The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

[Anonymous]

Steele's faith in the sensational sex claim would fade over time. Much later, after this report and follow-up memos would become infamous, Steele would say that he believed 70 to 90 per cent of the broad assertions of his reporting – that Russia had mounted a campaign to cultivate Trump and had colluded with the Trump campaign – was true. (Burrows would assess the level of accuracy at 70 to 80 per cent.) As for the likelihood of the claim that prostitutes had urinated in Trump's presence, Steele would say to colleagues, "It's 50-50".

http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/arts-and-entertainment/books/russian-roulette-the-real-story-behind-the-steele-dossier-20180315-h0xj4g

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason Trump was elected was because the American public isn't stupid. They knew something was up re: Clinton and did not like the way this country was headed. It wasn't for lack of effort, trust me. They put a lot of disinformation out there and when it didn't work, executed their next set of plans.

The fact is, Strzok was in this up to his eyeballs, from the Hillary email issues to the FISA warrant(s) to the Dossier to the interviewing of Flynn. That's what makes his texts so troubling.

Any impression among the American public that something was up with Clinton was certainly bolstered by Comey's various actions, especially his last minute revelation about Weiner's laptop. That was triggered by leaks coming from anti-Clinton FBI agents. Regardless of Strzok's personal feelings, he did not leak anything about the Trump investigation. Could you imagine if a week before the election, rather than revealing Weiner's laptop, Comey had announced that Trump was being investigated for collision with Russia? If Comey and the FBI were really pro-Clinton, that is what would have happened.

Actually, if anything tanked Clinton, it was Comey letting her off the hook for obvious violations that the American people already knew about. The agents were not anti-Clinton - they were whistleblowers who saw violations in policy in their law enforcement agency and refused to let it stand. And if I recall, the anti-Trump bias in media and by all sorts of people in power TO media was overwhelming. Unfortunately for Clinton, no one really believes the media

[Anonymous]

Trump was elected precisely because the American public is stupid.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason Trump was elected was because the American public isn't stupid. They knew something was up re: Clinton and did not like the way this country was headed. It wasn't for lack of effort, trust me. They put a lot of disinformation out there and when it didn't work, executed their next set of plans.

The fact is, Strzok was in this up to his eyeballs, from the Hillary email issues to the FISA warrant(s) to the Dossier to the interviewing of Flynn. That's what makes his texts so troubling.

Any impression among the American public that something was up with Clinton was certainly bolstered by Comey's various actions, especially his last minute revelation about Weiner's laptop. That was triggered by leaks coming from anti-Clinton FBI agents. Regardless of Strzok's personal feelings, he did not leak anything about the Trump investigation. Could you imagine if a week before the election, rather than revealing Weiner's laptop, Comey had announced that Trump was being investigated for collision with Russia? If Comey and the FBI were really pro-Clinton, that is what would have happened.

It's not just Strzok's personal feelings. It's also agent's #1, #2, #5, page, McCabe and of course, didn't Comey tell everyone he nearly cried tears when meeting with president Obama? Get real.

Your position is that all these folks were completely in the bag for Clinton, yet took multiple actions to hurt her campaign while completely protecting Trump?

Except their texts and conversations say otherwise.

Nope. Their texts and conversations in no way deny that the FBI took repeated actions that hurt Clinton and protected Trump. On the other hand, the anti-Clinton agents in New York not only had biases, but acted on those biases to also hurt Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump was elected precisely because the American public is stupid.

No. Trump was elected because Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks the American public is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hilarious how you claim "whistleblower" status for this but with the leaks coming out of the White House you cry foul. Why aren't those considered whistleblowing?

[Anonymous]

Hilarious how you claim "whistleblower" status for this but with the leaks coming out of the White House you cry foul. Why aren't those considered whistleblowing?

Big difference between a leak and a whistleblower. The whistleblower shares the information with a government authority. A leaker usually shares it with the press. One is legal. The other is not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason Trump was elected was because the American public isn't stupid. They knew something was up re: Clinton and did not like the way this country was headed. It wasn't for lack of effort, trust me. They put a lot of disinformation out there and when it didn't work, executed their next set of plans.

The fact is, Strzok was in this up to his eyeballs, from the Hillary email issues to the FISA warrant(s) to the Dossier to the interviewing of Flynn. That's what makes his texts so troubling.

Any impression among the American public that something was up with Clinton was certainly bolstered by Comey's various actions, especially his last minute revelation about Weiner's laptop. That was triggered by leaks coming from anti-Clinton FBI agents. Regardless of Strzok's personal feelings, he did not leak anything about the Trump investigation. Could you imagine if a week before the election, rather than revealing Weiner's laptop, Comey had announced that Trump was being investigated for collision with Russia? If Comey and the FBI were really pro-Clinton, that is what would have happened.

It's not just Strzok's personal feelings. It's also agent's #1, #2, #5, page, McCabe and of course, didn't Comey tell everyone he nearly cried tears when meeting with president Obama? Get real.

Your position is that all these folks were completely in the bag for Clinton, yet took multiple actions to hurt her campaign while completely protecting Trump?

Except their texts and conversations say otherwise.

Nope. Their texts and conversations in no way deny that the FBI took repeated actions that hurt Clinton and protected Trump. On the other hand, the anti-Clinton agents in New York not only had biases, but acted on those biases to also hurt Clinton.

You mean like negotiating with Hillary over turning over the server with classified information on it on her property connected to the internet (which the FBI never did get)? Or FBI agents being told what they can and cannot ask of her and her staff?

In what investigation of the mishandling of classified information does that happen in? Can you name one investigation, where the government doesn't just come and confiscate everything in your possession WITHOUT QUESTION to see what you have and what you did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was elected precisely because the American public is stupid.

No. Trump was elected because Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks the American public is stupid.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For those misinformed, or intentionally distributing false information, The Trump-Russia Timeline dates back “more than 35 years”.
The historical and general public information alone is concerning, lord knows what shows in confidential background investigations as it connects and uncovers the truth. .

Investigating Russia
https://investigaterussia.org/timelines/everything-we-know-about-russia-and-president-trump

[Anonymous]

If the FBI had conducted the investigation properly, they would have had possession of the server and all computers, etc, belonging to Clinton and her staff. When classified information was found on it, there should have been a Grand Jury right away. If there was not sufficient evidence, the GJ could have chosen not to indict.

Had this been done properly, the investigation would have been wrapped up long before the Dem primaries were completed. If the only issue had been classified information on her servers, the American people could have decided--although, others have been convicted for less.

Another problem that is not brought up much anymore, were HRC's lies about all of this. She repeatedly lied to the American people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

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.

So you are saying that Manafort, despite a history of criminal activities involving Russians or pro-Russian Ukrainians and working for free for Trump, should not have been investigated for ties to Russia? You guys keep bringing up that Manafort has not yet been charge ed with a crime committed during the 144 days (you don't count very well either) that he worked for Trump. BTW, that included managing the convention at which the Republican platform dealing with Ukraine was watered in a manner desired by Russia. This is a standard prosecutorial tactic. Even Republican Trey Gowdy agrees that the FBI was correct to open an investigation (but, of course that earned him RINO status despite his years of investigating Clinton).

No. I am saying that throughout the investigation of Manafort, we have not learned of any of his interactions with Russia that related to Trump or his campaign. They were for personal gain and prior to and separate from Trump.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:No. I am saying that throughout the investigation of Manafort, we have not learned of any of his interactions with Russia that related to Trump or his campaign. They were for personal gain and prior to and separate from Trump.

Now that you have said that, so what? Does that mean that he should not have been investigated for collusion? If while investigating possible collision, investigators discovered crimes that were committed for personal benefit rather than helping Trump, do you expect them to just ignore the crimes?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Nope. Their texts and conversations in no way deny that the FBI took repeated actions that hurt Clinton and protected Trump. On the other hand, the anti-Clinton agents in New York not only had biases, but acted on those biases to also hurt Clinton.

Hurt her campaign?


She should not have been campaigning. She should have been in jail for destruction of evidence during an ongoing federal investigation, mishandling of classified information, not cooperating with an investigation, etc.


NO ONE else would get away with that. FBI/DOJ/OBAMA treated her with kid gloves.


That's evidence of intent and violation of classified rules right there by Hillary (strip the classification headers and send it over an open line).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:That's evidence of intent and violation of classified rules right there by Hillary (strip the classification headers and send it over an open line).

Your interpretation of that document is incorrect and has been debunked many times. The a "nonpaper" is a paper with no identifying information (i.e. no author). The document was talking points. Stripping the attribution turned it into a nonpaper. It was not a classified document.

You guys have a 500 page report that investigates exactly this topic. It didn't find the results you wanted so now you are ignoring it and going back to the same conspiracy sources of the past. None of your allegations are supported.