quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Interesting:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19...er-strzok/index.html

Washington (CNN)- FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building Friday as part of the ongoing internal proceedings at the bureau on his conduct, according to a source familiar with the matter.

As of Tuesday, the source says, Strzok is still an FBI employee.

Assuming they have the gumption to try to get rid of him, they'll likely have to do the same thing as they did to McCabe, a full internal investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
Trey Gowdy...like him or not, he just hit a grand slam in the hearings. He asks no question that he doesn't already know the answer to. He laid it all out chronologically so that even a thick headed liberal could understand it. It is obvious to me that he is a prosecutor of the highest level. After hearing him, it logically calls into question the existence of the special council investigation and the question of why there were no charges against hillary.

It's nothing we didn't already know, but Gowdy blasted the dems spin off its axis.

Don’t worry too much about criticism seen here. The critics are just venting. The ones with the most vitriol are usually those whose knowledge and experience in these areas is the least. It must be cruel to care so deeply and yet have so little capability to accurately evaluate events and assess individual abilities, which is hard enough when one does have the background and experience.

Keep in mind, too, that all we have to go on is media coverage and statements. We don’t get the inside stuff except for leaks which are seldom complete and hardly reliable.

We have seen Gowdy go from fair haired boy, champion of the universe, and the oppressed to miserable treasonous scoundrel, all since the first of the year.

The vast resource of knowledgeable people on SIGforum is great, and if you have time to clarify why Trey Growdy in this 18 June youtube interview repeatedly mentions "Intent" like Comey did when exonerating Hillary it would be appreciated. Intent is mentioned when answering the question ask around 4:30 and re-emphasized at 7:53.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms-kcHL08CE


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 79
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information


As a retired DOD contractor I used to have Classified program computer, a basic sipernet computer, and in a nearby area an unclassified company computer. Intent was not a consideration for the people I saw that ended up on the wrong side of a mistake.

I'm wondering what legal maneuver Trey may be trying when mentioning "intent" vs questioning about freedom of information act, and why a private email server vs using government computing networks which capture government conversations and processes. Not to mentioned the destroyed emails, phones, laptops, etc. <-- which if I remember right the FBI agreed to destroying the laptops. The private email server led to the loss off freedom of information access and the leaking classified information.

I relate to electronic hardware better than people, please forgive my writing skills.

Strzok ought to be fired, but that hasn’t happened yet.

“FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was revealed to have sent a text to his FBI lover saying he would 'stop' Trump, was marched out of the building Friday, following the release of an explosive Inspector General's report.

But Strzok is still on the job, CNN reported.

He has been placed in the Human Resources department, following an IG report that revealed him to have made the statement about stopping Trump to his FBI lover, Lisa Page…”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...ok-escorted-FBI.html

quote:

Originally posted by springnr:


The vast resource of knowledgeable people on SIGforum is great, and if you have time to clarify why Trey Growdy in this 18 June youtube interview repeatedly mentions "Intent" like Comey did when exonerating Hillary it would be appreciated. Intent is mentioned when answering the question ask around 4:30 and re-emphasized at 7:53.



As a retired DOD contractor I used to have Classified program computer, a basic sipernet computer, and in a nearby area an unclassified company computer. Intent was not a consideration for the people I saw that ended up on the wrong side of a mistake.

I'm wondering what legal maneuver Trey may be trying when mentioning "intent" vs questioning about freedom of information act, and why a private email server vs using government computing networks which capture government conversations and processes. Not to mentioned the destroyed emails, phones, laptops, etc. <-- which if I remember right the FBI agreed to destroying the laptops. The private email server led to the loss off freedom of information access and the leaking classified information.

I relate to electronic hardware better than people, please forgive my writing skills.

You might refer to the IG Report starting on p. 26 for a discussion of the relevant statutes and interpretations, willfull, knowing, gross negligence, etc.

These are complex concepts. A great many angels can dance on these pins.

Prosecutors look at the evidence and evaluate whether or not they are confident that they can prove these elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t always get it right, of course. Look at Menendez.

“Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed Tuesday that he is investigating whether FBI official Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump bias factored into the launch of the bureau’s Russia probe.

During a joint hearing before the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, Horowitz testified that his office was reviewing Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages as part of a separate probe related to the Russia investigation.

“It clearly shows a biased state of mind,” Horowitz said, referring to text messages written as the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's private email use was wrapping up and the Russia probe was getting underway.

The most infamous text, revealed in last week's IG report on the Clinton email case, showed Strzok responding "We'll stop it" when his colleague and lover Lisa Page sought assurances that Trump would not become president.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., questioned Horowitz on whether that apparent bias influenced the initiation of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 campaign and potential collusion with Trump's team.

“That’s a matter we’ve got under review and are looking at right now,” Horowitz said…”

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/...ussia-probe.amp.html

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

You might refer to the IG Report starting on p. 26 for a discussion of the relevant statutes and interpretations, willfull, knowing, gross negligence, etc.

These are complex concepts. A great many angels can dance on these pins.

Prosecutors look at the evidence and evaluate whether or not they are confident that they can prove these elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t always get it right, of course. Look at Menendez.

Thanks JAllen,
I see you also posted another informative article while I was laboriously hunting and pecking my earlier query to you.
Andrew McCarthy
Clinton Emails: What the IG Report Refuses to Admit

Who knew so many officials in our government could break-dance in confined spaces.

Trey Gowdy today:

https://youtu.be/RykWz7iz40c

from:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...t-ig-report-n2492228


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Rep Meadows:

https://youtu.be/aWr6_Kl6sTY

Meadows: "Growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed."

Horowitz: "We have been getting those kind of referrals ... We are intending to follow up on that"

FBI general counsel, are these agents two of the unnamed FBI agents mentioned in the IG report?
1. Sally Moyer
2. Kevin Kleinsman

Ah, here it is.
Meadows indicated that he wanted to know their identities because he believes that the attorneys do not work in counterintelligence, which would mean the FBI is giving the Inspector General false information.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kimber1911,

It appears that Mr. Strozk was escorted out of the FBI building today.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by springnr:


The vast resource of knowledgeable people on SIGforum is great, and if you have time to clarify why Trey Growdy in this 18 June youtube interview repeatedly mentions "Intent" like Comey did when exonerating Hillary it would be appreciated. Intent is mentioned when answering the question ask around 4:30 and re-emphasized at 7:53.



As a retired DOD contractor I used to have Classified program computer, a basic sipernet computer, and in a nearby area an unclassified company computer. Intent was not a consideration for the people I saw that ended up on the wrong side of a mistake.

I'm wondering what legal maneuver Trey may be trying when mentioning "intent" vs questioning about freedom of information act, and why a private email server vs using government computing networks which capture government conversations and processes. Not to mentioned the destroyed emails, phones, laptops, etc. <-- which if I remember right the FBI agreed to destroying the laptops. The private email server led to the loss off freedom of information access and the leaking classified information.

I relate to electronic hardware better than people, please forgive my writing skills.

You might refer to the IG Report starting on p. 26 for a discussion of the relevant statutes and interpretations, willfull, knowing, gross negligence, etc.

These are complex concepts. A great many angels can dance on these pins.

Prosecutors look at the evidence and evaluate whether or not they are confident that they can prove these elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t always get it right, of course. Look at Menendez.

My take on the info provided on p26 is that Hillary et al would have to be shown to be grossly negligent per 793(f)(1). And that “grossly negligent” is not defined therein, has been shown to be unconstitutionally vague, nor has any federal court ever interpreted the provision, save for some case in 1917. Further, what constitutes “national defense information” is likewise unconstitutionally vague.

So basically it’s virtually impossible to break 793(f)(1). Only 18 USC 1924 appears to be a realistic charge of a misdemeanor. So Comey was right. No prosecutor in their right mind would charge Clinton under the cited provisions. Is that about it? The applicable laws are basically useless as written? What did I miss?

quote:

Don’t worry too much about criticism seen here. The critics are just venting. The ones with the most vitriol are usually those whose knowledge and experience in these areas is the least. It must be cruel to care so deeply and yet have so little capability to accurately evaluate events and assess individual abilities, which is hard enough when one does have the background and experience.

Condescend much?

The IG report came out Thursday 14 June 2018.

CNN reported that Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building the next day on Friday 15 June 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/...scorted-fbi-live.cnn

It is thought Strzok is still an FBI employee.

Letter from Strzok lawyer:



complied w every FBI procedure, including being escorted out

as if he had a choice

his lawyer claims the disciplinary process was tainted by political influence. wonder if he has texts to back that up

June 19, 2018

The IG Report: They're Guilty, but It's Okay

The IG report is really Comey 2.0. Comey spent a long time describing how Hillary had broken the law but then concluded that it was okay. Similarly, the IG report lists example after example of political bias but declares that it had no impact on the Hillary email whitewash.

The IG report on the Clinton email investigation is proof positive that the entire DC justice establishment is corrupt; that they view themselves as rulers not public servants.

First we were told that Comey was a straight shooter whom we could trust. Then we were told the same about Mueller, Rosenstein, and now the IG. Yet in every case we’ve discovered that they are biased political actors who put the interests of the Deep State and the Democratic Party ahead of their sworn duty to uphold the law. It’s time for all conservatives to acknowledge that there are few if any honest people at the top levels of the FBI or the DoJ.

Not surprisingly highly biased people will resort to big lies to protect their power and the big government ideology they embrace.

The big lie in the Comey report was that because Hillary supposedly had no intent to mishandle classified data there was no crime. Yet a Navy seaman who demonstrated no intent to mishandle classified data was sent to prison. Further, the law says that intent is not a requirement.

There are many laws that can be broken even if the person lacks intent. Take manslaughter -- if person A kills person B accidently because person A was very careless, then person A is guilty even though they never intended to kill person B.

The protection of classified data is important because it can lead to the loss of American lives. Hence, the law holds people who have access to classified data to a high standard; they can’t do things that could expose that classified data to random people or foreign spies. Because the damage that is done when classified data is exposed doesn’t depend on intent, just as someone can kill someone else unintentionally, the law doesn’t require proving that someone intended to subvert American security. Yet after describing fact after fact about how Hillary broke the rules on how to protect classified data, Comey said that it was okay.

The big lie in the IG report is that if people who are provably biased make decisions that go against normal investigative procedures in ways that uniformly conform to their biases, there is no reason to believe that their decisions were impacted by their biases.

For example, General Michael Flynn was attacked by Mueller because Flynn supposedly lied to the FBI. We now know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t think he was lying; having been fooled into an interrogation thinking it was a normal meeting, it’s hardly surprising that he might have honestly misremembered something. We’re told by leftists that it’s okay for Mueller to go after Flynn, because what Mueller is doing is trying to turn Flynn to get the dirt on Trump.

But thanks to the IG report we know that the FBI agents who interviewed Hillary’s IT guy said that he lied multiple times in his interview -- that was not based on their “instinct” but because the guy changed his story multiple times. Still, they concluded that since the investigation didn’t matter, no one would prosecute the IT guy. If there wasn’t bias involved either by Mueller or the FBI in the Clinton case, why wasn’t the IT guy prosecuted to get him to turn on Hillary?

After all, the IT guy would be a likely person to have heard Clinton saying something that indicated that she knew what she was doing was wrong but she didn’t care, proving intent.

The answer is, of course, that the pervasive bias at the FBI and DoJ couldn’t conceive of holding Hillary to the law but were eager to invoke their “insurance” policy to nullify the 2016 election.

Yet the IG report ignores the obvious. That’s because the obvious goes against the ideology that apparently permeates the supposedly unbiased IG.

No honest person can read the seemingly unending list of bias by FBI agents and the pervasive contortions that the FBI went through to clear Hillary and not conclude that, intentionally or otherwise, the investigation was clearly biased. The report admits that the FBI had essentially cleared Hillary before talking to her. This is a huge problem because if the only reason that Hillary was “innocent” was that she had no intent, how could the FBI establish that without talking to her?

Furthermore, others have pointed out that there is not one example of pro-Trump or anti-Hillary bias. Not one person said that we can’t afford to have Hillary as president or that we should work to make sure Trump won. Not one. Now, that’s good in that we don’t want the FBI/DoJ biased in favor of anyone, but when there is clear evidence of massive bias for Hillary having equally massive bias for Trump could have led to a more honest investigation.

The IG report is clearly written to support the Democratic narrative that any criticism of the investigation into Hillary’s gross negligence is based purely on partisan bias on the part of conservatives. While all the data in the IG report shows beyond a reasonable doubt that political bias led the FBI to let Hillary get away with compromising national security, the conclusions, which is all the mainstream media will talk about, is that that pervasive one-sided bias can’t be shown to have impacted the investigation.

Imagine a murder case where the prosecution has the murder weapon with only the defendant’s bloody fingerprints on it, has witnesses that place the defendant at the crime scene, and testimony from multiple witnesses saying that the defendant had strong reason to kill the victim, but the prosecutor says since the defendant won’t confess to the murder they will not prosecute. That’s what the IG report is. Apparently unless one of the FBI officials admitted that political bias drove actions which were in favor of Hillary, the IG believes that it can’t say that the systematic bias shown in favor of Hillary and against Trump had any impact.

Since the media will work hard to keep the truth from getting out, it’s our responsibility to educate our friends, neighbors, relatives, and coworkers on what is really going on.

Point to the seaman who was imprisoned for some photos he took in a restricted area in a submarine and compare that to Hillary’s putting highly classified data out where foreign spies could find it.

Remind folks that the IG found massive bias on the part of the FBI and ask them if they really believed that all those folks were able to so compartmentalize their thoughts that none of their bias impacted the investigation.

Make sure that they know that Comey and the FBI had decided long before they interviewed Hillary that she wasn’t guilty even though the reason that she supposedly wasn’t guilty was her intent, yet it would have been impossible to know her intent without talking to her -- unless of course you were a big fan of hers and couldn’t imagine she’d do anything wrong.

It’s up to us to inform America since the media is nothing more than a Democratic propaganda machine these days.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ty_but_its_okay.html

AAAAnnnnnnd....is anything going to happen?

We've got data. We've got names. Lots of nouns. What I'm looking for are some verbs, and soon.

It is not outside the scope of possiblity we could lose Congress, at which point all this would immediately go back under the rug. I think that expectation is behind most of the stonewalling, actually.

Verbs that would be good to see on official actions, re: FBI:
- Fired
- Censured
- Charged
- Indicted
- Arrested
- Convicted
- Demoted
- Allowed to resign

I do not recall reading an adage which exhorted one to "write reports while the iron is hot."

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:





Remind folks that the IG found massive bias on the part of the FBI and ask them if they really believed that all those folks were able to so compartmentalize their thoughts that none of their bias impacted the investigation.

Imagine that a report was written of an investigation into the Columbo Family which declined prosecution, in which it turned out the head investigator was Peter Bonnano, assisted by Counsel Lisa Gambino and supervised by Andrew Luccese, ordered by Attorney General Loretta Genovese.

C’mon, man!

From the Strzok texts we know that the special counsel was divided into FBI agents and prosecutors. The prosecutors are the prima donna high muck mucks who make decisions and drive the train. The FBI agents get told what to do and have difficulty getting into meetings.

Strzok wasn't just "an" agent on the Mueller team. Strzok was the lead agent on the team. He went out and recruited agents to be on his agent team.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
From the Strzok texts we know that the special counsel was divided into FBI agents and prosecutors. The prosecutors are the prima donna high muck mucks who make decisions and drive the train. The FBI agents get told what to do and have difficulty getting into meetings.

Strzok wasn't just "an" agent on the Mueller team. Strzok was the lead agent on the team. He went out and assigned recruited like minded agents to be on his agent team.

FIFY

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The IG report came out Thursday 14 June 2018.

CNN reported that Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building the next day on Friday 15 June 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/...scorted-fbi-live.cnn

It is thought Strzok is still an FBI employee.

Letter from Strzok lawyer:



complied w every FBI procedure, including being escorted out

as if he had a choice

his lawyer claims the disciplinary process was tainted by political influence. wonder if he has texts to back that up

Strzok has been revealed to be an adulterer. I wonder why no one has spent even a nanosecond on this revelation.

Adultery, by its very definition, is an act of lying, cheating, deception and manipulation.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:

Strzok has been revealed to be an adulterer. I wonder why no one has spent even a nanosecond on this revelation.

Adultery, by its very definition, is an act of lying, cheating, deception and manipulation.

That's a very good point, but I don't think that these congress-critter's, who the tax-payer's paid $17 MILLION dollars to their victims of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment and general depravity, have any interest in jumping into that turgid pool of toxic and self-incriminating swamp-slime.
__________

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:


Strzok has been revealed to be an adulterer. I wonder why no one has spent even a nanosecond on this revelation.

Adultery, by its very definition, is an act of lying, cheating, deception and manipulation.

So is politics for the most part. Maybe whoever is without spin should cast the first stone.