The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Isn’t this what all voters do when they go out and vote?

Maybe you're being sarcastic, but I'm going to reply in case you're actually serious. Do you think that the FBI agent who was at the head of the Clinton investigation during the lead up to the election may have had a little bit more ability to influence things than a single voter casting his or her ballot?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

[Anonymous]

Again, the New York office leaked to Nunes and Giuliani

Not a leak--a whistleblower. Don't know about the leak to Giuliani. The NYPD also knew, according to reports.

But, again, Weiner's computer should have been claimed as evidence long before the NYPD found the pedophilia communications. All computers used by Huma should have been searched long before summer of 2016. Please remember, Mills was also able to control her computer. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you mean too bad for our country?


It's the FBI's role to stop a candidate they don't like? Is that what you are stating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These politically biased FBI agents so clearly had a hand in the election. Thank you for admitting that the FBI is not above reproach and accepting that Americans questioning their trickery and lack of professionalism is NOT what has caused their reputation to be tarnished. What is pertinent now that the election is in the past is how that political bias led to the beginning of the Mueller investigation on false pretenses. That is what needs to be sorted out.

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.

Absolutely nothing you just laid out that is unrelated to Russian collusion has a thing to do with the investigation. Has Mueller been tasked with finding anything he can on Trump to get him removed from office? Was Mueller told to go back to the 80s to see what he can find relating to Miss USA, sexual harassment and discrimination? You are misinformed. Trump's personal and professional behavior for the past 40 years, or the fact that you dislike him, is not subject to investigation as grounds for removal or impeachment.

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

However, the IG did raise concerns about Strozk and his part in the Russian investigation. Remember, Comey orchestrated the special counsel

It is very difficult not to compare the two investigations when many of the actors participated in both.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

The only way he could have done significant damage to Clinton is by charging her under the espionage act, which he didn't.

This statement below, by Comey is NOT believable given past cases on mishandling of classsified information, legal precedent. the espionage statutes and existing US Code on actions, and NDA Standard Form 312, which Hillary Clinton signed.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."


Bottom line, Hillary Clinton was given special treatment that NO ONE else would get.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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 was underway before the FBI received the dossier. You seem to believe the investigation started with Flynn, but it started before that.

[Anonymous]

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

And he's quoting LYNCH no less!!

[Anonymous]

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.

Nothing that Manafort is in jail for relates to or shows any link to anything he did while working for Trump for 49 days. Many people believe that the Papadopoulos situation was a setup to create a reason.

And like another pp said, many of the same cast of characters worked on both the Hillary investigation and the Russia investigation, namely Strzok. They are intertwined.

[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

And he's quoting LYNCH no less!!

Is Lynch the head of the DOJ who Hillary Clinton's HUSBAND walked on her DOJ jet and had an ex-parte discussion with her over grandchildren , which she doesn't even have any (for 30 minutes)?

I just can't remember.

[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.

No, he didn't. He said he wouldn't have included things in the dossier if they didn't have a high likelihood of being true, and estimated it to be about 85% accurate. So far, nothing in it has been disproven.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not leaked to Nunez or Giuliani during the 2016 investigation.

Yes it was. I linked to a video of Nunes saying it was leaked to him in late September 2016. Giuliani was quoted at the time saying that the FBI had given him information about Clinton. Are you going to deny what Nunes and Giuliani themselves say?

The way I understand it, other agents knew about the emails on the Weiner laptop and also knew the cover ups re: Clinton by the upper echelon of the FBI. The text by one of the agents specifically said that Clinton's person lied and seemed quite pleased about it and said nothing would be done about it. So one of those agents tipped off the fix, which then required Comey to open the investigation to cover his butt. They knew when they opened it, they would 'find nothing', but they thought NOT opening it would be worse. They needed to clear her. They were also afraid of her, because they believed she'd be the next President.