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

[Plus Ultra]

"Don't know many with such a capacity"? My, my are we flattering ourselves here or what?

Not at all, its just an observation, the capacity to consider things from a different perspective is not something I've often found in an interlocutor, especially not when their views are ideologically premised. I focus on the more tangible, can we measure comparables?

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.

This is true, but that report did find at least the appearance of impropriety and highlighted Strzok's statement he would prevent Trump from becoming president, he said he didn't mean it, his interlocutor thought he did, they worked together with McCabe on both the Hillary "matter" and this perpetual collusion investigation. Strzok edited the report on Hillary in a manner that disallowed her prosecution for what does appear to have been a crime.

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.

Didn't realize you meant only those leaks, there have been a lot of leaks; leaks about the dossier, the "unmaskings", Flynn's phone calls, FISA warrants, the "matter", Ohr's wife's job, his contacts with Steele, Steele's with media, that pee tape, raids on Trump's transition team... and of course there was all the WikiLeaks. As I see it, the NY leaks relating to Hillary are comparatively insignificant. I think those leaks had to do with Wiener's laptop which sat on a shelf in that NY office for a long time before anyone thought to check its contents (which turned out to be also insignificant).

Whereas Strzok and Page never leaked anything about the existence of an open FBI investigation into connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

We don't know this, we do know there were a lot of leaks detrimental to Trump from government sources to the media and that Strzok and his mistress monitored their disclosures in the media, whether they assisted in this leakage is speculation, all we have is motive and intent, no tangible proof has been disclosed (yet).

 

[Vladimir Putin]

This is well beyond the recommended penalty of a 60 day suspension and demotion, which will raise the the possibility that the firing was politically motivated.

lol, ya think? Politically motivated....no!!!!!! ITS WASH DC

 

[Atomic Kid]

Not at all, its just an observation, the capacity to consider things from a different perspective is not something I've often found in an interlocutor, especially not when their views are ideologically premised. I focus on the more tangible, can we measure comparables?

This is true, but that report did find at least the appearance of impropriety and highlighted Strzok's statement he would prevent Trump from becoming president, he said he didn't mean it, his interlocutor thought he did, they worked together with McCabe on both the Hillary "matter" and this perpetual collusion investigation. Strzok edited the report on Hillary in a manner that disallowed her prosecution for what does appear to have been a crime.

Didn't realize you meant only those leaks, there have been a lot of leaks; leaks about the dossier, the "unmaskings", Flynn's phone calls, FISA warrants, the "matter", Ohr's wife's job, his contacts with Steele, Steele's with media, that pee tape, raids on Trump's transition team... and of course there was all the WikiLeaks. As I see it, the NY leaks relating to Hillary are comparatively insignificant. I think those leaks had to do with Wiener's laptop which sat on a shelf in that NY office for a long time before anyone thought to check its contents (which turned out to be also insignificant).

We don't know this, we do know there were a lot of leaks detrimental to Trump from government sources to the media and that Strzok and his mistress monitored their disclosures in the media, whether they assisted in this leakage is speculation, all we have is motive and intent, no tangible proof has been disclosed (yet).

No I think that's a master bull****ter. And for the umpteenth the editing of word negligent was made at the FBI/Justice dept. lawyers and all so called leaks you listed have been proven to be false allegations.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Anyone who feels the need to respond with terms that require the insertion of asterisks really needs to step back, count to three and then try and find a more appropriate term. The English language is broad and diverse, we have a wonderful variety of terms with great versatility, "baloney" might have sufficed in the preceding case.

The editing of the word "negligent" (for reckless) was not by a council of FBI attorneys, this was done specifically by Strzok, it has been reported.

I listed many leaks, these are just what I could recall as I wrote my note, many of those critical of Trump maintain they constitute proven facts; for example Trump's detractors maintain Trump was videotaped being peed on by Russian prostitutes.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Anyone who feels the need to respond with terms that require the insertion of asterisks really needs to step back, count to three and then try and find a more appropriate term. The English language is broad and diverse, we have a wonderful variety of terms with great versatility, "baloney" might have sufficed in the preceding case.

The editing of the word "negligent" (for reckless) was not by a council of FBI attorneys, this was done specifically by Strzok, it has been reported.

I listed many leaks, these are just what I could recall as I wrote my note, many of those critical of Trump maintain they constitute proven facts; for example Trump's detractors maintain Trump was videotaped being peed on by Russian prostitutes.

Please! Just stop with the pompous holier than thou BS and just keep it real. The words "grossly negligent" were changed at the advice of counsel because that term has a specific criminal/legal/statutory meaning. They chose to go with "extremely careless"instead because that solved the problem of not inadvertently introducing the premise of a criminal charge while expressing their disapproval of her handling classified information into a document being drafted for the purpose of saying that there weren't any criminal charges. To further debunk this conspiratorial biased nonsense it was also Strzok who authored the letter reopening the investigation of the Clinton email investigation just days before the election. That many have credited with having swung the election decidedly to Trumps's favor. Not only that, Strzok also personally supported the decision. So just think about that for a minute. The guy who you are wanting to accuse of trying bring down Trump's candidacy actually partook and even advocated for an unprecedented now famous decision that may have well have actually had served to elect him.

 

[Athanasius68]

Please! Just stop with the pompous holier than thou BS and just keep it real. The words "grossly negligent" were changed at the advice of counsel because that term has a specific criminal/legal/statutory meaning. They chose to go with "extremely careless"instead because that solved the problem of not inadvertently introducing the premise of a criminal charge while expressing their disapproval of her handling classified information into a document being drafted for the purpose of saying that there weren't any criminal charges. To further debunk this conspiratorial biased nonsense it was also Strzok who authored the letter reopening the investigation of the Clinton email investigation just days before the election. That many have credited with having swung the election decidedly to Trumps's favor. Not only that, Strzok also personally supported the decision. So just think about that for a minute. The guy who you are wanting to accuse of trying bring down Trump's candidacy actually partook and even advocated for an unprecedented now famous decision that may have well have actually had served to elect him.

As if NOT filing criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton in July had zero influence upon the election...

Comey already has said why the investigation was re-opened in October: if they didnt, and word leaked out about another avenue not followed, it would undermine the Clinton Admin.
Its was all about politics and protecting Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Vladimir Putin]

Brennan, Stroke, Comey, HillFat...Swampies are falling like flies

 

[Plus Ultra]

Comey, who headed the investigation into what Lynch told him to refer to as the Hillary "matter", consulted with the relevant agents involved in that "matter" and drafted his conclusions. Strzok was tasked with reviewing those conclusions and he decided Hillary's conduct would be better described as careless instead of negligent, probably because if it were negligent there would be a need for prosecution as the negligent handling of classified documents (such as their transmission by unsecured means, and dissemination to people lacking the adequate clearance -is a prosecutable crime).

For Strzok, who had already indicated he would take action to prevent Trump's election to decide the President's rival should not be described as prosecutably negligent and instead have the "matter" dismisses as mere carelessness, in my view goes well beyond the appearance of impropriety the IG found, as it unquestionably constitutes specific action to impede the prosecution of an established crime by Trump's electoral rival, something Strzok had periously stated he would do.

It is claimed, without any basis in fact and no evidence whatsoever, that Strzok's editing was rendered on advice of counsel, I suspect if any counsel was consulted on this, Strzok probably asked his adulterous mistress, Lisa Page, who was the attorney retained by McCabe to handle legal matters for his office, with whom McCabe shared views on both Trump and Hillary and to which he offered specific assurances he would take action to prevent Trump's election.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Comey, who headed the investigation into what Lynch told him to refer to as the Hillary "matter", consulted with the relevant agents involved in that "matter" and drafted his conclusions. Strzok was tasked with reviewing those conclusions and he decided Hillary's conduct would be better described as careless instead of negligent, probably because if it were negligent there would be a need for prosecution as the negligent handling of classified documents (such as their transmission by unsecured means, and dissemination to people lacking the adequate clearance -is a prosecutable crime).

I'd agree with most of that if you inserted "possibly" for "probably".

Since neither of us is currently privy to internal FBI documentation, "possibly" is quite applicable, but "probably" isn't.

For Strzok, who had already indicated he would take action to prevent Trump's election to decide the President's rival should not be described as prosecutably negligent and instead have the "matter" dismisses as mere carelessness, in my view goes well beyond the appearance of impropriety the IG found, as it unquestionably constitutes specific action to impede the prosecution of an established crime by Trump's electoral rival, something Strzok had periously stated he would do.

Then it's about time that someone charged him with actually committing a crime - don't you think?

If there is no crime to charge him with, then he wasn't doing anything illegal. If he wasn't doing anything illegal, then what he was doing was legal.

AND Americans have a legal right to do anything that is legal.

It is claimed, without any basis in fact and no evidence whatsoever, that Strzok's editing was rendered on advice of counsel, ...

If there was no such evidence, then surely the FBI would have taken even stronger steps against him - don't you think?

I suspect if any counsel was consulted on this, Strzok probably asked his adulterous mistress, Lisa Page, who was the attorney retained by McCabe to handle legal matters for his office, with whom McCabe shared views on both Trump and Hillary and to which he offered specific assurances he would take action to prevent Trump's election.

Ah HAH!

Now we have it, we're down to the basic tenet of American law which is

"IF anyone is suspected of doing something that might potentially end up sort of looking more or less like it could theoretically be confused with something that is illegal AND IF I don't agree with that person THEN they are **G*U*I*L*T*Y** - BUT IF I do agree with them THEN they are completely innocent until after all levels of appeal have failed and numerous Congressional Investigations have proven (to the 135% level) that there was not even the faintest chance of any miscarriage of justice."
​

 

[Plus Ultra]

Citing from a CNN interview:

"Well, Jake, sources we have learned from tell us that the electronic records show that Peter Strzok changed former FBI Director James Comey earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions in handling classified materials from, quote, 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless,'" reported CNN justice reporter Laura Jarett. https://realclearpolitics.com/video..._grossly_negligent_to_extremely_careless.html

So we know the editing was Strzok's, it wasn't by some council of counselors at the FBI, this was Strzok's choice, his decision. So what's the difference?

The critical question for the FBI was whether Mrs. Clinton’s conduct constituted "gross negligence”. The FBI found that it did not. Instead, the FBI found that she and the other people in the email chain were "extremely careless." What is the difference?

Gross negligence is a legal term with a specific meaning. It's an objective test. A person acts in a grossly negligent manner if her conduct constitutes a "substantial deviation" from the legal duty to exercise due care when handling classified information compared to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

The transmission of classified materials through unsecured media to people unauthorized to view such materials is grossly negligent.

"Extremely careless" is a subjective test because it's not based on a comparison to the conduct of a reasonable person. What may appear to be extremely careless conduct to one person may not appear to be extremely careless to another. Depending on the circumstances, extremely careless conduct may or may not constitute gross negligent conduct. The relevant circumstances probably include:

1. The number of people in the email chain who received and transmitted the classified information and whether they were authorized to possess it;
The nature of the information transmitted;
2. Whether the information was intercepted by unauthorized third parties ; and
3. How widespread the practice was GROSS NEGLIGENCE VERSUS EXTREME CARELESS | Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union

On 1 we know people received classified information from others who got it from Hillary, I don't know how many people were in an email chain involving each unauthorized classified transmission, but that there was more than one on multiple chains has been shown. On 2 we have indications this was intercepted by 3rd parties, critical lefties tell us the GRU hacked these emails, we know WikiLeaks divulged them. On 3 we already know this was a repeated practice, it has been reported in some instances the transmission was over objections by the transmitter who acted on Hillary's specific instructions to conceal the classified nature of the transmission, there are multiple examples in the WikiLeaks releases, I think thousands of emails included classified material

In some cases the classified information named intelligence agents in the field and provided their location!

What do you think, was this careless or negligent?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Citing from a CNN interview:

So we know the editing was Strzok's, it wasn't by some council of counselors at the FBI, this was Strzok's choice, his decision. So what's the difference?

The transmission of classified materials through unsecured media to people unauthorized to view such materials is grossly negligent.

On 1 we know people received classified information from others who got it from Hillary, I don't know how many people were in an email chain involving each unauthorized classified transmission, but that there was more than one on multiple chains has been shown. On 2 we have indications this was intercepted by 3rd parties, critical lefties tell us the GRU hacked these emails, we know WikiLeaks divulged them. On 3 we already know this was a repeated practice, it has been reported in some instances the transmission was over objections by the transmitter who acted on Hillary's specific instructions to conceal the classified nature of the transmission, there are multiple examples in the WikiLeaks releases, I think thousands of emails included classified material

In some cases the classified information named intelligence agents in the field and provided their location!

What do you think, was this careless or negligent?

All the people that had received any classified information in the Secretary of State's email chain had the proper security clearances to receive such information and the need to know. That was one of the key points for declining to bring forth charges. Can't you get anything right?

 

[Plus Ultra]

All the people that had received any classified information in the Secretary of State's email chain had the proper security clearances to receive such information and the need to know. That was one of the key points for declining to bring forth charges. Can't you get anything right?

Sid Blumenthal was a recipient (and transmitter) of classified material without security clearance.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Sid Blumenthal was a recipient (and transmitter) of classified material without security clearance.

Blumenthal sent her that email when he wasn't working in the government and could not really have been of anything substantive since Blumenthal emails. as far as I can see, does not even get mentioned in the IG report. This what the report has to say about it.

We found that the prosecutors considered five federal
statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e) (willful mishandling
of documents or information relating to the
national defense);
• 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) (removal, loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction of documents or
information relating to the national defense
through gross negligence, or failure to report
such removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or
destruction);
• 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and
retention of classified documents or material by
government employees); and
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealment, removal, or
mutilation of government records).
As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
“talk around” classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
facts.

 

[Aberration]

If I did something like this, I’d be fired on the spot. In fact a decade ago I was involved in making comments online that led to me getting fired. There is only one reason anyone would defend this guy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If I did something like this, I’d be fired on the spot.

That's because your net worth isn't over $100,000,000 and you are NOT "too big to fail".

In fact a decade ago I was involved in making comments online that led to me getting fired.

Then possibly you shouldn't have been making those comments in the first place.

There is only one reason anyone would defend this guy.

That wouldn't possibly be because "In America everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." would it?

 

[Plus Ultra]

It is a matter of public record that trained DoS employees who were directly under Hillary's supervision, upon questioning her instructions to transmit classified information over unsecured means to individuals not cleared to receive such information, were specifically instructed to transmit said documents "in the clear" with neither evidence of their classification nor limitation as to their recipients. This is objectively a crime. It has been estimated twenty CIA informants (in China) were executed due to this perfidy. I know of one case in Libya where the CIA collaborator was first castrated and then executed (due to Hillary's disclosures). Everyone knows about the sodomized and then assassinated US ambassador captured in Benghazi. This is not "reckless", it is criminal.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is a matter of public record that trained DoS employees who were directly under Hillary's supervision, upon questioning her instructions to transmit classified information over unsecured means to individuals not cleared to receive such information, were specifically instructed to transmit said documents "in the clear" with neither evidence of their classification nor limitation as to their recipients. This is objectively a crime. It has been estimated twenty CIA informants (in China) were executed due to this perfidy. I know of one case in Libya where the CIA collaborator was first castrated and then executed (due to Hillary's disclosures). Everyone knows about the sodomized and then assassinated US ambassador captured in Benghazi. This is not "reckless", it is criminal.

You know, I was following right along until I got to the "Everyone knows about the sodomized and then assassinated US ambassador captured in Benghazi." bit.

Since that bit is blatantly false (the US ambassador died of smoke inhalation), I'll just ask you for specific links to all of the other claims in your post - links that are to actual, official, verifiable, sources and not to propaganda sites.

Thanks.

PS - Am I going to hold my breath until you actually provide reasonably sustainable evidence. It is to laugh.

 

[Plus Ultra]

You know, I was following right along until I got to the "Everyone knows about the sodomized and then assassinated US ambassador captured in Benghazi." bit.

Since that bit is blatantly false (the US ambassador died of smoke inhalation), I'll just ask you for specific links to all of the other claims in your post - links that are to actual, official, verifiable, sources and not to propaganda sites.

Thanks.

PS - Am I going to hold my breath until you actually provide reasonably sustainable evidence. It is to laugh.

Ok:

The United States Ambassador to Libya, the personal representative of President Barack Obama, had been tortured, sodomized, dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi, and murdered. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/#27b294cd359c

Do you consider Forbes a "propaganda site"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok:

Do you consider Forbes a "propaganda site"?

You might be surprised to know that Forbes frequently prints "Op-Eds". When that happens you should take a look at the bio of the author. Had you done that you would have seen that the author of this piece writes of themselves

I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy, particularly concerning economics.
​

What you may not know is that the "report" originated in a Lebanese source which "quoted" AFP.

What AFP said about that "report" was "Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. ".

Do I consider people who persist in "citing" as "proof" items that have long been discredited are merely issuing propaganda?

Not in the least, I consider them to be uninformed, (probably) bigoted, and not likely to be the type of person upon which a free society can be built.