The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
From the IG Report: “Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence[b] directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed,” the report said. The underlying mission of a group of people who are working on something together is not going to be found in some kind of document. No need for that. Do police chiefs type up documents that state, "Today, like every other day, we will go about our common goal of protecting the citizens of this city." No. But it's sort of a given. |
Anonymous
|
Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"
Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." |
Anonymous
What it said was far from saying "there was no bias." There are concrete examples of bias all over the place. These fools texted biased statements 24/7. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
And that was the end of it. What did they do to prevent Trump from becoming President? They could have leaked to Harry Reid just like the New York office leaked to Nunes. They could have leaked to the Clinton campaign the way the FBI office leaked to Giuliani. But, they behaved professionally. In the end, the FBI hurt Clinton and protected Trump. I don't know how you could argue otherwise. |
Anonymous
|
FBI Leadership appears to drive the Clinton email investigation despite concerns from DOJ prosecutors:
Page 53 OIG Report The NSD and EDVA prosecutors told the OIG that they were concerned at various points during the Midyear investigation that there was a disparity between the involvement of Department and FBI leadership in discussions about investigative steps. For example, while McCabe (the second in command at the FBI) attended meetings at which the Midyear agents and prosecutors debated whether and how to obtain the Mills and Samuelson laptops, the highest ranking official representing the Department’s position at those meetings was Toscas. Asked whether she was informed of these concerns, Yates told the OIG that she was not. She said that she was not aware that McCabe attended meetings with the Midyear prosecutors, nor did she know that Comey was closely involved in the investigation. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Not only is there no documentary or testimonial evidence that connect political views to investigative decisions, there are no real actions that can be criticized. Harry Reid was begging the FBI to disclose its investigation of the Trump campaign, but Trump was completely protected. Nobody in the FBI forced disclosure the way the New York office forced Comey to disclose the Weiner laptop. |
Anonymous
Actually, that's not the end of it. This was the end of it... Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?" You get what I'm saying? The next text was not turned over to Congress. Why? |
Anonymous
24/7? Then where are they? There should be tons of them if they texted them 24/7, but all we ever see are the same two messages, which were inconsequential. |
Anonymous
|
Page 60 of the OIG Report...
Comey told the OIG that during this meeting AG Lynch agreed they needed to confirm the existence of the investigation, but she said not to use the word “investigation,” and instead to call it a “matter.” Comey said that Lynch seemed slightly irritated at him when she said this, and that he took it as a direction. Comey stated: And I remember saying, “Well, what should I call it?” And she said, “Call it a matter.” And I said, “Why would I do that?” And she said, “I just want you to do that and so I would very much appreciate it if you would not refer to it as an investigation.” And the reason that gave me pause is, it was during a period of time which lasted, where I knew from the open source that the Clinton campaign was keen not to use the word investigation.... And so that one concerned me and I remember getting a lump in my stomach and deciding at that moment should I fight on this or not. Comey told the OIG that he decided not to fight this instruction from the AG, but that it “made [his] spider sense tingle” and caused him to “worry...that she’s carrying water for the [Clinton] campaign[.]” As described in Chapter Six, Comey told the OIG and testified before Congress that this instruction from Lynch was one of the factors that influenced his unilateral decision to make a public statement on July 5, 2016, without coordinating with the Department.56 However, Comey also said to us that he had no other reason to question Lynch’s motives at that time, stating, “[I]n fact my experience with her has always been very good and independent, and she always struck me as an independent-minded person[.]” |
Anonymous
Moderate PP here. I don’t believe that the FBI, or any of our constitutional structure is the problem. The problem reside with those public officers entrusted with the duty of service to American citizens. Corruption and political corruption is serious. That’s why this is so important to see objectively. It is a critical time for everyone in the world. I don’t follow your logic at all with there to be no need for an investigation. Trump had a long history, back to the 80s and 90s. The idea of him being on the government’s radar seems likely. He had Russian investors for his commercial properties and golf courses, a lot of social connection with ethically controversial figures, and tip toed around public office for years. His multiple bankruptcies surely exploited the spirit of the court system behind it. There were sexual harassment, discrimination, and lawsuits against him for things from contractor work, Miss USA, educational programs don’t scratch the surface.i find his history of personal and professional behavior to be a pretense. Stormy Daniel, Kim Jong Un - he is like the taz maniac devil! He allows strong economic returns for a wealthy class, so there are others that have incentive for his success, and turn a blind eye to the corruption. And in doing so, become a part of it. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
No, I do not get what you are saying. What did Page or Strzok do to prevent Trump from becoming president? Name one action that prevented Trump from becoming president? You can't, and, I assume you know, Trump became President. Whatever Strzok and Page's personal feelings, they didn't take actions based on those feelings. Again, the New York office leaked to Nunes and Giuliani. That forced Comey to disclose the Weiner laptop emails. Strzok and Page did nothing and Trump was protected until after the election. Do you get what I'm saying? |
Anonymous
Isn’t this what all voters do when they go out and vote? |
Anonymous
Well, they tried that and announced the texts were irretrievably lost. 
Then the whole country called BS, and suddenly....ta da! The whole top echelon was in cover up mode for Clinton. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Wrong. The facts are that Trump was protected. Nothing was disclosed about the Trump investigation until after the election. News about the Clinton investigation was repeatedly leaked or officially publicized. You have it exactly in reverse. The top echelon was committed to protecting Trump, which they did successfully. |
Anonymous
Given what she did with classified information, she should never have been running for president to begin with. The FBI was slow rolling the case and placed favorable agents in positions to protect her. That only comes from the White House. Comey was writing his draft exoneration long before the facts were in and the FBI was handing out immunity deals like it was candy to keep everyone quiet and sequestered in process. You know it happened, but as a die hard democrat, you turn your head away. |