THats a great question. I thought he did but I don't know for sure.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,443,171 Views |
49262 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by nortex97
LOL. This thread alone shows more investigative curiosity and more investigative research than the entire MSM combined on this issue. That's what passes for journalism now. Leftist propagandists who are essentially little more than that old pic of the Iraqi information minister.GCP12 said:Media reaction:techno-ag said:
Lots of people losing their jobs seems to be one of the great unreported stories of the year so far.
Indictments and criminal charges are about the only thing that I think might bring the media somewhat around on this but even with that, they are still going to hedge.
Leaving is a good way to try to make some distance between yourself and current events, garner less attention, and perhaps hope if you are out of the game they won't come after you as hard for anything you are involved with.
Looks like he finally did...backintexas2013 said:
THats a great question. I thought he did but I don't know for sure.
"Sen. Tina Smith, who was appointed to Franken's seat, is running in November. She faces one Democratic challenger and Republican state Sen. Karin Housley."
Quote:
Boy-o-boy this prior Peter Strzok tweet, as read by Bob Goodlatte on January 25th, is striking a nerve:
Quote:
"Jim", aka James Baker (FBI Chief Legal Counsel) was removed in January.
"Mike" aka Michael Kortan (FBI Asst. Director Public Affairs) quits today.
"Dave" aka David Bowdich (Assoc. Dep. Director of FBI)
"Trisha" aka Trish Beth Anderson (Office of Legal Counsel, FBI)
At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.
On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:
September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:
"Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter....
Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:
One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.
The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.
This second file is the "FD-302" (embed at the bottom for reference). This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page. Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI....
Does this surprise anyone? Read the whole article...there are more details.
Do you think Strzok reads his old texts from these drops and articles and says:
Where did it all go wrong?
Where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Indictments and criminal charges are about the only thing that I think might bring the media somewhat around on this but even with that, they are still going to hedge.
To actually be of benefit to our system, this story must progress to indictments and convictions. Patriots of the rule of law cannot settle for anything else. The history books require it! It must be memorialized in the history books of next generations.
Just an Ag said:Quote:
Indictments and criminal charges are about the only thing that I think might bring the media somewhat around on this but even with that, they are still going to hedge.
To actually be of benefit to our system, this story must progress to indictments and convictions. Patriots of the rule of law cannot settle for anything else. The history books require it! It must be memorialized in the history books of next generations.
It's gonna take indictments to get some of these people to flip and start telling us the truth about things. Until there's pressure and people start fearing time in the penitentiary, they're not gonna come clean.
The IG, Michael Horowitz, has everyone in the Leadership of the FBI & DOJ " Fully Documented " and they all know it.
I read much of the 47 page memo this morning.
A ton of contradictions between what Hillary said and what her aides and IT employees said. Although it is not a transcript and is presented in a disjointed narrative form, my spidey senses suggested she was on some kind of medication during the interview (and old and common trick). Just enough to "fuzzy" her thinking.
Plus there were so many different devices that were used and switched out (she often would reject newer versions of her Blackberry to go back to an older one, for instance) it would have been almost impossible to drill down on any one device and what she knew about its contents at a specific time frame within a three hour or less interview.
The narrative was also squishy on whether she even had email capabilities at the State Department, like ever, during her tenure. Which would explain why the State Department had none of her emails when they were FOIA'ed and the FBI asked for them. She also specifically instructed that her offices be the last to install a new software that was designed to catch and retain emails in and out of the State Department, and used her personal devices inside the SCIF, which included her office.
In summation, Hillary took zip, nada, bupkis actions to even pretend she had any concern about computer security, nor did she give a flip about national security concerns. Oh, she cared about Hillary Clinton computer security concerns, though. Enough to set up a several servers for just that over the time frame of her tenure.
B****!
A ton of contradictions between what Hillary said and what her aides and IT employees said. Although it is not a transcript and is presented in a disjointed narrative form, my spidey senses suggested she was on some kind of medication during the interview (and old and common trick). Just enough to "fuzzy" her thinking.
Plus there were so many different devices that were used and switched out (she often would reject newer versions of her Blackberry to go back to an older one, for instance) it would have been almost impossible to drill down on any one device and what she knew about its contents at a specific time frame within a three hour or less interview.
The narrative was also squishy on whether she even had email capabilities at the State Department, like ever, during her tenure. Which would explain why the State Department had none of her emails when they were FOIA'ed and the FBI asked for them. She also specifically instructed that her offices be the last to install a new software that was designed to catch and retain emails in and out of the State Department, and used her personal devices inside the SCIF, which included her office.
In summation, Hillary took zip, nada, bupkis actions to even pretend she had any concern about computer security, nor did she give a flip about national security concerns. Oh, she cared about Hillary Clinton computer security concerns, though. Enough to set up a several servers for just that over the time frame of her tenure.
B****!
Music to my ears.
Suppose I was an idiot. Suppose I was a member of congress. But, I repeat myself.
Warner is the ranking Dem on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Can you believe it...he tried to set up a secret meeting with Steele and a Russian lobbyist.
Now, you don't suppose that this Russian lobbyist might have been one of Steele's Russian sources...or a go between to the source in Russia? I'm suspicious.
Edit: This was just mentioned on Fox Business.
Wow ...drcrinum said:
Warner is the ranking Dem on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Can you believe it...he tried to set up a secret meeting with Steele and a Russian lobbyist.
Now, you don't suppose that this Russian lobbyist might have been one of Steele's Russian sources...or a go between to the source in Russia? I'm suspicious.
Edit: This was just mentioned on Fox Business.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
Correct. Really would like to see the ongoing expose discover payments to some of the big media heads of NBC and CNN for example. That "profession" (in the sense prostitution is one) is the main reason our society has declined to date. They have not watch-dogged the government from descending to its baser nature.4stringAg said:LOL. This thread alone shows more investigative curiosity and more investigative research than the entire MSM combined on this issue. That's what passes for journalism now. Leftist propagandists who are essentially little more than that old pic of the Iraqi information minister.GCP12 said:Media reaction:techno-ag said:
Lots of people losing their jobs seems to be one of the great unreported stories of the year so far.
Indictments and criminal charges are about the only thing that I think might bring the media somewhat around on this but even with that, they are still going to hedge.
More on the Warner attempt to meet with Steele and a Russian lobbyist. Talk about Russian collusion.
Note: Nothing has been coming out from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Trump dossier. No wonder; check out the members of the committee.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/
drcrinum beat me to it
You know, we (I) throw out a lot of bravado, and philosophy, about the Dems.
Things like "if their accusing the Republicans of something, it means they've already done it, or doing it right now". But damn, so much of that crap is dead on true. I couldn't stand Warner anyway, but he just said two weeks ago something to the affect of "'the dossier' still hasn't been proven".
Every time I think they can't go any lower, the Dems prove me wrong. And it's all the Republicans fault.
Things like "if their accusing the Republicans of something, it means they've already done it, or doing it right now". But damn, so much of that crap is dead on true. I couldn't stand Warner anyway, but he just said two weeks ago something to the affect of "'the dossier' still hasn't been proven".
Every time I think they can't go any lower, the Dems prove me wrong. And it's all the Republicans fault.
Should be instant prison time for Warner. There's no excusing that.
So does he step down tomorrow? One can only hope
Suppose I was an idiot. Suppose I was a member of congress. But, I repeat myself.
Crickets from most media on this. Crickets.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
They'd rather talk about the biggest scandal since "Russian collusion," and try to take out Flynn and Hicks.aginlakeway said:
Crickets from most media on this. Crickets.
And the 2 FBI brass that have resigned in the last 2 days.aginlakeway said:
Crickets from most media on this. Crickets.
Naw. He later went to his Senate Intel Committee and showed the messages. Burr will cover for him. They are all in bed together in that Committee. Want to know why?scottimus said:
So does he step down tomorrow? One can only hope
Read the article: The Russian Oligarch is Oleg Deripaska. He owns a number of politicians. I posted about him back on Page 103 of this thread where he was reported as having thrown a big birthday bash on his yacht off the coast of Montenegro for John McCain's 70th birthday. Deripaska, a tycoon, threw his weight around Washington for a long time back around the turn of the century, using a well know and powerful lobbyist...you guessed it, Paul Manafort. The pieces of the puzzle coming together? Deripaska is also in Grassley's sights regarding the dossier; Grassley requested all communications with him from various individuals in his January 25, 2018 letter that has been previously discussed. I am beginning to suspect why. I'll wager now that Deripaska had his fingers in the dossier, likely a source. The rabbit hole is bottomless.
Someone needs to text Rubio to stop obstructing justice. People guilty of sedition need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
McConnell, Ryan, Cronyn, and the rest of the GOPe need to stay the hell out of the way. I got a feeling that they will jump in and start taking credit for exposing the corruption when it really hits the fan and they are almost as bad.
Hillary paid for warrant to spy on Trump.
aginlakeway said:
Crickets from most media on this. Crickets.
We don't need the media to help. It's coming out without their help.
Hillary paid for warrant to spy on Trump.
Screw Rubio. Little fart wasn't ever up for actually being President. He didn't even understand that being partners with McCain and Schumer was a baaaaaaaadddd idea.
Has anyone checked Rubio's finances lately? I've always thought he would be easily compromised because of his history of money trouble.
Featured Stories
See All
Potential of a 300-yard three-peat would be a Texas A&M first
by Olin Buchanan
46:01
15h ago
6.4k
6:32
11h ago
1.4k
12:32
17h ago
3.8k
RetvrnAg
is this funny banter or someone who needs to be blown up?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7