Patterico's Pontifications


Stop Overselling the Importance of the Strzok Texts

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:37 am

I did not watch the Strzok partisan shoutfest. But Phillip Bump at the #FAKENEWS Bezos Post has a point about the evil Peter Strzok:

In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.

“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

This is a nearly impossible point to rebut.

Before Election Day, there were rumblings that Russia was engaged in the campaign in nefarious ways and that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to see Trump win. There were rumors — theories, really — that Trump was more than happy to have Russia’s help or even might be aiding that effort. In the closing days of the campaign though, the two most important stories about the Clinton and Trump investigations were ones that solely worked to the eventual winner’s advantage.

On Halloween 2016, the New York Times detailed what was known about the investigation into Russian interference (an effort addressed earlier that month in an unusual public statement from the government). The headline, though, summarized the good news for Trump’s effort: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”

“None of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” the article read. Since Trump was inaugurated, of course, we’ve learned much more about links between the campaign and Russia — involving even members of Trump’s family. The effect of the story, though, was to quash those rumors about Trump’s motivations.

Paul Waldman expands on this concept:

This is the core of what makes the Republican effort to discredit the Russia investigation so utterly insane. They want us to believe there was an FBI conspiracy to prevent Trump from being elected president, and what did that conspiracy do? First, it mounted a cautious investigation of what nearly everyone now acknowledges was a comprehensive effort by Russia to help Trump get elected, an effort that people on the Trump campaign and even in Trump’s own family tried to cooperate with. But then it kept that investigation completely secret from the public, lest news of it affect the outcome of the investigation in any way.

You will notice that Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate in their investigation of Russian interference and the Trump campaign.

The view of the FBI as a hotbed of partisan leakers is indeed difficult to reconcile with the fact that this stuff was not leaked at the most critical time. Also, these were private messages, and nobody would like having their private messages aired to the country.

That said, unlike the #Resistance, I’m not ready to canonize Strzok. The messages were written on government devices. He is an adulterer. While the conclusions he came to about Trump’s personality are similar to the conclusions many of us came to, having a guy this openly and emotionally partisan involved in these investigations feels very inappropriate and disturbing.

But it’s not enough for me to decide that the FBI and Mueller are involved in a #WitchHunt. That’s what Donald Trump wants me to think, but no sale.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

137 Responses to “Stop Overselling the Importance of the Strzok Texts”

  1. it’s important to know how corrupt and slimy the hot and horny men and women of the clown-show fbi have become, and how blatantly so

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. truth be told the sleazy fbi’s joke investigation of the mandalay bay massacre is every bit as amusing as their mueller comey coup on democracy, but you can’t get CNN Jake Tapper fake news to cover that one at all not even a little

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. He didn’t need to So, Steele was briefing Reid and isikoff and ioffe and a boatload more of official, the bureau got three different copies of the dossier.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  4. Reporter’s, officials one is sleeping with the other at any one time.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  5. No bump doesn’t have a point, if they nailed it to his head they wouldn’t have a point.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  6. The view of the FBI as a hotbed of partisan leakers is indeed difficult to reconcile . . . .

    Strozk took the same approach yesterday by lumping himself in with the overall positive history of the FBI.

    All law enforcement offices have the bulk of their manpower staffed by good people. The problem is that they also have their political climbers too. Jack Dunphy wrote about this problem and I recommend his column.

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  7. They paid greenberg and hamper and the grits probably paid mifsud to create a trail an impression.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  8. This is the fellow who Coney sent over to interrogate general Flynn, a man strzok isn’t fit to clean his shoes, they all conspired to protect Hillary from the get go, because Obama was hip deep in this Hillary matter.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  9. I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign.

    he’s a lying piece of fbi sh!t

    if they had evidence of collusion they wouldn’t have had to invent the coward-pig McCain urinating hooker dossier

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. What has not been explained is the difference in the DOJ prosecution of the EMAIL scandal and the Russian Collusion Scandal…..
    There has been plenty of accusation but no public information that connects the Trump campaign with Russian Collusion. Most the “public” information paints the Russian Collusion firmly in the DNC bucket, but of course that has been ignored by Mueller.

    jason stewart (34ab70)

  11. Laughed out loud at the Waldman quote. What utter hog wash. “Comprehensive effort by Russia” my ass. He seems to think that by pretending it happened it did.

    What Strozk & the Fibbies were obligated to do was GO TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN & warn them if they were so effing concerned. To PREVENT the problem from becoming a problem. End of story.

    Daiwa (2a0965)

  12. Gohmert gave it away — that there was no “there” there — when he started talking about Strzok’s wife. Sound and fury signifying little. The IG’s report is as good as it’s going to get for Deep State conspiracists.

    Whether LBJ killed Mahatma Ghandi is still an open question, though.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. That report redacted five times what it left in, consider That, but this is like that snipe hunt conducted against Warren hastings in the 18th century.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  14. Basically, the most significant thing I find in all this is that “Strzok” is pronounced “struck”.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Now when does a side by side with matteen who was not investigated because his father was an fbi snitch, maybe that was also why the rifka Barry went nowhere, the incident in Columbus, off the Seattle coast and anchorage it’s not dark humor anymore like Corley romano.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  16. good post.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  17. The view of the FBI as a hotbed of partisan leakers is indeed difficult to reconcile with the fact that this stuff was not leaked at the most critical time.

    people don’t understand what the insurance policy was

    the dirty FBI sluts were confident that Hillary would win

    but they were nevertheless concerned by Mr. Trump

    because he’d already signaled his willingness to question the legitimacy of both the election and Hillary, and he’d already demonstrated a grasp of just how dirty Hillary was, and his extensive inquiries into Obama’s birthplace had demonstrated that he was willing to devote the time and effort into undermining a dirty fascist american president

    and Hillary was much more vulnerable on many levels than Obama was, and the slutty FBI knew this more than anyone because they knew the full measure of the illegal and unethical things they had done to protect her

    and so the dirty fbi trash *felt* vulnerable on a visceral level, and they also knew that a defeated Trump could cause considerable trouble, and that it was very much in his nature to do so

    the insurance policy was meant to neuter him after Hillary ascended to the throne

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  18. The only time the bureau came close was with the Chapman ring (the details of which are reasonably relayed in red sparrow)

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  19. This is a nearly impossible point to rebut.

    Another point nearly impossible to rebut: The Post has been unremittingly hostile to Mr Trump since the day he announced. So it occasionally posts truth about Trump, but only when that truth is harmful.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  20. Yawn. Predictable and expected post.

    mg (0d66b4)

  21. Strozok’s body language, his conflicting statements and the Dem’s full court press to obstruct the hearings told everyone what was going on.

    They thought the fix was in. They were wrong.

    NJRob (b00189)

  22. hf has a point.

    That Strzok didn’t leak anything was because Strzok didn’t HAVE anything save accusations and innuendo. If he had leaked it, it would have backfired badly as the Trump camp called foul and they couldn’t back it up.

    So, it’s not at all a hard point to rebut (unless you have your Russia-stole-the-election blinders on).

    UNLIKE the Clinton dirt that Wikileaks posted that was all true and has never been challenged, let alone refuted.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  23. Why is it impossible, we know McCabe was running interference through strzok to prevent wieners laptop be examined, we know he was coordinating crossfire hurricane which read in risenstein as yates and mccabe.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  24. OTOH, Trump is a poor diplomat.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  25. I think an important thing to remember is that “everyone” knew Hillary was going to win in June 2016. If the FBI, or in this case Strzok, was to leak the information he had, then it would have tainted Hillary’s whole Presidency because the full investigation would have come up with the same zilch it has come up with to now. He didn’t release because he was acting professionally, it was because he thought it was unnecessary and would taint Hillary’s eletion.

    burnth (0bf8f2)

  26. When your security service is in the business of undermining the incoming administration, you wouldn’t be gladhanding

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  27. “Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate in their investigation of Russian interference and the Trump campaign.”

    This is a sensible observation, but it suggests a few follow-up questions that might, I think, be worth asking:

    – What makes an “official action,” whatever that might be, “biased, unfair or inappropriate”, as opposed to explicitly illegal? Are the standards of an official action’s “fairness” or “appropriateness” written down anywhere?

    – What would count as probative, or even just strongly indicative, evidence for the allegation any given official action was biased, unfair or inappropriate?

    – What are the legal and professional consequences of being shown to have executed a merely “biased” or “unfair” official action? What should they be?
    – Stipulating that even the most professional government agents will still have personal political opinions and the right to express and act on them, what volume and type of evidence would be required before Strzok’s evident bias can no longer be considered merely a random outlier that can be ignored, but an indicative example of an agency-wide trend that shouldn’t be?

    I agree that overselling any single point of data when constructing a thesis is a bad idea, but when a government agent asserts to a colleague through an official agency channel that they will take action to render an election victory impossible (and phrasing it as an “insurance policy”, suggesting very strongly actions to be taken after a disaster, such as an electoral loss, rather than actions taken to prevent it), the degree to which I, at least, can shrug that off as irrelevant bloviation is pretty limited.

    Stephen J. (f77922)

  28. Melania is gorgeous.

    mg (0d66b4)

  29. I’ve read here over and over that words have meaning and language is important and I know that for lawyers, wordcraft is indeed important precisely because people are weasels.
    Yesterday I watched Trey Gowdy correct himself on a question where he almost made a rookie mistake and asked about the week prior to a certain date and immediately corrected himself to ask about 8 days.
    I watched the person being questioned shave answers, shave words, answer questions not asked, answer the least precise and immaterial part of questions. The hf registered trademark dirty fbi sluts Rosenstein and Stryok smirk when they think they are winning at playing the word weasel games. ha ha ha.

    Lawyers may look at it and think: They did win that round, questions were poorly framed, language imprecise etc. but most Americans live and work in the real world of language where we understand that our wife is asking us the days previous to last Sunday and whether we made the phone call or not. We know that if we shave our answer and answer truthfully that we did not make the call last week, but do not tell her we indeed did make the call, but it was on the last day of the preceding week, she will feel misled, distrustful and suspicious of us and our motive. Things may be tense around the household for a while and rightfully so and I’d have only myself to blame and good luck trying to put it back on her for asking an imprecise question.

    If my wife asked me to pick up the kids at 3 and I said Ok, so she calls me and asks if I picked them up at 3 like we’d discussed and I say no because I picked them up at 2:50, my wife would be suspicious, hurt, angry and possibly wondering how I’d look in that shirt with a steak knife stuck in my shoulder.

    The dirty fbi sluts look like smirky guilty assholes to people like me. Lawyers see the game and its their game and they like the challenge. Lay people get it and hate everyone who acts like this, so maybe the texts mean not much, but the derisive language towards the great unwashed masses coupled with this type of smarmy, smirky gamesmanship smells wonderful to the peerage, but to the jury of peers it says “guilty asshole trying to hide the truth”.

    the dirty fbi slut lawyers advising these guys should realize that they are destroying the fbi not saving it

    steveg (a9dcab)

  30. Stop Overselling the Importance of the Strzok Texts

    What is being under sold is the importance of the lack of certain Strzok texts.

    he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.

    Here is the guy that signed the orders to start the Russian Collusion investigation in July-August of 2016 and come November, after Trump won, he has zero to say to his “lover” regarding Russia handing Trump a victory. How did those “facts” slip his mind in his private conversations? He doesn’t even suggest it to his lover through hyperbole. He is silent on the matter.

    I have not seen a single text where he blames Russia for Trump’s victory. Wouldn’t something of that nature be consistent with the persona of Strzok that we are supposed to believe? Yet it doesn’t cross his mind that is “filled with details from the investigation.”

    I find that odd.

    BuDuh (ea27e6)

  31. “That said, unlike the #Resistance, I’m not ready to canonize Strzok.”


    Harkin (56a257)

  32. “nearly everyone now acknowledges was a comprehensive effort by Russia to help Trump get elected,”

    Horse hockey. If Russia was really engaging in such an effort, all they had to do was publicize Uranium One and Hillary’s complicity while laughing and pointing. To say nothing of releasing her emails.

    Nobody acknowledges anything more than some goofy websites thrown up for a few pennies.

    Ingot9455 (68bf96)

  33. If the “private” text messages were NOT sent and responded to using FBI-issued devices that were to be used for official FBI “business” only, then yes, I’m inclined to agree, perhaps they should have remained “private”.

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  34. I read Strzok is a former Army Ranger. I found it difficult to reconcile that with this:

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  35. The investigation was based on Hillary Clinton opposition research. But hey, bias never impacted the FBI investigation.

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  36. Breaking:

    WASHINGTON — Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, on Friday announced new charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign. The announcement came just a few days before President Trump is expected to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki, Finland.

    One the one hand, I’m surprised. OTOH, since none of these cases will ever see the inside of a courtroom, I’m also cynical.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  37. Note 1 — I miss Beldar.

    Note 2 — It seems the host’s theory of Strzok’s testimony is as likely as any of the one’s I have seen speculated here. His self-presentation as someone appalled by Trump’s performance strikes me as reasonable. People have a bad habit of forgetting past Trump outrages when in the midst of a new Trump outrage, or folks have been effectively gaslit in just expecting it. But Trump going after a vet’s dad who dared criticize him was just the sort of disgusting that generates utter contempt in people.

    Note 3 — I know it’s more comforting to think of Trump’s problems as the result of some big “deep state” conspiracy. But could it be that, when career law enforcement and prosecutors look at Trump, they see someone who reminds them of all the criminals they have prosecuted and all the people they thought were criminals, but could not prosecute? I think this mindset can lead to abuses (Mark Fuhrman and the infamous bloody glove from the OJ Simpson trial), but how on earth do you avoid it?

    Note 4 — I do believe we dodged a bullet with Clinton (and dodged into another bullet, alas). Gohmert, to my mind, stepped on his own revelation by going tabloid on Strzok’s adultery. Still, this is important:

    “He was told by the intelligence community inspector general’s investigator Frank Rucker that they had found an anomaly in the emails going to and from Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized private server, and when they forensically examined the anomaly, they found embedded information,” he continued in regard to a revelation from Strzok’s testimony.

    “It was a foreign entity — not Russia, but a foreign entity — that was getting every single one of her over 30,000 emails,” Gohmert added.

    Appalled (96665e)

  38. If the Dec server was never examined by the bureau, how can they know any of this?

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. “Overselling the Importance of the Strzok Texts” is an issue, yes. Rather reminds me of the issue of using Iraq’s WMD as grounds to invade. “Over-egging the pudding” as Brit papers put it regarding Tony Blair’s analysis of that risk. Clearly Strzok was behaving in a fashion that can be perceived to have benefitted Hillary’s campaign and endangered The Donald’s. It is not at all clear that an overt official abuse of FBI power resulted from Strzok’s preference.

    That said, the whole special prosecution arises from the similarly over-egged pudding. The Russians did not “Hack the Election”, (nor did Pakistani IT aides in Debbie Wassermann Schulz’s Congress) by changing the results on voting machines, or in any other fashion. Yes, the machines are vulnerable. No, they were not “hacked”. Nor did the Trump campaign “collude” with Russia, Brazillian Nazis, or Mars — nor is “collusion” a violation of Federal Campaign Law. No collusion, no harm, no foul. Trump did not seek the office for the sake of profiting from emoluments. There is apparently no verifiable scandal in the “pee dossier” that makes The Donald more susceptible to blackmail than any other celebrity. We aren’t even hearing about any traditional scandals of the “Teapot Dome” variety where certain investors in certain industries are profiting from, say, manipulation of solar panel subsidies, carbon tax credits, grants of rights-of-way along federally controlled corridors to favored pipeline companies … all the sorts of things a land grabber like Trump might honestly be EXPECTED to exploit. It just isn’t the kind of pudding that needs the number and variety of eggs we keep hearing about.

    pouncer (915d55)

  40. Appalled,

    Answer 1: Either Clinton would fill that bill adequately.
    Answer 2: The full court press against the Trump ADMINISTRATION involves rather more than the invested state actors. It involves the expected (the “loyal” opposition) but also the bulk of the press, media and cultural apparatus. Why? Because Trump is a buffoon? No, if that were the case all they’d have to do is stand and watch. It’s because he threatens their hold on power and long-standing arrangements that serve them well, but the people poorly. In short, paranoids can have enemies and fools can be slandered.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  41. fbi turd-wipe bobby mueller spent hundreds of millions of dollars and couldn’t find a single spam email sent to a Republican?

    his indictment is a farce

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  42. 38… Russians 5 Narrative 0…

    “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.”

    —- Arnold Stang Rosenstein

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  43. But it’s not enough for me to decide that the FBI and Mueller are involved in a #WitchHunt. That’s what Donald Trump wants me to think, but no sale.

    This harangue just makes sense.

    Dave (445e97)

  44. Kevin M

    I don’t think Hillary got the FBI investigation she deserved. She should have faced charges, or had her security clearance revoked. I have a theory that the FBI hates FOIA as much as Clinton, and this is why they might not have treated this as seriously as they should have done. If I recall correctly, Strzok wanted a more intense investigation, but was overruled.

    As for your second point, the bias of the media cultural complex is very evident, and the #Resistance has exploited that. But, just fools can be slandered and paranoids have enemies, the would-be slanderers and enemies can also be right that the paranoiacs are evil, and the fools are corrupt.

    Appalled (96665e)

  45. They don’t give a farthing about foia, this is also true of the atf in fast and furious, they had a program to arm the cartels, they had a cover story already to go to the posts grimaldi, holder provided cover same with the IRS and treasury collaborating against the tea party, same with arming the pro islamist Syrian rebels while openly supporting assad because of Iran, who are in bed with russia

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. The view of the FBI as a hotbed of partisan leakers is indeed difficult to reconcile with the fact that this stuff was not leaked at the most critical time.

    what does “this stuff” refer to exactly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  47. Strzok was one of a few people who knew of Trump’ s campaign colluding with the Russians in the summer of 2016 but here we are two years later and millions of dollars poorer and no evidence has been produced. He should have shared his knowledge with mueller.

    Jim (5e1e7d)

  48. All they had to do to improve their prospects was not be crazy, but they couldn’t do it:

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  49. Note 3 — I know it’s more comforting to think of Trump’s problems as the result of some big “deep state” conspiracy. But could it be that, when career law enforcement and prosecutors look at Trump, they see someone who reminds them of all the criminals they have prosecuted and all the people they thought were criminals, but could not prosecute? I think this mindset can lead to abuses (Mark Fuhrman and the infamous bloody glove from the OJ Simpson trial), but how on earth do you avoid it?

    Do you think it is perfectly understandable and maybe even acceptable for law enforcement to plant evidence if their heart is in the right place?

    I don’t.

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  50. Doesn’t Hillary remind you of a criminal?

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  51. #51 & #52 Y’know, thinking Hillary deserves prosecution for her actions on the server, and noticing Trump can seem kind of like a criminal aren’t mutually exclusive. (See my #46) It’s sorta like thinking that a mindset that can lead you to an abuse is understandable, but committing the abuse is not acceptable.

    And that gets to another point. People have political viewpoints, and if they are committed enough to give to a campaign, it is very easy to find out those opinions by looking at their giving history. Nonetheless, it is part of their job not to let bias influence their decisions. They are not required by their job to be political eunuchs.

    Appalled (96665e)

  52. What did he do that was criminal appalled. That was the predicate for this investigation?

    Narciso (cd8823)

  53. Completely agree the Strozk-Page texts are overblown largely because they reflect what many others in the beltway were also saying at the time and probably still are.

    The idea that the Trump-Russia-Clinton story was all kept quiet prior to the election is easily refuted by contemporaneous reporting such as:

    Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

    New York Times – Oct 31, 2016. For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

    Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

    Washington Post – June 14, 2016. Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken favorably about Trump, who has called for better relations with Russia and expressed skepticism about NATO. But unlike Clinton, whom the Russians probably have long had in their spy sights, Trump has not been a politician for very long, so foreign agencies are playing catch-up, analysts say.

    “The purpose of such intelligence gathering is to understand the target’s proclivities,” said Robert Deitz, former senior councillor to the CIA director and a former general counsel at the National Security Agency. “Trump’s foreign investments, for example, would be relevant to understanding how he would deal with countries where he has those investments” should he be elected, Deitz said. “They may provide tips for understanding his style of negotiating. In short, this sort of intelligence could be used by Russia, for example, to indicate where it can get away with foreign adventurism.”
    Other analysts noted that any dirt dug up in opposition research is likely to be made public anyway.

    A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump

    Mother Jones – October 31, 2016. At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him “garbage.”) On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chief. But Reid’s recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

    Strozk isn’t counting pencils in HR as a reward for his exceptional service but he also isn’t likely to be the biggest offender either. His smugness comes from the likely knowledge everything he did was known to and approved of by POTUS – just like Hillary.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  54. Most of this came from the fusion dossier paid for by the Clintons, leaked to isikoff and corn and other parties, fandos Barrett entous

    Narciso (cd8823)

  55. 39 Note 3, how could any law person see a criminal in Trump and then turn around and support Hillary? Trump has many short comings, none of them even begin to come close to the criminal disgusting human being that Hillary is. In law enforcement speak Trump was small time criminal, Hillary was a king pin.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  56. Who knows but appalled did vote for Obama despite being apprised of the fraud that Ayers and Obama wrought with the Annenberg fund.

    Narciso (cd8823)


    “People have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” – The Big Dick, November 17, 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  58. #54

    Let’s be precise, here. When I say Trump might look like a criminal, I am looking at Trump University (which looks like and talks like a scam), the self-dealing associated with the Trump Foundation, the serial bankruptcies, the involvement in the casino industry, and his out loud and proud libertine behavior. Looking like a criminal is not actually being one, but let’s say there is a correlation to the behaviors exhibited by Trump over the years, and the behavior of a criminal.

    When you ask, what crime is associated with Russia? I honestly have no idea — Mueller isn’t telling. Is there a feeling that there is not something quite right with Trump’s relationship with Russia? Well, his admiration for Putin is often expressed, and Trump is at least rumored to have substantial business connections with Russian oligarchs. Again, note above. I am open to the idea that the FBI let their suspicions run away with their professional caution, and there may really be nothing except Hillary Clinton generated smoke. But the Trump supporter’s cry that there was no basis for suspicion, and how dare you, is silly.

    Appalled (96665e)

  59. 1. There were two acts (Comey’s news conference and his letter to Congress) and one non-act (the non-leaking of the FBI investigation on the Trump campaign), all of which hurt the Hillary campaign and helped Trump. So it’s a little odd that Trump would be on such a warpath against the FBI, the very agency that helped him cross the finish line. He should’ve thanked Comey for his efforts, not sacked him.
    2. What Strzok testified under oath yesterday is hardly different from what was in the recent IG report, which notably concluded that there was no bias in how the Hillary probe was handled.
    3. The fireworks between Strzok and House Republicans were overshadowed by today’s news that Mueller indicted twelve Putin’s agents.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  60. He had to pretend to reopen the investigation into the server because of pressure from the nypd(I say pretend because of what judicial watch subsequently turned up)

    Narciso (cd8823)

  61. disgraced fbi slicky-slut Jim Comey thought Hillary was a sure thing he’s already said as much

    so none of his acts were to help Trump but to shore up the legitimacy of hillary both in real time and prophylactically

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. Based on what evidence, without a server to examine, unlike the weiner laptop, where he got the equivalent of a jay walking charge.

    Narciso (cd8823)

  63. sleazy gestapo-turd Mueller’s just trying to ass-jack the summit with Putin

    he’s got nothing that would hold up in court

    this is how FBI trash do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  64. #61 — I got to say that the 12 indictments of non-citizens who are not living in this country feels like either grandstanding or some means to another end. It does not impress, in and of itself.

    Appalled (96665e)

  65. @56. Exactly, narciso and from the US and allied intelligence reporting of US persons with Russian or Russian related contacts. Whether there was any significance to the contacts or not once US intelligence began to monitor/investigate them there had to be lawful authority to unmask and/or follow those contacts. Whatever the predicate was for opening a formal counter-intelligence investigation was once opened that provided the authority to scoop up all the “inadvertent” and allied-provided information on the target, the target’s contacts and the target’s contact’s contacts they already had. IOW a whole campaign full of people.

    IMHO this entire exercise has always been less about putting the Trump team behind bars and more about managing Trump’s control of DOJ and the IC while obscuring the last administration’s liberal interpretation of spying on US persons through unmasked incidental collection. If it produced prosecutable crimes all the better from the beltway’s POV but it’s always been about protecting the status quo. Brennan ran the Op and put Comey in a no-win position from which he did just as bad a job with this as he did with the Hillary matter.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  66. They were not even among the expelled in 2016, but this is another crowdstrikes derived exercise.

    Narciso (cd8823)

  67. Any spin to smear this guy with the scarlet letters ‘F.B.I.’ is immature. Strzok spent ten hours bombing Republican congressional azzes back into the Roger Stone Age.

    Well done, sir.

    “Paint it with iodine and mark it fit for duty, Doc.” – Frank Savage [Gregory Peck] ‘Twelve O’Clock High’ 1949

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. That last part of the last piece was right from Steele but also the second dossier relayed by cody shearer, who created that phony Berlin handoff to cover it.

    Narciso (cd8823)

  69. “President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won’t interfere in future elections,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday. “Glad-handing with Vladimir Putin on the heels of these indictments would be an insult to our democracy.”

    so dirty bob mueller and his simpering tea boy rod rosytwat are still doing everything they can to help the democrats

    would you really expect the corrupt sessions doj or the gestapo clownshow fbi to behave any differently

    they’re all a bunch of dirty cowardly obama-fellating slut-slut lick-licks

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  70. speaking of cowards today’s John McCain’s cancerversary

    if you haven’t been following along, the disgraced ex-naval aviator was diagnosed with “cancer” soon after his highly problematic and borderline treasonous role in disseminating the phony urinating hooker dossier was revealed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  71. Okay, Patterico, this video of Strzok on Twitter deserves its own post.

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  72. I watched nbc and msdnc before the election say they would no longer report the contents of leaked e-mails because the russians were behind it.

    wendell (b69c0f)

  73. I got to say that the 12 indictments of non-citizens who are not living in this country feels like either grandstanding or some means to another end.

    It’s relevant that there are 26 Putin nationals and three PutinLand businesses under indictment, which points to a broad and unprecedented conspiracy by Putin to put his thumb on the 2016 electoral scale, and the investigation has a ways to go. Earlier this week, Trump could not bring himself to say that Putin has been hostile to our interests or is a foe, just a “competitor”, which is a joke when PutinLand is only our 30th largest trading partner.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  74. we know the filthy FBI trash-clowns framed Mr. Flynn

    why would we think they’re not framing Russia now?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. I would bet everything that the SC refusing to close out the investigation as to direct involvement by DJT is, in fact, a with hunt. it is about politics. It is about staining and delegitimizing DJT. It is about creating a plausible narrative to help the Dems win this November.

    Mueller has gone for an nexus possible to ensnare DJT associates. Where in hell is the similar expansion into the hack of the DNC computers?! If electoral interference is the true point of it all, where are the subpoenas of Dem pols and operatives?

    I do agree too much is being made of Strzok’s bias. I WANT an enthusiastic investigation by criminal prosecutors and their agents! PS is not the issue. The problem is an absolute refusal within DOJ to properly constrain PS and Comey when it turned out there was no there, there. It’s the systemic bias which MUST be identified and purged.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  76. Influence elections. What country doesn’t? If it were a crime netanyahu and his party would be in jail. Remember when america tried to “influence” an election in the dominican republic by sending in the marines. Tell this to mosadek. allende and numerous others we have “influcened out of power!” You can’t do for trump what we did for boris yeltsin.

    wendell (b69c0f)

  77. his highly problematic and borderline treasonous role in disseminating the phony urinating hooker dossier was revealed
    Yeah, that’s slander. He gave his copy to the FBI, which had already had a copy in their possession for months. And I’m pretty sure that McCain has cancer, not “cancer”.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  78. Influence elections. What country doesn’t?

    Hence the word “unprecedented”, as in unprecedented in kind and scope.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  79. we’ll see

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. The Clinton administration failed to shutdown acts of terror against the US by fighting it with lawfare and the Rosenstein administration will be no more successful against state acts of cyber intrusions.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  81. Love the animated gif Surber has up of smirkboy Strzok in this piece.

    Anon Y. Mous (acdecf)

  82. There’s one important point to realize:

    WhenLisa Page texted Peter Strzok saying that Trump is

    not ever going to become president, right? Right?!

    And Strzok replied:

    “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.


    He was just trying to keep his mistress happy.

    Naturally, Strzok did not explain it that way.

    Instead, this is how he handled it:

    He doesn’t recall writing that text. He wote it late at night. It in no way means that he, and otehrs in the FBI would stop Trump from becoming president.

    Of course it means precisely that.

    But he was lying.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  83. Strzok’s real plans are reflected in another, later, text where he talks about prioritizing the Trump investigation as an insurance policy.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  84. How did russians influced the voting machines in detroit to not read 70.000 ballots for clinton? How did russia influcene 100,000 voters in wisconsin to not vote because they lost or no longer had proper voting ids. same for pennsylvania and floridah. How did russia prevent enough ballots being available in north carolina so they ran out?

    wendell (b69c0f)

  85. 5 Key Takeaways From The House Hearing With FBI Counterintelligence No. 2 Peter Strzok

    harkin (56a257)

  86. Yes three copies of the same document made it seem legit, as in that yahoo story.

    Narciso (3e2868)

  87. And now they indict a bunch of people who will never stand trial, while the allegations will stand forever. Tainting has been the objective from the beginning, because they’ve known from the outset that collusion never occurred. Mind you, I have no problem with indicting these Russians if there is evidence of their alleged ‘crimes of interference’, but nothing will ever come of it. Unless they actually have the DNC server, this is all kabuki BS. My guess is the hard evidence, such as there is, will be classified as a matter of national security, of course, so us peons will just have to trust them. Okay.

    Daiwa (2a0965)

  88. 55. crazy (5c5b07) — 7/13/2018 @ 12:22 pm

    The idea that the Trump-Russia-Clinton story was all kept quiet prior to the election is easily refuted by contemporaneous reporting…

    Hillary Clinton, in the third Presidentialdebaste Wednesday, October 19, 2016 said Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to be president because he would a puppet.


    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” So that’s the question…

    TRUMP: Thank you.

    WALLACE: That’s the question. Please quiet, everybody. Is that your dream, open borders?

    CLINTON: Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.

    But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We’ve never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.

    WALLACE: Well?

    TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?

    WALLACE: Hold on—hold on, wait. Hold on, folks. Because we—this is going to end up getting out of control. Let’s try to keep it quiet so—for the candidates and for the American people.

    TRUMP: So just to finish on the borders…

    WALLACE: Yes?

    TRUMP: She wants open borders. People are going to pour into our country. People are going to come in from Syria. She wants 550 percent more people than Barack Obama, and he has thousands and thousands of people. They have no idea where they come from.

    And you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won’t even mention the words, and neither will President Obama. So I just want to tell you, she wants open borders.

    Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.

    He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I’ll tell you what: We’re in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads—1,800, by the way—where they expanded and we didn’t, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she’s playing chicken. Look, Putin…

    WALLACE: Wait, but…

    TRUMP: … from everything I see, has no respect for this person.

    CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

    TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

    CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear…

    TRUMP: You’re the puppet!

    CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…

    TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet.

    CLINTON: … that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

    So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17—17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…

    CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand…

    TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else. [who did the hacking of the DNC.]

    CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.

    TRUMP: She has no idea.

    CLINTON: I am quoting 17…

    TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.

    CLINTON: … 17 intelligence—do you doubt 17 military and civilian…

    TRUMP: And our country has no idea.

    CLINTON: … agencies.

    TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.

    CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely…[crosstalk]

    TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…

    TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her in Syria.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…[crosstalk]

    TRUMP: He’s outsmarted her every step of the way.

    WALLACE: I do get to ask some questions.

    TRUMP: Yes, that’s fine.

    WALLACE: And I would like to ask you this direct question. The top national security officials of this country do believe that Russia has been behind these hacks. Even if you don’t know for sure whether they are, do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?

    TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else.

    WALLACE: You condemn their interference?

    TRUMP: Of course I condemn. Of course I—I don’t know Putin. I have no idea.

    WALLACE: I’m not asking—I’m asking do you condemn?

    TRUMP: I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad.

    Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way. Whether it’s Syria, you name it. Missiles. Take a look at the “start up” that they signed. The Russians have said, according to many, many reports, I can’t believe they allowed us to do this. They create warheads, and we can’t. The Russians can’t believe it. She has been outsmarted by Putin.

    And all you have to do is look at the Middle East. They’ve taken over. We’ve spent $6 trillion. They’ve taken over the Middle East. She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I’ve ever seen in any government whatsoever

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  89. #88: Congress has the power of the purse. They could, for example, cut the DoJ’s medical and dental benefits, halve vacation days, and cut everyone’s pay by a third so long as the department obstructs oversight. BEt you there are changes toot suite.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  90. Let’s say that Putin wanted Trump to win. Why?

    The answer will depend on your view of Trump and/or Hillary, of course.

    It is reasonable to assume that Putin had utter contempt for Clinton and Obama as weaklings, and Hillary as a crook to boot. He may have seen Trump as a kindred spirit. He may have felt that having weaklings in charge of the USA had been bad for Russia (forcing them to intervene in Syria and Iraq). It’s not clear what the refugee crisis in the -stans has been like, but Putin would know, and care.


    It is reasonable to assume that Putin thought that Trump was an utter moron who could be easily controlled, and feared Clinton’s steely resolve.

    No, wait. It isn’t.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  91. Now, the real questions is, if it wasn’t Russia, which state actor was reading all of Hillary’s emails? My money is on the Chinese, doing it in such a way it blew back on their friends in Russia.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  92. working in concert with Mueller, Rosytwat and the assorted hot and horny trash at the FBI, coward-pig navy slut John McCain explicitly tries to sabotage the upcoming summit

    GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on Friday said that if President Trump isn’t prepared to hold Russian President Vladimir Putin “accountable” for aggression toward the U.S. then he should cancel their meeting next week.

    “President Trump must be willing to confront Putin from a position of strength and demonstrate that there will be a serious price to pay for his ongoing aggression towards the United States and democracies around the world. If President Trump is not prepared to hold Putin accountable, the summit in Helsinki should not move forward,” McCain said in a statement.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. Get up on teh downstrzok
    Eve’ybody get up

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  94. Strzok didn’t leak the info not because he’s a great patriot, just doing his job professionally, but because he and his superiors within the department of Justice, and at the White House didn’t want it leaked before the election, because they assumed Hillary would win easily, and they didn’t want her election tainted.

    The dossier leaked, it was being shopped all over the place, and the FBI and the DOJ did nothing about it. Until after the election, when Comey helped give CNN and others cover to finally release it as news.

    Evan3457 (550dba)

  95. bingo Mr. Evan you win free instapot

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. I said up (strzok)
    Down (strzok)
    Oh people comin’ from miles around
    I said up (strzok)
    Down (strzok)
    In (strzok)
    Out (strzok)
    I said if you (if you)
    If you wanna (ifyouwanna)
    If you wanna feel real nice
    Just ask the rockn’roll doctor’s advice

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  97. “By learning to appreciate soccer, I have also learned to appreciate the limits of American exceptionalism. Yes, we are a great nation, but that doesn’t mean that it’s our way or the highway. In fact, we become even greater if we learn to treasure the customs and attitudes of other lands. I suppose, in the end, my change of heart about sports is related to my change of heart about politics. In both fields I eschew the Trump Doctrine: “We’re America, b*tch.” No, we’re part of the world.”

    —- Max Boot 👢

    * ESAD, Max Boot !!!

    *Eschew Sucking A D*ck

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  98. soccer’s the one where everyone writhes on the ground at strategic moments pretending to be stricken

    maybe that’s where Johnny got the idea

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. “He’s an adulterer
    How do we know he’s strayed since 11/17?
    According to many on this blog If he has not slept with a woman not his wife since then, he’s not an adulterer. Right?

    TomM (ffe711)

  100. if you bang a pass-around girl like dirty Lisa you’re an adulterer and you need to get that thing checked it could fall off

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. “He is an adulterer.”

    BFD. The crocodile tears of Reps. Gohmert and Handle were hilarious, considering who also sat on the panel. Republicans have put their beliefs in morality in a box hidden in a warehouse for the duration of the Trump presidency. They are the last party that should be self-appointed morality police. Tsk-tsking about someone’s private behavior is the last refuge after all else fails:

    “I can’t help wonder,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), “when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her about Lisa Page?”…

    The purpose of interrogating Strzok for 10 hours Thursday (after 11 hours in a private session) was clear: ritual humiliation. In fairness, the vast majority condemned Strzok over his texts to his lover without invoking the affair. But then there was Rep. Karen Handel (R-Ga.), picking up where Gohmert left off. “Engaging in the kind of behavior that you have been engaging in, especially with the extramarital affair, it opens up an agent to exploitation and even blackmail,” she proclaimed.

    If Republicans really want to go there, they’ll need to investigate the vulnerabilities of some of Strzok’s inquisitors on their glass-house committee:

    Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who needled Strzok about “text messages with your friend.” DesJarlais, according to divorce filings, had multiple extramarital affairs and encouraged his ex-wife and a patient with whom he had an affair to get abortions.

    Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is battling the allegations of former Ohio State wrestlers who said he ignored sexual abuse while coaching there.

    Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over payments to a former staffer accused of sexual harassment. Other members of the panel are Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.), who was sentenced last year to community service and anger-management classes for assaulting a reporter, and Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), whose infidelity as governor of South Carolina made national headlines.

    And of course there is Trump himself:

    Trump, who divorced his first wife to marry the woman with whom he was having an affair, is involved in a lawsuit with an adult-film star with whom he also reportedly had an affair around the time his third wife gave birth to his youngest child.

    Despite the president facing about a dozen allegations of sexual harassment — many of them allegedly occurring while Trump was in one of his three marriages — social conservatives in Congress have failed to take him to task at anywhere close to the level that Gohmert did Strzok.

    One of the lasting legacies of the Trump presidency, particularly for some of his critics, will be how many social conservatives in Congress and throughout America appeared to turn a blind eye to the moral concerns that previously seemed to be at the foundations of their political philosophy.

    Yes, it was stupid to exchange texts with someone on a government phone. But whether it was a co-worker or mistress is immaterial. Unless, you advocate for making adultery a crime, in which case many of those listed above would be in jail.

    RipMurdock (1e2b6a)

  102. It is indicative that they have nothing that has not already been uncovered by the IG. No law on their side, no facts on their side, so they resort to table-pounding about his affair.

    And Gohmert is a nutjob. He should run away from any squirrels he sees. They might try to store him for the winter.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. uncommonly stupid, the affair was the excuse for the 50,000 text messages, just like the yoga messages, were the excuse for conducting classified info, through a private server, just like the gay Hispanic affair with matteen was the reason to explain why they didn’t investigate the son of an fbi informant,

    now you want to humor the psycho who has been tormenting Jordan’s family, buck Murdoch, go on ahead,
    now we know when boston was littered with bodies thanks to bulger’s handiwork, mueller didn’t seem to note anything of consequence, including absolving two men who died in prison for a crime they didn’t commit,

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. @91 Another good one, Sammy. Thanks

    crazy (5c5b07)

  105. “In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

    That’s a declaration against interest if there ever was one. Now Democrats will hate him too.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. 50,000 text messages? What could they have to say? Never mind that … when did they have the time to sabotage Trump’s campaign?

    nk (dbc370)

  107. there’s no reason both things can’t be equally true

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  108. @104/@105 ROFLMAO

    The chubby, balding, jug-eared Texan is merely jealous that the dapper, man-about-town Strzok can get women on the side, just like our Captain can.

    But wait, Louie… seems in the bad old Soviet days, you spent a summer as an “exchange student” in Ukraine, too.

    Hmmmm. Texas may be more red than America knows. Congress needs to investigate. A public hearing, too, Comrade Gohmert!

    Did the Ukraine girls really knock you out? Did you leave the West behind? Did Moscow girls make you sing and shout? Was Georgia always on your my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my mind? Were you shown ’round those snow-peaked mountains way down south? Were you taken to some daddy’s farm? Did you hear the balalaikas ringing out? Are you now or were you ever keeping your comrades warm?

    Back In the U.S.S.R.?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. we only have the first 500, in which they conspire to communicate with the judge on the fisa panel, where they sabotaged laufman, trying to further the investigation into the laptop, where they planned the leaks to barrett,

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. like Bernie sander who honey mooned in the soviet union, like deblasio who was a sandalista, or f chuck’s first boss, tom red harkin, who along with john Kerry and gary hart, was the Ortega caucus in the senate,

    narciso (d1f714)

  111. it seems the fsb are rather incompetent, to not kill the person they targeted, but kill the one they didn’t

    narciso (d1f714)

  112. True dat, nk. The reason he was “one of a handful…” was because he was supposedly the FBI liaison (can’t remember the source) to the counterintel task force Brennan formed after receiving from GCHQ a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump’s campaign coffers passed by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States.

    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Somehow news of questions surrounding Trump and the Russians kept dribbling out to the international press while President Obama knew nothing about it. Imagine that.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  113. we feed our prey to the rancor, can’t you tell:

    someone who’s looked into the issue, Stephen McIntyre, has been able to tie this to lurk, the Russian hackers arrested in august 2016, but tying it to fsb is a stretch

    narciso (d1f714)

  114. Takeaways. David French has four and JustSecurity has six, and Marcy Wheeler has some insights. She was the journalist who voluntarily appeared before a Mueller grand jury to testify about a reporter’s contacts with Trump people and Putineers right after the election.
    I’m guessing the next indictments are going to involve people in the Trump campaign, starting with Roger Stone. Meantime, DNI Coats is confirming that Putin’s cyberattacks are ongoing.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  115. there can be none of this examination, because neither the fbi nor the cia, had the server in question, the crowdstrike report was full of bad attribution for the code, ridiculous assumptions

    narciso (d1f714)

  116. 104 I seem to recall adultery has been grounds to lose your security clearance for decades.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  117. now we do know, that the fbi was negotiating with assuange back in the spring of 2017, using deripasha, (that guy) as a back channel, this was separate from warner using his atty, waldman who had contacts with deripasha, and the foreign ministry, to communicate with steele, (why did they chose waldman, because he was the fixer re the levinson matter, and perhaps was packaged as source a)
    the long and the short of it, was assuange felt betrayed, and leaked the vault 7 tool kit, which on the richter scale of national security snafus, is 9.5. then cody shearer shopped that ridiculous story to the times, which wouldn’t qualify as a Dwayne Johnson spec script

    narciso (d1f714)

  118. DNI Coats lol

    pliable geriatric buffoon

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  119. there can be none of this examination

    these silly unsupported indictments are what falls out of mueller’s dirty fbi butt when his hot-to-trot cougar wife isn’t pegging it

    now you know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. 121: I’m assuming that it also applies to the aforementioned members of Congress, or the Trump White House? Without the publicity, a number of WH staffers would still be there with security clearances despite adulterous behavior or spousal abuse. It seems such behavior is a qualification, not a disqualification.

    Ripmurdock (1d97e4)

  121. Now is like to know are out vital networks more secure, against real intrusion into the power grid, medical data bases

    Narciso (b2eb1c)

  122. Poor Seth Rich. Murdered by Hillary even though he had nothing to do with leaking emails.

    Davethulhu (270006)

  123. The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down Teh Night That I Became a Clown

    Peter Strzok is the name, and I served in teh FBI
    ‘Til Mueller’s carnival came and gave me teh stinky eye
    In the summer of 2016 we were boinkin’, like two horny teens
    By August 10th, teh ax had fell, it’s a time I remember, oh so well
    The night that I became a clown, and teh press were photographin’
    The night that I became a clown, and the people were laughin’ they went
    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

    Back with my wife in DC, when one day she called to me
    “Peter, quick, come see, it burns when I take a pee”
    “Now I don’t mind you screwin’ trash, and I don’t care cuz that Page is a gash”
    “Just pack what ya need and ya hit teh road
    And good riddance, have fun with that homely toad”
    The night that I became a clown , and teh press were photographin’
    The night that I became a clown, and the people were laughin’ they went
    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  124. I’m wondering how Peter could not remember writing a text, but then knew it was “written in shorthand”, “written late at night” and was written when he was “upset at Trump for insulting a Gold Star father”… so he didn’t remember, but has a boatload of excuses for what he doesn’t remember and evidently remembers his excuses very well, thank you for the rehearsal FBI legal team.

    He’s a liar and used to getting away with lying to people who are outside the fbi, he explains the smell in Walmart he was huffing as a simple inter county rivalry. Oh. OK. He says that should have been said in private not on an fbi phone… so that would be OK then, and anyway he’d be right about that smell because he’s a highly regarded fbi agent.

    So I look at him and think that he reeks of elitist privilege, with some amoral stench on top of it.. like a used car salesman with a tic tac over stale coffee and rotten tooth breath.

    The FBI needs a bath from the top down.
    Sessions should resign and Trump should appoint someone qualified at AG who is a leader. Sessions may be qualified on multiple levels for all I know, but he’s not a strong leader. He was stung by his colleagues in his confirmation hearing and he never recovered… was he really dumb enough to think any of those people had ever really been his friends? They treated him like the kid who ran out of commissary… as soon as he runs out of Honeybuns to pass out they sell his ass.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  125. No I think he cares too much of his personal honor to admit he was duped. The problem is the possum Senate, who can get confirmed through them, if we wait till after the midterms, the dems will come up with more tools of sabotage.

    Narciso (b2eb1c)

  126. I’m really looking forward to all the shock and awe when this Russia nonsense is done, and it’s Hillary and her associates that are frogmarched off to Guantanamo Bay.

    All this present drama is just stage management, to prevent too much civil discord when it happens. The people are paying attention. Strzok isn’t fooling anyone.

    Present company excepted.

    And we still won’t be tired of winning.

    lee (ab26cf)

  127. ugh our sleazy tranny-trash mattis military at “work”

    these people are sick

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. You will notice that Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate in their investigation of Russian interference and the Trump campaign.

    Perhaps because the 1) the FBI/DoJ has be slow-walking the evidence to Congress and 2) the IG report on the Trump-Russia investigation hasn’t been released; we only have the Clinton email investigation report and Trump-Russia isn’t part of it. But in the Clinton email investigation the IG has zero confidence that some of Strzok’s actions were free from bias. Frankly, his actions clearly were biased, but Mr. Horowitz is overly forgiving in what constitutes evidence of bias. Unless he has “documentary or testimonial evidence,” i.e. unless the individual is stupid enough to send a text, IM, or email and put in writing that the individual is taking a particular action due to their bias, or confess the same to the IG investigators, Horowitz is not going to come right out and say it even though there is no other plausible explanation for the action.


    I. Text Messages and Instant Messages

    D. Analysis

    …We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate
    Trump from being elected — after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump — it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to
    prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016
    , these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.


    The Clinton email investigation was politicized from the start.

    He said that he received pushback when he began communicating concerns about Hillary Clinton’s private email server with then-DNI James Clapper.

    McCullough said that seven senators wrote a letter accusing him of politicizing the matter, chief among them, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

    He said he had a secure telephone conversation about the issue with Feinstein.

    He added that it was “maddening” that some Democrats were pointing to the fact only a few files from the server were marked “classified.”

    “It’s absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information,” he said.

    McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an “adversarial posture” from Congress when he tried to rectify the situation.

    “I expected to be embraced and protected,” he said, adding that a Hill staffer “chided” him for failing to consider the “political consequences” of the information he was blowing the whistle on.

    Got that folks? Former ICIG Chuck McCullough failed to consider the “political ramifications” for raising the alarm about the sheer volume of classified information on Clinton’s server. Instead he put national security ahead of politics. The politicians for political purposes wanted to undersell the volume of classified information. So they circled the wagons around the entirely meaningless phrase “marked classified” which is not any sort of standard. And for failing to consider the “political ramifications” the politicians accused him of politicizing the matter. Is that Orwellian or what?

    ICIG staff members met with Strzok and informed him that all but four of the 30,000+ work related emails that transited Clinton’s server were forwarded to a foreign entity not Russia. Strzok says he recalls the meeting but he doesn’t remember the substance of the meeting. I’m not the director of the FBI’s Deputy Assistant Director of the Espionage Section but I was a Naval intelligence officer, a Special Securtity Officer, and Information Security (INFOSEC) was my business. INFOSEC was Strzok’s business and he is flat lying. Nobody forgets when someone tells you that 30,000 emails, thousands containing classified information, have been transmitted to a foreign entity. Especially if you are investigating someone for violating security procedures and that individual is the one who let all that information escape. There is only one reason and one reason only Strzok would ignore that information. He had gotten the message from the Democrats in Congress hellbound to protect Hillary. You damn well consider the “political ramifications” of raising any alarms. And Strzok unlike McCullough, as his emails/IMs show, always put politics first ahead of national security.

    The view of the FBI as a hotbed of partisan leakers is indeed difficult to reconcile with the fact that this stuff was not leaked at the most critical time. Also, these were private messages, and nobody would like having their private messages aired to the country.

    You have got to be kidding, Pat.


    III. Allegations that Department and FBI Employees Improperly Disclosed Non-Public Information

    …We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.

    …Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed.
    We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks. For example, during the periods we reviewed, we identified dozens of FBI employees that had contact with members of the media. Attached to this report as Attachments G and H are link charts that reflects the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016.
    In addition to the significant number of communications between FBI employees and journalists, we identified social interactions between FBI employees and journalists that were, at a minimum, inconsistent with FBI policy and Department ethics rules. For example, we identified instances where FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events. We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the Inspector General (IG) Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy. The harm caused by leaks, fear of potential leaks, and a culture of unauthorized media contacts is illustrated in Chapters Ten and Eleven, where we detail the fact that these issues influenced FBI officials who were advising then Director Comey on consequential investigative decisions in October 2016. The FBI updated its media policy in November 2017, restating its strict guidelines concerning media contacts, and identifying who is required to obtain authority before engaging members of the media, and when and where to report media
    contact. We do not believe the problem is with the FBI’s policy, which
    we found to be clear and unambiguous. Rather, we concluded that these leaks highlight the need to change what appears to be a cultural attitude. Accordingly, we recommend that the FBI evaluate whether (a) it is sufficiently educating its employees about
    both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules, and (b) its
    disciplinary penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct.


    The IG has profound concerns about the “volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts” i.e. leaks, the FBI’s policy that strictly limits who is authorized to speak to the media is widely ignored, journalists trade favors with FBI agents for information, and the IG says the FBI has a culture of leaking. How do arrive at your conclusion that the FBI isn’t a hotbed of partisan leakers?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  129. thank you Mr. 57

    this stuff is documented for a reason

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  130. Looks like the Strozk texts meant exactly what their plain English meant, according to their recipient.

    Daiwa (2a0965)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5700 secs.