The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

[Anonymous]

FBI Attorney #2 was removed from the special counsel's investigation in late Feb '18 after more texts were released showing his bias.


That's in addition to FBI Agent's 1 and 5.


Plus Strzok and Page.


Starting to get the picture?


The single most important fact to come out of this entire thing with HRC server/emails is that congress really has zero power to do anything, it is looked upon as a joke by the NSA,CIA,DOJ,FBI and the courts. The OIG, DOJ, FBI, and all of the lawyers and media talking heads can argue about her server, their use of it, and the emails that went through it being legal or illegal (we all know it was illegal) but the one thing that is uncontested is that congress issued subpoenas on it all and HRC and her ilk ignored them and destroyed it all.

The OIG report agrees with Comey's decision not to recommend prosecution. In what world can they ever arrive at this conclusion given they (Clinton staff) destroyed evidence under subpoena? Only one congressmen made mention of this yesterday, only one.

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting tidbit from page 176 (147 page number):

--


In another exchange on February 4, 2016, Agent 1 and an FBI employee who was not assigned to the Midyear investigation discussed Agent 1's interview with a witness who assisted the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence.

Part of this exchange follows.

FBI Employee: "boom...how did the [witness] go"
Agent 1: "Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never inside the SCIF
[sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in
when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to
troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there
was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,"
FBI Employee: "would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this
deal"
Agent 1: "I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have
a clearance when handling the secure fax aint noone gonna do shit"

--


Nope. No corruption there. None at all.

[Anonymous]

So after all this, is Peter Strzok still at the FBI?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI agents were disturbed by thousands of emails discovered on a pedophile's computer? And, Comey thought (according to Loretta Lynch who refused to recuse herself) that displayed a visceral hatred by the agents. That may have been Comey's excuse to her as to why they had to go public. We don't even know for sure that is what he told her.

Again, if the FBI had properly done their investigation, this computer would have been in FBI possession long before September. It was only discovered because of the Weiner conversations with a young girl (or someone pretending to be one--I don't recall that detail.)

There was plenty of evidence of guilt--yet no Grand Jury was convened. Unlike the Mueller investigation. Why didn't the FBI go into Weiner's house in the middle of the night? We know that HRC's IT guy mishandled and destroyed hardware--AFTER emails were subpoenaed. We know that the FBI let Mills sit in on HRC's testimony. We know that FBI agents knew HRC was lying. We know that Strozk was one of the agents who interviewed her. We know that FBI agents knew there were people allowed in her Chappaqua schiff who were lying. We know that Weiner had an amazing amount of access. And, yet, no Grand Jury.

We also know that "intent" (Sally Yates said there was no bad intent on Clinton's part) has nothing to do with innocence or guilt in the code.

And, for HRC to claim that "c" was alphabetical order on a document defies belief. She cannot possibly be that stupid. And, remember, she told one staffer to send classified information in one of those emails that was released by Wikileaks.

We also now know that Obama was communicating with her at this address and we now have confirmation that her computer was compromised by a foreign nation while in a foreign country--presumably Russia. This was in the report--the presumption of Russia was not.

The bolded is key. And, the NY FBI saw that HQ were attempting to cover up the finding of emails on Weiner’s computer. That is why they threatened to go public. Had they done their job completely, the computer would have been found earlier - and once found, if they had searched it immediately, there would have been no issue. Once HQ was notified about the emails, nothing happened for 21 days. The IG could find "no evidence" that anything happened between Oct 4-24 either by the Mid Year Exam team or anyone in FBI leadership, including McCabe and Comey. FBI New York then escalates to DOJ.
I also have serious questions about the review of those emails found. One day, we are told that the pure volume of the emails would not allow them to complete the review prior to the election, and then presto! - they discovered a way to “de-duplicate” the emails. Thus, reducing the number of emails that needed review from hundreds of thousands to just over 3,000. But, this magic process has never been explained or really verified by anyone. Did they really look at the emails? Did Horowitz confirm that the emails were actually reviewed?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

You probably have rolled your eyes too much and caused yourself some mental stability because you have things completely backwards. There is lots of evidence that gravity exists. There is no evidence that Strzok took any actions as a result of personal political bias. In fact, the IG found the exact opposite -- that no evidence connecting political views to investigatory actions exists. You are imagining evidence where none exists. So, put your eyes back in their sockets and use them to read more carefully.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

You probably have rolled your eyes too much and caused yourself some mental stability because you have things completely backwards. There is lots of evidence that gravity exists. There is no evidence that Strzok took any actions as a result of personal political bias. In fact, the IG found the exact opposite -- that no evidence connecting political views to investigatory actions exists. You are imagining evidence where none exists. So, put your eyes back in their sockets and use them to read more carefully.

The report also faults the FBI – and specifically Strzok – for not acting quickly enough after the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the fall of 2016. The report says Strzok and others argued that the Russia investigation was a “higher priority” at the time than reviewing the laptop.

“We found this explanation unpersuasive and concerning,” the report said, noting the FBI could have gotten a search warrant in late September, but waited more than a month to do so -- ultimately revisiting the case days before the election. Clinton has long said that announcement contributed to her defeat. But the report also suggested that Strzok, ironically, may have acted out of bias for Clinton in slow-walking the laptop review.

Based on the Strzok text messages, the report said, “We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/justice-dept-ig-report-released-on-fbis-handling-clinton-email-case-comey-found-insubordinate.html

[Anonymous]

Actually, in the report, it says that they did not have confidence that Strozk's decision to delay the Weiner investigation because of the Russian investigation was "free from bias." There are lots of indications of bias and comments that there were concerns about bias in this report.

[Anonymous]

16:37 here--was typing while other pp was posting. Strozk appears to have acted on bias. This is not over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are living in a fantasy world. The investigation shows just how biased the FBI agents were in favor of Hillary and against Trump. Those agents are Giglio impaired from here on out.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-15/fbi-agent-called-hillary-president-while-investigating-her-texted-screw-you-trump

funny since it says no bias. How did you miss that?

The IG laid out overwhelming evidence of FBI’s political bias against Trump, and the very odd investigative actions. Everyone can draw their own conclusions of whether the deep rooted biases affected the investigation. They chose exclusively voluntary interviews on Clinton’s investigation. They handed out immunity like candy. They wrote exoneration months in advance.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, in the report, it says that they did not have confidence that Strozk's decision to delay the Weiner investigation because of the Russian investigation was "free from bias." There are lots of indications of bias and comments that there were concerns about bias in this report.

So what both you and the other poster are saying is that the IG could not prove a negative. He did not find that the decisions were the result of bias, but he couldn't prove that the decisions were free from bias. How do you prove something doesn't exist if you find no indications that it does exist? What we do know is that nothing on the laptop was meaningful for the Clinton investigation so giving it a low priority was correct.

Compare that to the NYC FBI agents who leaked to Nunes and Giuliani. They not only have obvious bias, they clearly acted on that bias. No need to prove a negative in their case because you can easily prove a positive.

[Anonymous]

The report is full of examples of bias. I read one pundit who compared this to Comey laying out a case for prosecution of Clinton and then saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict. Many "reasonable prosecutors" have said they would have indicted her. Or, at least, called a Grand Jury. They had not intention of indicting her ever--or, a Grand Jury would have been called. Why was no one indicted? Several people lied. Several destroyed evidence, too.

[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."

Yet they didn't.

Too bad for our country they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The IG report found protocol violations by Strzok but said that political bias didn't play a role."

How could they determine that given what Strzok texted (texted from a SCIF BTW).

Because he didn't act on his personal bias. Everyone has personal biases. Some people can set them aside in their professional life. If Strzok really wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, don't you think he could have done a lot more than send text messages to his lover? He could have acted like the agents in the New York office and leaked like a sieve.

That's like saying "with all the evidence in existence today, we still don't believe gravity exists."

You probably have rolled your eyes too much and caused yourself some mental stability because you have things completely backwards. There is lots of evidence that gravity exists. There is no evidence that Strzok took any actions as a result of personal political bias. In fact, the IG found the exact opposite -- that no evidence connecting political views to investigatory actions exists. You are imagining evidence where none exists. So, put your eyes back in their sockets and use them to read more carefully.

The report also faults the FBI – and specifically Strzok – for not acting quickly enough after the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the fall of 2016. The report says Strzok and others argued that the Russia investigation was a “higher priority” at the time than reviewing the laptop.

“We found this explanation unpersuasive and concerning,” the report said, noting the FBI could have gotten a search warrant in late September, but waited more than a month to do so -- ultimately revisiting the case days before the election. Clinton has long said that announcement contributed to her defeat. But the report also suggested that Strzok, ironically, may have acted out of bias for Clinton in slow-walking the laptop review.

Based on the Strzok text messages, the report said, “We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/justice-dept-ig-report-released-on-fbis-handling-clinton-email-case-comey-found-insubordinate.html

Yeah that sounds about right: the Russia investigation should have been a higher priority than revieiwng the laptop.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The report is full of examples of bias. I read one pundit who compared this to Comey laying out a case for prosecution of Clinton and then saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict. Many "reasonable prosecutors" have said they would have indicted her. Or, at least, called a Grand Jury. They had not intention of indicting her ever--or, a Grand Jury would have been called. Why was no one indicted? Several people lied. Several destroyed evidence, too.

All of the actions for which the IG faulted Comey were actions that hurt Clinton. The IG specifically criticized Comey for laying out the case against Clinton which he should not have done. It violated FBI procedure and his instructions from the DOJ. Comey did significant damage to Clinton. At the same time, he protected Trump.