FBI fires Peter Strzok, months after anti-Trump texts revealed

[slick]

Anyone who asserts that this FBI Agent could stop Trump all by himself is insulting the intelligence of any and every rational minded person.

He had help, plenty of it!
I'm not sure of the pecking so correct me if need be but as I see it the leadership the top 3 in the FBI
are all now gone they don't usually do that, they don't eat their own & two of them Strzok & McCabe were given
the boot by the bureau themselves. This has never happened before these three who have given the FBI a big black
eye. Comey who was fired for reason not by the bureau but by Trump was just as bad. It's digusting for me
to think my Alma Mater has announced they have given this guy a lifeline after his dismissal from the bureau &
because of that I won't pledge my usual donation to the college this year. I recently read that Comey plans to
teach ethical leadership at the college next fall. Comey teaching ethical leadership
is ridiculous what happened Manafort rejected the position.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Glad we are actually doing something about these Clinton loyalists buried so deeply in our government.
Happy that he finally will not be able to go in to the FBI building every day and do god knows what?
Destroying evidence, working on implementing their "insurance policy”?

Sometimes I despair that good will win out over evil, that justice will prevail over corruption, that common sense will overcome the worst of the ignorance and short sightedness.

But every now and then there is just enough that is right and good to give me hope and keep me optimistic.

 

[Acadia]

Sorry to have to interrupt your fanciful delusion. But the change was made at the request of FBI/Justice lawyers because in law the term "negligent" is a legal term that has specific legal and statutorial meaning and therefore it's use would not proper in this case as Ms Clinton had not been charged with having committed any crimes.

Exactly. They changed the word because they had no intention of recommending charges. That was baked in the cake. The Lynch cake.

 

[Acadia]

Anyone who asserts that this FBI Agent could stop Trump all by himself is insulting the intelligence of any and every rational minded person.

Who said that? Of course it wasn't just Strzok. Duh.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Exactly. They changed the word because they had no intention of recommending charges. That was baked in the cake. The Lynch cake.

:doh I probably should know better by now than to post to the reading comprehension challenged.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Who said that? Of course it wasn't just Strzok. Duh.

Oh so two FBI people, one an agent and one a lawyer, were going to stop Trump from becoming President. Sounds like we already have the story plot for the next "Mission Impossible" sequel and can look forward to seeing it next summer in a theater near you. :lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Atomic Kid]

He had help, plenty of it!
I'm not sure of the pecking so correct me if need be but as I see it the leadership the top 3 in the FBI
are all now gone they don't usually do that, they don't eat their own & two of them Strzok & McCabe were given
the boot by the bureau themselves. This has never happened before these three who have given the FBI a big black
eye. Comey who was fired for reason not by the bureau but by Trump was just as bad. It's digusting for me
to think my Alma Mater has announced they have given this guy a lifeline after his dismissal from the bureau &
because of that I won't pledge my usual donation to the college this year. I recently read that Comey plans to
teach ethical leadership at the college next fall. Comey teaching ethical leadership
is ridiculous what happened Manafort rejected the position.

He did? But you're not sure of the 'pecking'? Seems to me that you're not too sure of anything then . And you're right having top leadership in the FBI fired for political reasons is an ugly precedent set by this wannabe King of a President who believes he has the right to demand from his Justice Dept everybody's unconditional personal loyalty and a disgustingly complicit GOP who are all too willing place party and holding onto power above country, our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

 

[Excon]

It was appropriate for him to be fired.

 

[slick]

He did? But you're not sure of the 'pecking'? Seems to me that you're not too sure of anything then . And you're right having top leadership in the FBI fired for political reasons is an ugly precedent set by this wannabe King of a President who believes he has the right to demand from his Justice Dept everybody's unconditional personal loyalty and a disgustingly complicit GOP who are all too willing place party and holding onto power above country, our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

You really should be able to figure out by now where the road you are on goes. Certainly you're not much of a salesmen for
your collection of ideas. One of these days hopefully you'll be ambushed by reality!

 

[Plus Ultra]

Anyone who asserts that this FBI Agent could stop Trump all by himself is insulting the intelligence of any and every rational minded person.

Same goes for anyone who claims Strzok acted alone and that nobody he worked with felt any bias against Trump.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You really should be able to figure out by now where the road you are on goes. Certainly you're not much of a salesmen for
your collection of ideas. One of these days hopefully you'll be ambushed by reality!

I think it's you who hasn't figured out where the road we are on is going yet and you probably don't want know.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Same goes for anyone who claims Strzok acted alone and that nobody he worked with felt any bias against Trump.

Gee I wonder if there wouldn't be any bias against Clinton too? Especially in the the FBI's New York division. Which by the way is still an ongoing open matter in the Inspector General's office.

 

[marke]

Far from it and I do think she's a rare Democrat who's conscience pangs at what she and the DNC (Hillary) have done.

Most democrat leaders are dedicated to the promotion and preservation of the democrat party as if saving the democrat party is equivalent to saving the United States of America. To the party faithful illegal or immoral activities designed to undermine republican influence and/or promote democrat influence are good, not bad.

Hence - the fake lying Russian spy document purchased by the Hillary campaign currently still being used by democrats in an effort to bring Trump down.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Oh so two FBI people, one an agent and one a lawyer, were going to stop Trump from becoming President.

Not just Strzok and his adulterous mistress, remember they discussed the "insurance policy in "Andy's" office (that would be McCabe), and what about that other woman who texted her sympathetic colleague she'd put on both her guns if Trump won? You think just 3, maybe 4 in the FBI strongly opposed Trump's candidacy? Don't you think that if very high ranking agents (who should know better) are openly sending messages back and forth on government equipment expressing such strong aversion to Trump -even as they were publicly investigating him, there must have been a broader opposition to the President than just 3 or 4?

I think they all were certain Hillary would win, everyone in the media following the campaigns told them it was Hillary by a landslide. High ranking FBI figures, do depend on political support to advance their careers, they know they need to avoid antagonizing people in power and how wonderfully things go when they cater to those powerful people. With this mindset and that expectation these agents and others at DoJ and throughout the intelligence community probably shared Strzok's views and tried in any way they could to help Hillary win.

She lost, but insisted it was Trump's collusion and the FBI has been mobilized to prove it, they've been working hard for a couple of years already (that we know of), they may have lots of evidence Mueller is carefully protecting, but what we have learned about this investigating has revealed numerous instances of questionable investigative decisions, the sort of decisions which appear to be induced by the sort of political bias the IG found evident in Strzok's texts.

In due course it will be clear Trump never colluded with Russia, those emails were not hacked by Russia, Russia didn't send them to Wikileaks, whores didn't pee on Trump, Cohen never went to Prague, Papadopolous never got Hillary dirt from Mifsud, Flynn never bargained to lift sanctions on Russia, Manafort and Page weren't working for Putin... but what we will eventually discover is that much of this two-year old story was purely confected by people who shared Strzok's perspective.

 

[upsideguy]

Tough to investigate his campaign and not investigate the man.

However, in response to the claim that the FBI had sent a "spy" to the campaign, earlier this year Brennan said no and that the FBI was only interested in Page.

Its these sorts of dichotomies that motivate a lot of Trump defenders and create a lot of the 'whataboutisms.'

The point you are trying to make here is not clear. Are you still trying to cling to something Brennan said a year ago that you have likely taken out of context, as if it means something?

What is clear is that Strzok could have let the press know that the Trump campaign was under investigation in Oct 2016, but did not do so. It's pretty hard to argue, as one poster has, that Strzok had actively worked, in a criminal way, to undermine Trump when he failed to take advantage of one the chance he actually had to undermine Trump.

Not just Strzok and his adulterous mistress, remember they discussed the "insurance policy in "Andy's" office (that would be McCabe), and what about that other woman who texted her sympathetic colleague she'd put on both her guns if Trump won? You think just 3, maybe 4 in the FBI strongly opposed Trump's candidacy? Don't you think that if very high ranking agents (who should know better) are openly sending messages back and forth on government equipment expressing such strong aversion to Trump -even as they were publicly investigating him, there must have been a broader opposition to the President than just 3 or 4?

I think they all were certain Hillary would win, everyone in the media following the campaigns told them it was Hillary by a landslide. High ranking FBI figures, do depend on political support to advance their careers, they know they need to avoid antagonizing people in power and how wonderfully things go when they cater to those powerful people. With this mindset and that expectation these agents and others at DoJ and throughout the intelligence community probably shared Strzok's views and tried in any way they could to help Hillary win.

She lost, but insisted it was Trump's collusion and the FBI has been mobilized to prove it, they've been working hard for a couple of years already (that we know of), they may have lots of evidence Mueller is carefully protecting, but what we have learned about this investigating has revealed numerous instances of questionable investigative decisions, the sort of decisions which appear to be induced by the sort of political bias the IG found evident in Strzok's texts.

In due course it will be clear Trump never colluded with Russia, those emails were not hacked by Russia, Russia didn't send them to Wikileaks, whores didn't pee on Trump, Cohen never went to Prague, Papadopolous never got Hillary dirt from Mifsud, Flynn never bargained to lift sanctions on Russia, Manafort and Page weren't working for Putin... but what we will eventually discover is that much of this two-year old story was purely confected by people who shared Strzok's perspective.

Ditto...... When Strzok actually had a shot at really causing the Trump campaign to stumble, he did not take the shot. Its hard to argue he was a threat to Trump when his actions say otherwise.

 

[marke]

Thank Heaven for the fact that Mr. Trump hasn't imposed any tariffs on imported tinfoil hats.

 

[slick]

The new liberal playbook: Betray your country. Get the main stream media slobbering over you.
Set up a Go Fund Me page and funnel dirty money through the account.

 

[eohrnberger]

Most democrat leaders are dedicated to the promotion and preservation of the democrat party as if saving the democrat party is equivalent to saving the United States of America. To the party faithful illegal or immoral activities designed to undermine republican influence and/or promote democrat influence are good, not bad.

Hence - the fake lying Russian spy document purchased by the Hillary campaign currently still being used by democrats in an effort to bring Trump down.

When people compromise their morals and justice for the good of their tribe, they need to more closely examine their own morals and motivations. When one does compromise their morals and justice for the good of their tribe, it is actually damaging to the tribe that they are trying to protect and promote.

The new liberal playbook: Betray your country. Get the main stream media slobbering over you.
Set up a Go Fund Me page and funnel dirty money through the account.

So it would seem, to the detriment of us all.

 

[eohrnberger]

Based on this alone, I believe Strzok acted upon his bias (I also think he was involved in slow walking Carlos Danger's laptop discovery involving even more of Hillary's emails). As one investigates, they gather more evidence. Why would that terminology be made innocuous, when it had been damning.

Did the FBI UNfind evidence?

It just doesn't make logical sense.

Political bias, such as has been unquestionably delivered by the FBI has no place anywhere in any law enforcement branch, 'equal before the law' is a founding constitutional right, Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, which clearly wasn't adhered to in this case, especially when comparing and contrasting to the Russian collusion investigation and it's conduct.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Gee I wonder if there wouldn't be any bias against Clinton too? Especially in the the FBI's New York division. Which by the way is still an ongoing open matter in the Inspector General's office.

Yes, I've seen this mentioned before too, I guess you figure if they're biased against both it's ok.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Yes, I've seen this mentioned before too, I guess you figure if they're biased against both it's ok.

All human beings have biases and last I checked the FBI is still in the practice of using human beings as agents instead of robots. There’s nothing wrong with an FBI agent having a particular political bias or preference just as we all do as long as they don’t allow for it to affect their work. If an agent leaks then he or she is probably guilty of letting it affect their work.

 

[Plus Ultra]

There’s nothing wrong with an FBI agent having a particular political bias or preference just as we all do as long as they don’t allow for it to affect their work.

I agree, what I'm not sure about is that Strzok's bias did not affect his work. His messages indicate a very strong bias and an intent to apply this to his work, to act on his bias.

If an agent leaks then he or she is probably guilty of letting it [bias] affect their work.

I also agree and would note there has been an inordinate amount of leakage relating to Trump. My impression is that this leakage is not just Strzok, I figure it reflects a generalized anti-Trump bias among the leakers or a concerted effort by a few who oppose Trump at the top.

We all do have biases, these are natural, the product of upbringing, culture, taste and experience, the 'trick' is to realize this and consider how other experiences affect the biases of different people, to know the way we see things is a consequence of what we have lived and how that experience affects our perspective just as different experiences affect the bias of others. I've learned how to appreciate this well and am proud of my capacity to appreciate things from a different perspective, I don't know many with such a capacity.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I agree, what I'm not sure about is that Strzok's bias did not affect his work. His messages indicate a very strong bias and an intent to apply this to his work, to act on his bias.

I also agree and would note there has been an inordinate amount of leakage relating to Trump. My impression is that this leakage is not just Strzok, I figure it reflects a generalized anti-Trump bias among the leakers or a concerted effort by a few who oppose Trump at the top.

We all do have biases, these are natural, the product of upbringing, culture, taste and experience, the 'trick' is to realize this and consider how other experiences affect the biases of different people, to know the way we see things is a consequence of what we have lived and how that experience affects our perspective just as different experiences affect the bias of others. I've learned how to appreciate this well and am proud of my capacity to appreciate things from a different perspective, I don't know many with such a capacity.

"Don't know many with such a capacity"? My, my are we flattering ourselves here or what? The Inspector General's report stated that it had found no evidence that political bias had played any role in the decisions made in the Clinton email investigation. The reference I made as to 'leaks' have specifically to do with anti-Hillary leaks emanating from the FBI's New York Office. Which was previously overseen by Rudy Giulani, and which remains under investigation. Whereas Strzok and Page never leaked anything about the existence of an open FBI investigation into connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

 

[Athanasius68]

The point you are trying to make here is not clear. Are you still trying to cling to something Brennan said a year ago that you have likely taken out of context, as if it means something?

What is clear is that Strzok could have let the press know that the Trump campaign was under investigation in Oct 2016, but did not do so. It's pretty hard to argue, as one poster has, that Strzok had actively worked, in a criminal way, to undermine Trump when he failed to take advantage of one the chance he actually had to undermine Trump.

His comment wasnt under oath. So Brennan could have been engaged in damage control.
Whatever investigation was occuring in summer of 2016 ( the claims have run the gamut-- from of Trump, his campaign, or just Page himself) it was a counter-intelligence investigation which means legally it couldnt have been revealed.

Was Strzrock deliberately trying to tank the Trump campaign? I doubt it. But its quite clear the government has come down like a ton of bricks in Trump, whilst barely touching mrs Clinton with a feather during the criminal investigation of her.

 

[Athanasius68]

"Don't know many with such a capacity"? My, my are we flattering ourselves here or what? The Inspector General's report stated that it had found no evidence that political bias had played any role in the decisions made in the Clinton email investigation.

No "conscious" effort of political bias. The report absolutely found decisions that were made that could be reasonably questioned.

But it concluded that those decisions could be absolutely justified on their own merit. It was not going to 2nd guess otherwise legitimate actions.