Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peter Strzok may be testifying as early as next week. Evidently, he is STILL employed at the FBI.
Should be interesting testimony.

Why are be still paying this guy's salary?????????

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't cause to fire him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strzok is now out. Furthermore, IG Horowitz just testified that the two unidentified biased FBI investigators (in addition to Stzok and Page) assigned to the Mueller investigation are no longer working for the special counsel, and at least one of them was "removed" due to the anti-Trump text messages.

And, one of the biased agents (not Strozk or Page) was one of the questioners at HRC's meeting with the FBI. It could hardly be called an interrogation.
Some of the last questioners today really pressed the IG on this.

The IG is investigating the genesis of the Russian investigation and Strozk's part in it.

Anonymous wrote:Strzok is now out. Furthermore, IG Horowitz just testified that the two unidentified biased FBI investigators (in addition to Stzok and Page) assigned to the Mueller investigation are no longer working for the special counsel, and at least one of them was "removed" due to the anti-Trump text messages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peter Strzok may be testifying as early as next week. Evidently, he is STILL employed at the FBI.
Should be interesting testimony.

Why are be still paying this guy's salary?????????

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't cause to fire him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peter Strzok may be testifying as early as next week. Evidently, he is STILL employed at the FBI.
Should be interesting testimony.

Why are be still paying this guy's salary?????????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peter Strzok may be testifying as early as next week. Evidently, he is STILL employed at the FBI.
Should be interesting testimony.

Why are be still paying this guy's salary?????????

Anonymous wrote:Peter Strzok may be testifying as early as next week. Evidently, he is STILL employed at the FBI.
Should be interesting testimony.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

Agree that it was not Comey's place to do anything.

The problem was that the Clinton Investigation (or non-investigation) was well known. The Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting (which, after listening to the IG testimony was probably set up by Clinton w/o Lynch cooperation) made it even more difficult.
Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information. Comey said this in so many words--and, yet, did not recommend indictment. Had the DOJ been serious about the inquiry, there would have been a Grand Jury.

So, would Clinton have been better off with the "investigation" hanging over her head with no comment? She has no one to blame but herself. Lindsey Graham's questioning today elicited a response from the IG which would indicate she was guilty of "gross negligence."

That's just nonsense. There is no way that she would have been convicted of anything. The email handling and classification of emails at State was a total s-how long before the private email server.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason.

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.

Agree that it was not Comey's place to do anything.

The problem was that the Clinton Investigation (or non-investigation) was well known. The Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting (which, after listening to the IG testimony was probably set up by Clinton w/o Lynch cooperation) made it even more difficult.
Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information. Comey said this in so many words--and, yet, did not recommend indictment. Had the DOJ been serious about the inquiry, there would have been a Grand Jury.

So, would Clinton have been better off with the "investigation" hanging over her head with no comment? She has no one to blame but herself. Lindsey Graham's questioning today elicited a response from the IG which would indicate she was guilty of "gross negligence."