Comey and Mueller

Translation - you now concede is is an ado about something?

 

I get it. I sometimes drop pics of Pepe the Frog in here just for the triggering effect

 

Here's what I don't understand. It appears Mueller removed the members of the team involved in this discussion at the time the IG brought it to his attention. The fact that they were ever on Mueller's team is being used as an indictment of his investigation. What would you have had him do? It appears he did everything by the book in this case and his handling of Strozky is an example of Mueller's professional handling of the case. Yet some are making this out as if he's hiding something. JoeFan stated this directly? Based on what evidence? Mueller's team has only publicly said anything about the case at the moment of the plea bargains or indictments. Mueller has never been vocal about who or who has not joined the investigation team. That has been gleaned through FOIA requests and other media investigations.

 

I object on the grounds that this is pure conjecture, counselor.

 

Okay, we are narrowing in on an answer to my question. You say that "the three of them . . . were discussing how to either prevent Trump from getting elected, or, having a plan in place in case he was." It seems clear that the discussion did not relate to keeping Trump from being elected. If that was the topic, then the rest of the text would make no sense. Why would the plan to keep Trump from being elected only become relevant if Trump was elected????

Instead, I agree with your second suggestion -- that they were discussing "having a plan in place in case he was." The question is -- a plan for what? I haven't seen anything shedding light on that. Pardon me for not buying into the fact that you just KNOW that it must be something nefarious.

One possibility (total speculation, no support) is that they were concerned that Trump would act to undermine the investigation, so they were discussing ways to make sure the investigation continued if Trump won the election. If this possibility is the truth, it's innocuous. But it is far from the only possibility, and some other possibilities would be quite nefarious. I was hoping someone could enlighten me with facts.

 

If they had actually wiretapped the Trump Campaign, that would be concerning. But that's not quite what happened. The FBI got a FISA warrant to tap Manafort, starting in 2014. There may or may not have been incidental collection of campaign-related discussions. What do you think we should do -- impose a new rule that anyone who takes a job with a presidential campaign is automatically immune from any and all criminal investigations?

This isn't to say that there is nothing to be concerned about. If there were incidental collections of campaign-related discussions, they should have been handled very confidentially and without any spillover to the Clinton campaign. I hope (and suspect) that is one of the many things Mueller is looking into.

 

What people seem to miss is that our country is in extreme danger from within. The justice department, IRS and FBI have no credibility as a result of actions over the last. IRS targeting groups for political purposes, FBI bungling the HRC investigation and the Justice department subverting laws, the people have nobody to trust. Add in the incompetent legislative branch, and it is an official disaster.

 

I think the right has lost faith in those institutions because they disagreed with the outcomes. The danger is actually from the right who have predetermined outcomes in mind then seek to discredit any investigation that doesn't end in their desired result. There is an entire propaganda apparatus that has sprung up to fuel this contingent.

 

I think that many in the various agencies FBI/NSA/CIA had information provided to them from foreign intelligence services relating to the blatant activities of the Trump campaign and the future administration. There was MUCH debate in the Obama administration about sounding the alarm about Russian meddling. Obama wanted a hands off approach as he thought HRC was going to win and he didn't want to give the perception that he put his thumb on the scale. At one point he gave into his heads of Homeland Security and DNI and they provided a joint letter about the active measures. Then, in a stroke of very poor timing, the Access Hollywood "move on them like a little _______" tape was leaked. Then, in a stroke of serendipitous coincidence, 45 minutes after that, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks/Russia. And now we have a nutty old man who would otherwise be spending his days watching fax news and forwarding goofy "FW::FW::FW::" emails about Jade Helm in charge of the nuclear football. Crazy world!

 

Actually that is my point. Nobody should like that as it will cause the fall of our country. Is it okay if Trump does the same thing?

 

You mean that the IRS could target conservative groups without consequence? That the Obama administration was using regulatory changes as an excuse to shake down businesses and divert those funds to liberal action groups? Yeah, I guess we disagreed with those outcomes.

 

Innocuous is the equivalent of much ado about nothing. But I thought you already conceded there is ado about something?
In any event, Muller himself does not share your judgment
Who do you think we side with on this? You? or Mueller?

Why did Mueller do what he did? Was it because rules were broken? Maybe. But I can tell you for certain that what Mueller instantly recognized is that all of this would blow up in his face if anything he is overseeing ever actually went to trial. I imagine he is pretty unhappy with those two for this reason alone. This explains why he hid it for so long. And it was probably not even what they said, but rather that they were so careless and got caught

They should have used a ham radio like Ohr's wife did

 

I guess you are referring to the third text in that thread, "maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." It sounds like "where you are" means working for the FBI, although it could refer to an assignment within the FBI. So Page (am I right that this is her phone?) is encouraging Strzok to maintain his current position so that he can "protect the country from that menace", i.e. Trump.

The question boils down to what "protect the country from that menace" means. You are assuming that Page wanted Strzok to stay in the executive branch so he could undercut a future President Trump's legal governance activities. That would indeed be an abuse of power. But it is just as possible that Page wanted Strzok to stay in the executive branch so he could hold a future President Trump accountable to the law. That would be innocuous.

Again, I'm not assuming that the comment was innocuous. But I'm not prepared to leap to the conclusion that it was nefarious, either.

 

Everything that he stated is 100% truth. The IRS did target conservatives and the FBI did screw up the investigation. Those are facts and not propaganda.

 

God you are thick. You seem to want me to commit to one extreme position (that everything Strzok and Page have ever said is innocuous) or the other (that everything Strzok and Page have ever said is nefarious). The real work just doesn't work that way. For the last time:

• Strzok's and Page's conduct overall is NOT innocuous, and IS some ado about something. Mueller was right to remove them from the Trump investigation.
• The particular text we have been discussing may be innocuous or it may be nefarious. I don't know enough to reach a conclusion either way.

 

We at least know the context, which was that the meeting discussed in that text (the one mentioning McCabe) came after the first application for the FISA warrant by FBI/DOJ had been rejected. So, by this point in time, we know that they are already after him, or his team. And we also know by this time they are working on another plan.

That next plan turned out to be going back to the FISA Court using, we think, the material alleged in the Steele Dossier. Which they made application for a month+ after that text. This is Strzok's part of the FBI. He is (was, oops) the head of that section.

So, there is no question that they were after Trump and using whatever they had in that endeavor, including a willingness to go so far as to present to the FISA Court the repackaged, unverified claims from the Steele Dossier. I would not be surprised if Strzok submitted a declaration as part of that application. Nor would I be surprised to eventually see sanctions issued over that application. Perhaps worse.

 

Other than dropping the personal insults, I dont really care what you do.

And dude, the use of absolutes ("everything") is by definition "extreme." It's always amusing how often you guys get caught projecting like that.

 

I had not seen this before now
But I feel certain Grassley would not be making this claim unless he knew it for fact
Apparently when the FBI was investigating Hillary, they used "phones that cannot be traced"?
Why would they do this?
I believe it was Strzok who headed this investigation as well
Nothing nefarious?
Do secret, untraceable phones sound innocuous to you?
Maybe to the non-thick

 

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok wrote in a cryptic text message to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer.

“It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok wrote in the text, dated Aug. 15, 2016.

Wow. This goes way beyond simple partisanship. They are talking about a plan to remove Trump from office.

 

Page is the DOJ attorney here. Strzok is the agent (he might have gone to law school too, I dont know. But I do know alot of agents, probably most, did go to law school). So what was her plan?

We will never know what was in their heads at that moment, but we do know
(1) What they were saying to each other at this time
(2) The context and timing, and
(3) What they subsequently did - they took a second bite at the FISA warrant apple

So, it seems quite possible that their "insurance plan" was using the Steele dossier to go back to the FISA Court to get a warrant to use the US Intelligence apparatus to surveil the Trump Campaign.

Who knows if the subsequent unmaskings and leaks to the media were part of the plan at this time? My guess is probably not at this time. They probably thought they would find a crime. But when they did not, the Obama people panicked and that is when all sorts of people begin to request unmaskings. And thus the illegal leaking of classified material opened up like a fire hose.

One of the weirdest examples of this was Obama's UN Ambassador Samantha Power. How in the world a UN Ambassador was able to request unmaskings during the transition period is difficult to fathom. But she did it 100s of times. She was still requesting unmaskings right up until Trump was worn in. Does this not scream abuse? If not illegality?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...assador-Power-sought-hundreds-unmaskings.html

In any event, to bring it back to the present discussion. Somebody came up with the plan to use the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to use the NSA to spy on the Trump Campaign. It started somewhere, and with someone. And my point is this -- given the context, timing and subsequent actions of this group of people -- maybe this is the where and whom. Maybe Strzok, his f-buddy Page, McCabe and Ohr is where it all began?

 

Patriots.

 

This is the way that banana republics act. Doesn't surprise me that someone left of center is all for it.

 

Here's a test for you. What part of what JoeFan posted is actual fact and which is conjecture?

 

The part that I wrote, which is not Joe's, is 100% fact. These are Strzok's emails.

 

Do you believe CNN? I got an MSM article just for you. Here are Strzok's emails.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/peter-strzok-texts-released/index.html

 

Great. Strozks texts are a fact. What else?

 

It's hard to interpret it in any other way but I'm sure you will come up with some kind of spin.

 

It's about what is right or wrong that even you shouldn't dispute. Not if we agree or disagree with outcomes. Point blank the "institution" of the IRS should not target conservative groups. You agree? You seem to be okay with anything illegal as long as it helps your party in power.

 

Is this an admission that you are incapable critically analyzing those texts? NJLonghorn already covered other viable options.

It seems to me you are admitting that it doesn't matter what the "plan" was or any other context that might be present. It's "hard to interpret it in any other way". You've made your decision already on a smattering of texts.