counsel." One DOJ prosecutor that I know well said that he never gave political contributions until his retirement. Why? Because at any time he could be called on to prosecute politicians and did not want anything to taint a case.

Investigations and prosecutions are supposed to conform to law. It appears that opinions and biases outweighed the law in this case.

Just to note... FBI agents are not permitted to donate to political campaigns. Don’t you think there is a reason for this?

It would appear that attorneys are not held to the same restrictions.

Of course. As an attorney, Christopher Wray donated tens of thousands to Republicans before being nominated to head the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the whole premise here is that a GOP Executive Branch with the support of a GOP congress appointed a GOP former FBI head and prosecutor/decorated war veteran to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and you all think the FBI and law enforcement are a bunch of leftists and have tilted the investigation.

Just wow.

Yup.
Also: “To recap, Mueller fired an agent for texting about Trump but Trump wouldn't fire his national security adviser for being compromised by Russia.”

[Anonymous]

So "Blue Lives matter" but the FBI is corrupt.

Hyporcisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So "Blue Lives matter" but the FBI is corrupt.

Hyporcisy.

Nope. Just the top.