backintexas2013 said:

---

Somebody pointed out yesterday that the picture of Page from yesterday looked like she hasn't slept in days. I am sure she hasn't. She knows there are way more of these coming out. The one about keeping some stuff from Congress is a real bad look.

---

These are sick people. And I dunno, maybe she hasn't, but I think she's just ugly -- evil doesn't do good things for the complexion. I wish those texts weren't so heavily redacted. Last page, an entire text is redacted surrounding their discussion about the "first arrest of the Trump era." I assume it was something about Flynn or Manafort.

drcrinum said:

---

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists

Quote:

---

...

Democrats and many in the media are taking the side of the intelligence community, calling the Republican efforts partisan. House Democrats are said to be writing a counter-memo....
...

---

Interesting article by Sharyl Attkisson.

---

If shedding light and transparency on corruption within our trusted institutions in order to learn truth is partisan, then the Democrats need to have a come-to-Jesus meeting.

backintexas2013 said:

---

The one exchange nobody is taking about is the one from 02-25-16. The term "best" agents and that is meant by that. Would love to ask him what he means by all that.



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-25%20CEG%20Letter%20to%20FBI%20Source%20Texts.pdf?platform=hootsuite

---

What's your take? "Best means best"

I looked and I don't think the dates match up at all.

PM's house wasn't raided till August. Arrest was after that.

It says it. It says it means best outcome but without knowing exactly what they are discussing I am not sure.


It's like the meltdown on top of page 6. No clue what they are talking about. Need the texts before it.

Bald Messiah said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So I wonder if the slow release of the texts are on purpose. We seem to learn something every time there is another release.

---

Assange provided the roadmap for this

---

The slow leak only gets the general public numb to it.

---

Not trying to be confrontational, but are you numb yet? The amount of information and the level of corruption makes a slow leak necessary. Add in the fact that most people have very short attention spans and the need for a deliberate release is critical to ensuring the message isn't lost.

---

The general public is not keeping up with this story or the Q drops. What makes you think I fall into that category?

Yes, the general public has a short attention span. So each little tidbit that comes out is seen as a stand alone piece of information by the general public which is blown off by the MSM fakenews they watch. From their perspective it's repubs whining about yet another conspiracy that they heard just got discredited again. They never look too deep into these stories because they're constantly coming out and constantly being waved off by their fakenews anchors.

They reason that if it was significant someone would be fired or put in jail. Does that ever happen? No. So how bad can this stuff be?

Sure, if they ever bother to look into one of these stories they might be shocked. And then when another story comes out, they start connecting the dots and start thinking. But they don't because it's a constant buzz of something every week that leads to nothing. So, in their mind, the MSM must be right.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

The one exchange nobody is taking about is the one from 02-25-16. The term "best" agents and that is meant by that. Would love to ask him what he means by all that.



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-25%20CEG%20Letter%20to%20FBI%20Source%20Texts.pdf?platform=hootsuite

---

What's your take? "Best means best"

---

Best = Best outcome = don't upset the apple cart = don't "wake the dragon"

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

The one exchange nobody is taking about is the one from 02-25-16. The term "best" agents and that is meant by that. Would love to ask him what he means by all that.



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-25%20CEG%20Letter%20to%20FBI%20Source%20Texts.pdf?platform=hootsuite

---

What's your take? "Best means best"

---

Best = Best outcome = don't upset the apple cart = don't "wake the dragon"

---

Who are they referring to when they're talking about "Bill"? I recognize "Jim" is James Comey

BenFiasco14 said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

The one exchange nobody is taking about is the one from 02-25-16. The term "best" agents and that is meant by that. Would love to ask him what he means by all that.



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-25%20CEG%20Letter%20to%20FBI%20Source%20Texts.pdf?platform=hootsuite

---

What's your take? "Best means best"

---

Best = Best outcome = don't upset the apple cart = don't "wake the dragon"

---

Who are they referring to when they're talking about "Bill"? I recognize "Jim" is James Comey

---

Priestap?

https://twitter.com/thelastrefuge2/status/941585613089857536?lang=en

FBI Director of Counter-intel

What if the "affair" is just a cover story they cooked up, fed to reporter Devlin Barrett to minimize the importance of the texts?

I understand we haven't seen the so-called personal ones, if they exist. I just would have expected some term of endearment even if a coded one be sprinkled in there somewhere, particularly when he was having a meltdown and she was comforting him. An emoji, something.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

The one exchange nobody is taking about is the one from 02-25-16. The term "best" agents and that is meant by that. Would love to ask him what he means by all that.



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-25%20CEG%20Letter%20to%20FBI%20Source%20Texts.pdf?platform=hootsuite

---

What's your take? "Best means best"

---

Best = Best outcome = don't upset the apple cart = don't "wake the dragon"

---

Who are they referring to when they're talking about "Bill"? I recognize "Jim" is James Comey

---

Priestap?

aggiehawg said:

---

What if the "affair" is just a cover story they cooked up, fed to reporter Devlin Barrett to minimize the importance of the texts?

I understand we haven't seen the so-called personal ones, if they exist. I just would have expected some term of endearment even if a coded one be sprinkled in there somewhere, particularly when he was having a meltdown and she was comforting him. An emoji, something.

---

That's possible, but, maybe just because I was looking for it/expecting it, their texts definitely read like they were having an affair or at the very least were very friendly with one another personally. They were also texting at all hours of the night and stuff.

aggiehawg said:

---

What if the "affair" is just a cover story they cooked up, fed to reporter Devlin Barrett to minimize the importance of the texts?

I understand we haven't seen the so-called personal ones, if they exist. I just would have expected some term of endearment even if a coded one be sprinkled in there somewhere, particularly when he was having a meltdown and she was comforting him. An emoji, something.

---

That's a very astute observation!

drcrinum said:

---

This is a must read, but read the introductory article by Sharyl Attkisson first (the one posted above) for proper background. The implications are staggering.

---

Each passing day it's becoming blatantly obvious that DOJ/FBI did not and could not pull this off in a vacuum. Everyone with half a brain knows "Zero" was up to his neck in it ... whether proof positive is found or not.

So all the work they did to get the special council or as they called it earlier the insurance policy? That's my guess.

Can y'all imagine how fun it must be to be an intern in DC for a Republican congressman right now? The bars must be buzzing at night.

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

This is a must read, but read the introductory article by Sharyl Attkisson first (the one posted above) for proper background. The implications are staggering.

---

Each passing day it's becoming blatantly obvious that DOJ/FBI did not and could not pull this off in a vacuum. Everyone with half a brain knows "Zero" was up to his neck in it ... whether proof positive is found or not.

---

There has to be other FBI inside that know about this stuff and are singing like Canaries.

Like these guys didn't have enemies. I bet there are people lined up to talk at the FBI.

drcrinum said:

---

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists

Quote:

---

As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists

What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they're the ones in charge of who inside their agencies or connected to them ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?...

This week, the FBI said it was unfair for the House Intelligence Committee not to provide its memo outlining alleged FBI abuses. The committee wrote the summary memo after reviewing classified government documents in the Trump-Russia probe.

The FBI's complaint carries a note of irony considering that the agency has notoriously stonewalled Congress. Even when finally agreeing to provide requested documents, the Department of Justice uses the documents' classified nature to severely restrict who can see them even among members of Congress who possess the appropriate security clearance....

Democrats and many in the media are taking the side of the intelligence community, calling the Republican efforts partisan. House Democrats are said to be writing a counter-memo....

Meantime, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.

This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. "Don't be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods," they plead....

---

Interesting article by Sharyl Attkisson.

---

Atkinsson points this out in that last paragraph (as if we didn't already) but its clear that the media is bought and paid for by Dems. A true unbiased media would be screaming to the rafters to release all the info including memo and source documentation and we know for damn sure they'd be doing that if it in any way would show Trump (or any Republican) in a bad light. But instead, its articles about the sacredness of institutions like the FBI and justice apparatus and that R's are smearing their good name.

Quote:

---

1) Any prosecuted case having any direct involvement by Strzok, Priestap, McCabe, Comey, Lynch...potentially tainted. Add to that cases investigated but not prosecuted...evidence potentially tainted. It's a legal abomination.

2) The highest rungs of the FBI/DOJ/Excutive Branch involved in a plot to influence an election, then deny the Presidency to a duly elected candidate, and concluding with a plot to overthrow the Presidency...while committing various illegal maneuvers including illegal wiretapping, illegal unmasking, fraud/misrepresentation...potential major charges of RICO, Seditious Conspiracy & Treason. What entity could investigate this? IMO it's too big for a SC, plus it demands immediate attention so that an attempt can be made to restore confidence in the FBI/DOJ. And I cannot imagine the circus of public trials involving the big wigs. I've seen a number of tweets suggesting that the major players may be prosecuted via military tribunals = enemies of the state.

---

I've seen this bandied about as a justification for not attacking the FBI's wrongdoing. I think it is overblown. Strzok was counter intelligence, that's information gathering, not prosecuting crimes. It's kind of weird that he was even involved in the Hillary case in other than the related but tangential inquiry of whether her server or other unsecured devices were hacked during the relevant time frame.

Comey, as Director, wasn't a gumshoe who testified in court on cases DOJ prosecuted.

Page might be a problem but I'm not familiar with her court room activities, i.e. whether she was a lead prosecutor in DOJ.

Could some enterprising criminal attorneys attempt to have their clients' cases reopened under that theory? Sure. Will it be some kind of apocalyptic avalanche?? Not so much.

Besides, much of what Strzok, Page and Comey were doing was obstructing justice to get people off, not crafting dishonest prosecutions.

The one exception is Flynn. Strzok was instrumental in his case. I will be curious to see what Flynn's attorneys will do in response to this information.

4stringAg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists

Quote:

---

As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists

What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they're the ones in charge of who inside their agencies or connected to them ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?...

This week, the FBI said it was unfair for the House Intelligence Committee not to provide its memo outlining alleged FBI abuses. The committee wrote the summary memo after reviewing classified government documents in the Trump-Russia probe.

The FBI's complaint carries a note of irony considering that the agency has notoriously stonewalled Congress. Even when finally agreeing to provide requested documents, the Department of Justice uses the documents' classified nature to severely restrict who can see them even among members of Congress who possess the appropriate security clearance....

Democrats and many in the media are taking the side of the intelligence community, calling the Republican efforts partisan. House Democrats are said to be writing a counter-memo....

Meantime, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.

This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. "Don't be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods," they plead....

---

Interesting article by Sharyl Attkisson.

---

Atkinsson points this out in that last paragraph (as if we didn't already) but its clear that the media is bought and paid for by Dems. A true unbiased media would be screaming to the rafters to release all the info including memo and source documentation and we know for damn sure they'd be doing that if it in any way would show Trump (or any Republican) in a bad light. But instead, its articles about the sacredness of institutions like the FBI and justice apparatus and that R's are smearing their good name.

---

Good point and I think there's another dynamic at play with the media. After Obama weaponized the DOJ/FBI/IRS the main sources the media would turn to had been corrupted.

Don't get me wrong, the media is still far left but when they reach out to sources who are as far left as they are or even worse it exacerbates the problem. There is no checks/balance.

The newly found text messages need a thread of their own.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I looked and I don't think the dates match up at all.

PM's house wasn't raided till August. Arrest was after that.

---

Only arrest I found of significance was the London Bridge Muzzy was apprehended that day.

No clue what it could mean. I couldn't find anything either.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

I looked and I don't think the dates match up at all.

PM's house wasn't raided till August. Arrest was after that.

---

Only arrest I found of significance was the London Bridge Muzzy was apprehended that day.

---

Which date are you looking at?

June 3, 2017

backintexas2013 said:

---

June 3, 2017

---

Aahh. Thought it might be Awan related but he wasn't detained until July 25th.

aggiehawg said:

---

What if the "affair" is just a cover story they cooked up, fed to reporter Devlin Barrett to minimize the importance of the texts?

I understand we haven't seen the so-called personal ones, if they exist. I just would have expected some term of endearment even if a coded one be sprinkled in there somewhere, particularly when he was having a meltdown and she was comforting him. An emoji, something.

---

I haven't gone through the effort yet but for anyone who would like to, you can decode the emojis used in the texts. These transcripts arent printing the emojis, just their code. Such as \U0001f636



"Unicode Character 'FACE WITHOUT MOUTH' (U+1F636)"

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f636/index.htm

You can google em. If theres to be any affection shown through these, it would be via emoji because thats how people do it.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

---

Shortsheet may have stumbled up on a lifeline for McCabe

In that text he underlined in red it talks about all the work behind the scenes the Stroke had to do to get the result because they Andy wouldn't do it based on Mueller's convo with him. Sounds like Andy wasn't 100% on board with this frame up.

I completely forgot about ole Awan.

Quick legal question looking down the road, as per the 'threadreader blog" yesterday saying Flynn fell on the sword lying to the FBI, and assuming that's correct, would his indictment be thrown out if the Stzok interview were under false pretenses, even though Flynn did lie?

That's a good point. I really wish I knew who the redacted names were. Are they elected officials or just run of the mill FBI agents?