Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,445,045 Views | 49262 Replies | Last: 8 days ago by nortex97
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:32p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
FOX just aired this as if it were fact. My jaw is on the floor. Dana Perino and Chris Wallace said this was really odd that the FBI & Whitehouse are at odds.

I've been shouting this on twitter so I might as well say it here. How can the FBI justify having "grave concern" about the House Intel Committee memo containing "omissions of fact" while they are simultaneously stonewalling aforementioned committee on facts, including illegally losing texts to "glitches" that weren't lost at all. They want it both ways and my jaw is on the floor that Director Wray is publicly trying to undermine Trump, who appointed him.

And I guess Catherine Herridge's source is bogus? I

It's not a shock that there are warring factions with the bureau. This could also be a smoke out by Wray, but the fact it's tied to a known media member who has previously leaked on behalf of Page and Strzok is a bit of a smoking gun.
Reply Quote
2
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 1:35p, 1/31/18
AG
AG 2000' said:
reb, said:
FOX just aired this as if it were fact. My jaw is on the floor. Dana Perino and Chris Wallace said this was really odd that the FBI & Whitehouse are at odds.

I've been shouting this on twitter so I might as well say it here. How can the FBI justify having "grave concern" about the House Intel Committee memo containing "omissions of fact" while they are simultaneously stonewalling aforementioned committee on facts, including illegally losing texts to "glitches" that weren't lost at all. They want it both ways and my jaw is on the floor that Director Wray is publicly trying to undermine Trump, who appointed him.

And I guess Catherine Herridge's source is bogus? I

It's not a shock that there are warring factions with the bureau. This could also be a smoke out by Wray, but the fact it's tied to a known media member who has previously leaked on behalf of Page and Strzok is a bit of a smoking gun.
Am I wrong in saying that this would not be released if Wray didn't agree with it? That there are warring factions within the bureau is obvious, this thread is ABOUT that, but this would be public conflict between Wray and Trump.

So whats the deal, is there a rogue FBI agent actually getting official statements read on news networks?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Cepe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 1/31/18
AG
I don't think Trump gives a rip what the FBI says at this point.
Reply Quote
12
scottimus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 1/31/18
AG
Especially because he is their boss!
Suppose I was an idiot. Suppose I was a member of congress. But, I repeat myself.
Reply Quote
2
HeardAboutPerio
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 1:39p, 1/31/18
AG
AG 2000' said:
reb, said:
FOX just aired this as if it were fact. My jaw is on the floor. Dana Perino and Chris Wallace said this was really odd that the FBI & Whitehouse are at odds.

I've been shouting this on twitter so I might as well say it here. How can the FBI justify having "grave concern" about the House Intel Committee memo containing "omissions of fact" while they are simultaneously stonewalling aforementioned committee on facts, including illegally losing texts to "glitches" that weren't lost at all. They want it both ways and my jaw is on the floor that Director Wray is publicly trying to undermine Trump, who appointed him.

And I guess Catherine Herridge's source is bogus? I

It's not a shock that there are warring factions with the bureau. This could also be a smoke out by Wray, but the fact it's tied to a known media member who has previously leaked on behalf of Page and Strzok is a bit of a smoking gun.


Wray allowing this statement (if true) would not allow him to find someone. Now allowing certain FBI representatives to handle a statement and seeing where the smoke comes out is another approach altogether. Is this statement official? It was reported on fox as legit.

If it's legit, we really don't know what omissions they are referencing or their pertinence to FISA warrant approval.
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HeardAboutPerio • 1:40p, 1/31/18
AG
HeardAboutPerio said:
AG 2000' said:
reb, said:
FOX just aired this as if it were fact. My jaw is on the floor. Dana Perino and Chris Wallace said this was really odd that the FBI & Whitehouse are at odds.

I've been shouting this on twitter so I might as well say it here. How can the FBI justify having "grave concern" about the House Intel Committee memo containing "omissions of fact" while they are simultaneously stonewalling aforementioned committee on facts, including illegally losing texts to "glitches" that weren't lost at all. They want it both ways and my jaw is on the floor that Director Wray is publicly trying to undermine Trump, who appointed him.

And I guess Catherine Herridge's source is bogus? I

It's not a shock that there are warring factions with the bureau. This could also be a smoke out by Wray, but the fact it's tied to a known media member who has previously leaked on behalf of Page and Strzok is a bit of a smoking gun.


Wray allowing this statement (if true) would not allow him to find someone. Now allowing certain FBI representatives to handle a statement and seeing where the smoke comes out is another approach altogether. Is this statement official? It was reported on fox as legit.

If it's legit, we really don't know what omissions they are referencing or their pertinence to FISA warrant approval.
If it's legit, how come no one can show where it came from?
Reply Quote
4
HeardAboutPerio
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:40p, 1/31/18
AG
You summarized my concerns much more concisely.
Reply Quote
1
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:40p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
AG 2000' said:
reb, said:
FOX just aired this as if it were fact. My jaw is on the floor. Dana Perino and Chris Wallace said this was really odd that the FBI & Whitehouse are at odds.

I've been shouting this on twitter so I might as well say it here. How can the FBI justify having "grave concern" about the House Intel Committee memo containing "omissions of fact" while they are simultaneously stonewalling aforementioned committee on facts, including illegally losing texts to "glitches" that weren't lost at all. They want it both ways and my jaw is on the floor that Director Wray is publicly trying to undermine Trump, who appointed him.

And I guess Catherine Herridge's source is bogus? I

It's not a shock that there are warring factions with the bureau. This could also be a smoke out by Wray, but the fact it's tied to a known media member who has previously leaked on behalf of Page and Strzok is a bit of a smoking gun.
Am I wrong in saying that this would not be released if Wray didn't agree with it? That there are warring factions within the bureau is obvious, this thread is ABOUT that, but this would be public conflict between Wray and Trump.

So whats the deal, is there a rogue FBI agent actually getting official statements read on news networks?

There has been zero official release by the FBI (press office, twitter, etc.). The only source for this being official is the Page/Strzok linked reporter from the Washington Times.
Reply Quote
2
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:41p, 1/31/18
AG
For Wray to do this (IF he is doing this), then he'd basically be telling the public that he told Trump this was a bad idea, got overruled, so he felt compelled to bring it to the attention of the public so they could shame is his boss into stopping this.

Its that implication that has me wound up, and I can see why the Left is lovin this.
Reply Quote
1
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:43p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
For Wray to do this (IF he is doing this), then he'd basically be telling the public that he told Trump this was a bad idea, got overruled, so he felt compelled to bring it to the attention of the public so they could shame is his boss into stopping this.

Its that implication that has me wound up, and I can see why the Left is lovin this.

There's zero proof Wray authorized this. It's not even on FBI letterhead.
Reply Quote
3
HeardAboutPerio
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:45p, 1/31/18
AG
Why is it all Trump's fault? They need to remember it was a congressional memo and trump just now got it after they voted to release it. So Wray saw it before trump if I recall the timeline correctly. At least officially.
Reply Quote
3
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 1:45p, 1/31/18
AG
Exactly.

Yet, this has been out how many hours now...and we're still waiting on this to be cleared up?
Reply Quote
1
GCP12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:48p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
Exactly.

Yet, this has been out how many hours now...and we're still waiting on this to be cleared up?
Problem is no one who could get the answer is trying to clear it up. The media doesn't care where the statement came from. They are just running with it and not questioning.
Reply Quote
3
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GCP12 • 1:49p, 1/31/18
GCP12 said:
reb, said:
Exactly.

Yet, this has been out how many hours now...and we're still waiting on this to be cleared up?
Problem is no one who could get the answer is trying to clear it up. The media doesn't care where the statement came from. They are just running with it and not questioning.
The media has no reason to clear up anything since it would hurt their narrative. Even Fox will run with it, because except for the evening lineup, they are mostly anti-Trump/pro-Swamp.
Reply Quote
1
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HeardAboutPerio • 1:50p, 1/31/18
AG
HeardAboutPerio said:
Why is it all Trump's fault? They need to remember it was a congressional memo and trump just now got it after they voted to release it. So Wray saw it before trump if I recall the timeline correctly. At least officially.
I'm not assigning fault.

I'm saying this is the implication. As of this morning, Chief of Staff Kelly said it would be released quickly. Wray would basically be giving himself political cover, here, which should get his ass fired.
Reply Quote
2
fasthorse05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:54p, 1/31/18
I'm paying more attention to the "we had limited number of hours to review" comment.

Using that logic, it CAN'T be "materially accurate" due to time constraints. I can't imagine Gowdy and Nunez putting the memo out without significant, if not 100%, confidence to it's accuracy.

Basically, I'm not worrying about it anymore, because at some point, the authors are going to be able to say, "look gd, the frickin' proof is right here, now shut the F up"!
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
HeardAboutPerio
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:59p, 1/31/18
AG
I wasn't saying you meant Trump was at fault. The wording of the release is blaming the White House. That's where I was indicating Trump was being blamed. Sorry for the confusion
Reply Quote
2
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 1/31/18
AG
Reply Quote
1
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:11p, 1/31/18
AG
Reply Quote
2
GCP12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:14p, 1/31/18
AG
Quote:
according to sources familiar with the exchange
These reporter keep misspelling Adam Schiff
Reply Quote
4
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:14p, 1/31/18
AG


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill]I prefer the red pills[/url]
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:22p, 1/31/18
AG
FBI Statement is now official:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-hpsci-memo
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill]I prefer the red pills[/url]
Reply Quote
Cepe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:23p, 1/31/18
AG
Dang!
Reply Quote
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:25p, 1/31/18
AG
LINDSEY IS READY TO PARTY TOO

Reply Quote
4
tremble
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:27p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
LINDSEY IS READY TO PARTY TOO



**** me, this is a damn knife fight now.
Reply Quote
3
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SpreadsheetAg • 3:28p, 1/31/18
AG
SpreadsheetAg said:
FBI Statement is now official:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-hpsci-memo
Who signed it? I don't see an author.
Reply Quote
2
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 1/31/18
AG
Our bureaucracy is completely and totally out of control. This is unbelievable.

People are really digging in in DC. This could get ugly or God forbid violent.
Reply Quote
3
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 1/31/18
AG
Turn on CNN.
Reply Quote
1
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tremble • 3:30p, 1/31/18
AG
tremble said:
reb, said:
LINDSEY IS READY TO PARTY TOO



**** me, this is a damn knife fight now.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill]I prefer the red pills[/url]
Reply Quote
3
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:31p, 1/31/18
AG
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill]I prefer the red pills[/url]
Reply Quote
2
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:31p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
Turn on CNN.
At work; what are they saying?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill]I prefer the red pills[/url]
Reply Quote
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:31p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
Turn on CNN.
No. I refuse to give them ratings.
Reply Quote
4
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:31p, 1/31/18
AG
CNN saying they have new info about Peter Strzok.

They just interviewed Clapper where he pushed the "they blocked the Dems memo" bull****

This is all connected of course.

I guess we'll see after these commercials whats up with Pete.
Reply Quote
2
GCP12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:32p, 1/31/18
AG
reb, said:
Turn on CNN.
Ok, I did. What is supposed to be coming?
Reply Quote
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 3:33p, 1/31/18
AG
Guessing the news will be Pete the Cheat is being set up.
Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 121 of 1408 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.