The is More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Please show your evidence that President Trump asked anybody to drop an investigation. Comey himself, under oath at a congressional hearing, denied that neither the President nor anybody else in the Administration had ever asked that of him.

Would you have been equally offended if President Obama had fired Comey when the Democrats were demonizing him during the July 2016 investigation of Hillary's e-mails? Of course he became their knight in shining armor when he declared that nobody would have prosecuted her for what she did despite finding her guilty of all charges. There was 'no intent' remember? Then he was again condemned and demonized when he reopened the investigation because of the Huma's government e-mails on Weiner's computer.

And now he is again the knight in shining armor representing all the snowflakes, leftists, and Democrats when they gleefully declare he was fired because he was investigating Trump. Something they cannot verify with any reliable source.

Nor have I seen a single leftist, no Democrat in Congress, nobody left of center even mildly criticize Strzok. If he had done the same thing to President Obama, I would bet the farm that they would be demanding his head on a platter, would be loudly calling for a special prosecutor to investigate.

Politics does seem to bring out the worst kinds of hypocrisy among the intellectually dishonest or those who set aside all personal ethics for political expediency.

Trump vs. Comey - FactCheck.org

Update, June 8: Comey confirmed that Trump asked him to shut down the investigation of Flynn. In written testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, Comey said that the president brought up the FBI investigation of Flynn. “He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ … I did not say I would ‘let this go,’” Comey recalled. “I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign.”
At the June 8 Senate hearing, Comey was asked if Trump directed him to drop the Flynn investigation. “Not in his words, no,” Comey said. “And the reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.”
Comey also said that he leaked the Flynn memo to the media through a friend. “I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey said.
After the hearing, the president’s attorney released a statement that said, “[T]he president never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that Mr. Comey ‘let Flynn go.’”

Several days after the firing, Trump on TV with Lester Holt said that he fired Comey because "the Russian thing" was becoming a distraction. He told a Russian diplomat that Comey was a nut job and that the Russian investigation had to end.

Your statement that Comey denied Trump asked him to drop investigation is obviously playing with semantics.

If you care to see this as a he said vs. he said situation, I would carefully weigh the proven proclivity of Trump to bold face lying vs. the carefully documented notes kept by Mr. Comey.

As far as Strzok, I think he is a convenient foil of those who would like to see Mueller gone. He is entitled to his own opinions and until it is shown that he misled an investigation or misstated its findings he is a "nothing burger" as I notice the right likes to label things.

I do see your point about hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Trump vs. Comey - FactCheck.org



Several days after the firing, Trump on TV with Lester Holt said that he fired Comey because "the Russian thing" was becoming a distraction. He told a Russian diplomat that Comey was a nut job and that the Russian investigation had to end.

Your statement that Comey denied Trump asked him to drop investigation is obviously playing with semantics.

If you care to see this as a he said vs. he said situation, I would carefully weigh the proven proclivity of Trump to bold face lying vs. the carefully documented notes kept by Mr. Comey.

As far as Strzok, I think he is a convenient foil of those who would like to see Mueller gone. He is entitled to his own opinions and until it is shown that he misled an investigation or misstated its findings he is a "nothing burger" as I notice the right likes to label things.

I do see your point about hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

I am going with Comey's testimony under oath in a Congressional hearing. He was asked several times if the President had ever ordered or asked him to stop investigating anything. Comey replied no the President had not. Comey said he was uncomfortable when the President said "he hoped that Comey could see his way clear to let it (the Flynn investigation) go" but it was not an order or a request. Any reasonable person would leave open the probability that since Trump had fired Flynn over his misleading statements for Vice President Pence, that this was sufficient punishment and he did not wish to see Flynn punished further. It has zero to do with the Russian investigation which Comey testified under oath that the President had made no requests about, had applied no pressure of any kind, and had not interfered with.

And none of that has anything to do with the Strzok issue that several here seem to be really REALLY trying to deflect from and change the subject.

 

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am going with Comey's testimony under oath in a Congressional hearing. He was asked several times if the President had ever ordered or asked him to stop investigating anything. Comey replied no the President had not. Comey said he was uncomfortable when the President said "he hoped that Comey could see his way clear to let it (the Flynn investigation) go" but it was not an order or a request. Any reasonable person would leave open the probability that since Trump had fired Flynn over his misleading statements for Vice President Pence, that this was sufficient punishment and he did not wish to see Flynn punished further. It has zero to do with the Russian investigation which Comey testified under oath that the President had made no requests about, had applied no pressure of any kind, and had not interfered with.

And none of that has anything to do with the Strzok issue that several here seem to be really REALLY trying to deflect from and change the subject.

It is very clear in what I posted that Comey said he was never ordered to stop investigating. He was asked repeatedly to let it go. And in my view any reasonable person might assume there could be many many reasons why the request to let it go was made. If you have made peace with your version, so be it. Did Comey's testimony that you cite include Trump's words to Lester Holt? Trump said on TV that he fired Comey over the Russian thing. Seems very clear to me.

I think my response about your response about Strzok addressed the issue. If you haven't gotten the answer you like yet, it might not be due to deflection.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

When you keep braying lies like that, it's odd that you'd seek to be taken seriously.

But then, I haven't seen you post honestly about this issue, well, ever.

 

[Fenton]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

Yup, its as bad as it sounds, and it doesnt stop at Sztrok

Assistant Deputy AG under Obama, Bruce Ohr was demoted for his contacts with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson both before and after the election, and his wife was hired by Fusion GPS to conduct anti-Trump opposotion research

That is the Obama DOJ conspired with the Hillary campaign, the DNC and Fusion GPS to produce anti-Trump opposition research which was then used as the basis of a investigation into alledged Russian collusion and also use to obtain FISA warrants to conduct covert surveillance against the opposition candidate prior to a presidential election.

The Democrats on the comittee's response to all of this is pretty telling. Theyre attacking Sessions DOJ for releasing the text, thats it.

 

[Absentglare]

Got you two something.

View attachment 67226241

View attachment 67226242

It's okay, go back to sleep. Please don't whine when this train smacks you upside the head.

The irony of this post cannot be overstated.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

Of course, you are completely misinterpreting the context of the "insurance policy" quote:

....Strzok's text was intended to address Page's belief that the Russia investigation could take its time because Trump wouldn't be elected president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rch-for-an-anti-trump-deep-state-smoking-gun/

Strzok was referring to the pace of the investigation. Page argued that Hillary would win so they could take their time. Strzok argued that they had to move quickly in case Hillary lost because it could jeopardize their ability to gather further evidence.

The irony of these right wingers, screaming that an FBI agent should be imprisoned for texting his woman, who also defend cops that execute black men out of irrational and racist fear, really goes to show where their priorities are. The rule of law is clearly irrelevant to right wingers, as they're asserting the concern that a Russian puppet could disturb their investigation as though it's evidence of a conspiracy. Ironically, it is evidence of a conspiracy, just not the one they're screeching about.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

It is very clear in what I posted that Comey said he was never ordered to stop investigating. He was asked repeatedly to let it go. And in my view any reasonable person might assume there could be many many reasons why the request to let it go was made. If you have made peace with your version, so be it. Did Comey's testimony that you cite include Trump's words to Lester Holt? Trump said on TV that he fired Comey over the Russian thing. Seems very clear to me.

I think my response about your response about Strzok addressed the issue. If you haven't gotten the answer you like yet, it might not be due to deflection.

No he didn't. Trump said "he considered the Russian thing" before firing Comey. That is very different than saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing. Of course he needed to know whether firing Comey would in any way affect the Russian investigation. And again that has nothing to do with Strzok which is what this thread is about. I will choose to focus on Strzok now in any subsequent posts on this thread. I discuss what President Trump did or did not say on threads appropriate for that.

 

[JANFU]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

Is it possible that path was the one where people thought which States HRC would carry in the election?
Is it?

 

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

No he didn't. Trump said "he considered the Russian thing" before firing Comey. That is very different than saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing. Of course he needed to know whether firing Comey would in any way affect the Russian investigation. And again that has nothing to do with Strzok which is what this thread is about. I will choose to focus on Strzok now in any subsequent posts on this thread. I discuss what President Trump did or did not say on threads appropriate for that.

Partial transcript: NBC News interview with Donald Trump - CNNPolitics

Transcript
DONALD TRUMP: Look he's a show boat, he's a grand stander, the FBI has
been in turmoil. You know that, I know that. Everybody knows that. You take
a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago, it
hasn't recovered from that
LESTER HOLT: Monday you met with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosen
--Rosenstein
DONALD TRUMP: Right.
LESTER HOLT: Did you ask for a recommendation?
DONALD TRUMP: Uh what I did is I was going to fire Comey -- my decision, it
was not [OVER TALK]
LESTER HOLT: You had made the decision before they came in the room?
DONALD TRUMP: I-- I was going to fire Comey. Uh I-- there's no good time to
do it by the way. Uh they-- they were-- [OVER TALK]
LESTER HOLT: Because you letter you said I-- I, I accepted their
recommendation, so you had already made the decision
DONALD TRUMP: Oh I was gonna fire regardless of recommendation-LESTER HOLT: So there was-- [OVER TALK]
DONALD TRUMP: He made-- he made a recommendation, he's highly
respected, very good guy, very smart guy, uh the Democrats like him, the
Republicans like him, uh he made a recommendation but regardless of
recommendation I was going to fire Comey knowing, there was no good time
to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you
know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an
excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have
won. And the reason they should have won it is the electoral college is
almost impossible for a Republican to win. Very hard. Because you start off at
such a disadvantage. So everybody was thinking, they should have won the
election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.
LESTER HOLT: [OVER TALK] Okay, are you angry with, angry with Mr. Comey
because of his Russia investigation?

It seems appropriate to discuss Trump and what he said because without what he said there would be no story at all about Strzok.

Also worth noting that Trump told Pence that he fired Comey on Rosenstein's recommendation which seems to be a crock also.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

Partial transcript: NBC News interview with Donald Trump - CNNPolitics



It seems appropriate to discuss Trump and what he said because without what he said there would be no story at all about Strzok.

Also worth noting that Trump told Pence that he fired Comey on Rosenstein's recommendation which seems to be a crock also.

I watched the Lester Holt/Trump interview. Holt rarely let Trump complete more than a half sentence without interrupting him, let alone express a complete thought. I think you are posting an extrapolation of what President Trump said/intended to say far beyond what ethical journalism can allow.

 

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I watched the Lester Holt/Trump interview. Holt rarely let Trump complete more than a half sentence without interrupting him, let alone express a complete thought. I think you are posting an extrapolation of what President Trump said/intended to say far beyond what ethical journalism can allow.

The idea that Holt rarely let Trump complete a half sentence is ridiculous. I posted a written transcript of the interview. Here is a video: Listen for yourself if you care to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wvuw_Zmubg

 

[vesper]

Sorry, wore out from all the wolf crying.

You do realize that how the FBI handled the Clinton email case is still under investigation don't you?

And you do realize the Democrats requested the Inspector General investigate it because they felt Clinton lost due to the way Comey handled it.

And you also know it was in that investigation the Inspector General discovered Strzok's text messages? Surely you do but if not you do now.

Now the investigation into the FBI and how they handled the Clinton Email case started by the Democrats has now melded into a new case that shows possible intent of derailing an elected president by ranking members of the FBI and DOJ. And Strzok was top agent on both the Clinton email and the one who initiated the Russian Collusion investigation. It wasn't just these text messages by Strzok that the Inspector General found but he also uncovered Bruce Ohr who was deputy director under Sally Yates deputy director who served under Loretta Lynch was involved in meetings with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS which is at the heart of the opposition research on Trump paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. But it gets better Ohr's wife was working for Fusion GPS on the Trump dossier at that time.

There's too much crap piling up to be a coincidence. Andrew McCabe skipped out on his appearance before a Congress committee last week. Today Bruce Ohr skipped out on appearing before the Senate Judiciary.

I think the Inspector General with his 500 numbered army and a 100 million to fund his department annually is in hot pursuit of the truth.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the hypocrisy of those "NeverTrumpers" who keep playing down the significance of the Strzok emails/texts, and the other evidence concerning the Clinton email server investigation, as "smoke screens" and attempts to derail the Russian Collusion investigation.

Members are saying "FBI agents are allowed to have personal political stances," and "The comments were just political back and forth and had nothing to do with anything." It's all "hot air" and we need to ignore it for the real crimes Trump committed to get elected.

Why care?

How about this email comment which seems to have missed repeating in all the MSM reports lately in favor of those that demonstrate "mere political bias?"

FBI agent's anti-Trump text messages released to Congress - CNNPolitics

That was from that CNN "trusted source" back on 12/13/17. Since then, the emphasis in story after story in the MSM is about the other biased, but less volatile comments.

Yet I'm willing to bet if a major figure in the FBI had been discovered emailing something like that about Obama back in 2008, there would have been hell to pay.

If that quoted text is true it shows more than simply political "stances." It shows willful intent to do something about it.

Now all past reports also indicate that Strzok was not only the principal investigator for the Clinton email issue, but also signed off on the collusion investigation based on the Fusion GPS "dossier."



Peter Strzok responsible for Comey memo change about Clinton, Russia probe - Business Insider

So yeah, if this evidence is true, there is definitely more than just an issue over his "political stance."

I've always wondered just who it was who violated all standards of search and seizure to okay the unsupervised "deleting and scrubbing" of the contents of Hillary's email server before turning it over to the FBI.

An investigation into this "smoke screen" might just uncover that, among other things.

Meanwhile, according to the report in that Business Insider citation "Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016."

On less evidence than this, NeverTrumper's have been supporting an investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged "collusion;" one not actually investigating a specific crime...but rather SEEKING a crime to charge him with.

Please explain why one allegation on pretty much no evidence aside from innuendo is valid while the other is just "blowing smoke?"

I don't know if Mr. Strzok is guilty of anything, as intent to exercise "an insurance policy" of unknown type is not in an of itself a crime.

But if it is possible that the basis for starting the Trump investigation is a pack of lies ignited as a "Nuclear Option" if against all odds he actually won the election...then isn't that worth investigating too?

We'll know more when the IG report is release. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the spectacle of the liberals/Trump haters trying to spin it into nothing...while Obama people go down.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

The idea that Holt rarely let Trump complete a half sentence is ridiculous. I posted a written transcript of the interview. Here is a video: Listen for yourself if you care to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wvuw_Zmubg

I told you I watched it live. And the video doesn't change my mind in the least.

 

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I told you I watched it live. And the video doesn't change my mind in the least.

The live version differed from the video??? Just maybe your recollection of the live version is a little faulty? Because I doubt the video has been edited.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

The live version differed from the video??? Just maybe your recollection of the live version is a little faulty? Because I doubt the video has been edited.

I didn't say that. I said watching the video didn't change my perception of the interview that I watched live.

 

[JMR]

Re: There may be More To the Strzok Issue than Simply "Blowing Smoke."

I didn't say that. I said watching the video didn't change my perception of the interview that I watched live.

You said your recollection of the live interview was that Lester Holt constantly interrupted Trump and hardly allowed him to complete a sentence. This is not apparent in either the written transcript or the video.

There really isn't any reason to continue discussing this.