Peter Strzok

[Lewkowski]

"“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok in one exchange in August 2016.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied."



“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied."

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied."


Last year I asked the question. Y'all scoffed at it.

"Man I wonder when the house judiciary committee will be calling him up and how quickly he'll be pleading the 5th. The little fucktard hasn't even resigned from the FBI. Time to get the popcorn ready!"

[Loki]

Funny how you only understand hyperbole when it comes from your side of the aisle. I'm sure you've never privately texted anything stupid.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm slightly amazed how committed he is to a single text when he can't even define "we" in this context

[Lewkowski]

Funny how you only understand hyperbole when it comes from your side of the aisle. I'm sure you've never privately texted anything stupid.

Yeah but then again I wasn't a lead investigator in two politically charged investigations by an organization that has had proven corruption by at least one or more of its leaders. (Either Mcabe is lying or Comey is, their testimony stands in direct conflict). So yeah, lets give him a chance to explain. In front of the judiciary committee under oath. Seems fair.

[Loki]

With all the shit going on in this country, I'm not at all surprised that your priority is figuring out how the FBI screwed Trump by costing Hillary the election.

[Lewkowski]

With all the shit going on in this country, I'm not at all surprised that your priority is figuring out how the FBI screwed Trump by costing Hillary the election.

We're in the middle of a likely witch hunt designed to go on past the mid-terms to politically harm the side for border security, tax cuts and a good judiciary. Of course this is important. If the FBI is corrupt they should be investigated, same way if the police are corrupt they should be investigated. The use of the FBI or the IRS to try to sway political elections is incredibly important.

[Ominous Gamer]

We're in the middle of a likely witch hunt designed to go on past the mid-terms to politically harm the side for border security, tax cuts and a good judiciary.

holy shit you're a stupid motherfucker if you think anyone here believes this

[Loki]

We're in the middle of a likely witch hunt designed to go on past the mid-terms to politically harm the side for border security, tax cuts and a good judiciary. Of course this is important. If the FBI is corrupt they should be investigated, same way if the police are corrupt they should be investigated. The use of the FBI or the IRS to try to sway political elections is incredibly important.

Didn't realize you were that far removed from reality.

[Lewkowski]

Didn't realize you were that far removed from reality.

Which part are you objecting to?

[Aimless]

It's pretty telling that you didn't link to thorough analyses of the report, likely because they show how full of shit you and other so-called conservatives are these days.

[RandBlade]

We're in the middle of a likely witch hunt...

Well that much is true. With witch hunter in chief spewwing Twitter diarrhoea from the oval office.

[Steely Glint]

Lewks going full info-wars. After all these years, the circle is complete.

[Loki]

I was going to say that, but Hannity is indistinguishable from InfoWars on most issues now.

[Lewkowski]

It's pretty telling that you didn't link to thorough analyses of the report, likely because they show how full of shit you and other so-called conservatives are these days.

1. Was Comey and Mcabe's testimony fully accurate?
2. Was Muelluer justified in removing Strzok from the investigation?
3. Was Mcabe fired appropriately?
4. Were other people prosecuted for what Hillary was accused of and served prison time?

I'll help you.

1. 100% accurate, Comey and Mcabe's testimony directly contradict each other. Both can't be accurate.

2. This is a subjective opinion but either A. Mueuller was wrong to remove him which lends doubt to his ability to be effective or B. he was right to remove.

3. Spoiler alert, Yes.

4. Yup.

The willful blindness to all of this really amusing. As is your refusal to admit that at least one of the top FBI officials that Trump has canned is a proven liar.

[Lewkowski]

Well that much is true. With witch hunter in chief spewwing Twitter diarrhoea from the oval office.

So if the FBI equivalent in the UK was investigating a politician and they told their colleague that they would 'stop them from winning the election' you wouldn't have any issues with it?

[RandBlade]

So if the FBI equivalent in the UK was investigating a politician and they told their colleague that they would 'stop them from winning the election' you wouldn't have any issues with it?

If he acted to stop them from doing so then yes.
If he it was a private joke via text that only came out after the politician in question had won the election without action being taken then no.

[Lewkowski]

If he acted to stop them from doing so then yes.
If he it was a private joke via text that only came out after the politician in question had won the election without action being taken then no.

That didn't sound like a joke given the context. Also the key changes in the FBI findings on the Clinton case...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/polit...mey/index.html

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.

The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."


Furthermore keep in mind the 2016 political climate. Nearly *everyone* assumed Trump would lose. However if the finding had led to potential criminal prosecution of Clinton...

[Steely Glint]

Lewk, the letter they drafted to congress - absolutely not standard practice - wasn't the findings of the investigation it just them informing congress the conclusion they'd reached. They changed the wording because they had already decided they didn't have anything on Clinton they could prosecute her with, and didn't want to phrase it in such a way that anyone in congress with a raging hate boner for Clinton (i.e the entire Republican party) could jump on and ask why she wasn't prosecuted.

If the FBI had actually wanted to throw the election for Clinton it would have been very simple for them to do so, all they needed to do was fail to publically announce they were investigating Clinton for Her E-Mails (TM) and announce that they were investigating Trump for Russian collusion. What they did was the exact opposite of that.

[RandBlade]

But a jokey text message trumps actual facts and evidence. Who cares if the FBI acted utterly professionally in keeping the investigation of Russia's collusion with Trump's campaign a secret - but her emails and his text.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, the letter they drafted to congress - absolutely not standard practice - wasn't the findings of the investigation it just them informing congress the conclusion they'd reached. They changed the wording because they had already decided they didn't have anything on Clinton they could prosecute her with, and didn't want to phrase it in such a way that anyone in congress with a raging hate boner for Clinton (i.e the entire Republican party) could jump on and ask why she wasn't prosecuted.

If the FBI had actually wanted to throw the election for Clinton it would have been very simple for them to do so, all they needed to do was fail to publically announce they were investigating Clinton for Her E-Mails (TM) and announce that they were investigating Trump for Russian collusion. What they did was the exact opposite of that.

The Russian collusion was a giant zero. Even the biased Strzok said there was nothing there when he got assigned to it. The fix was in getting Clinton off not in necessarily sabotaging Trump, while people would certainly be biased against Trump they probably didn't see it as necessary since every analysis called it for Clinton. Why risk their careers?

I'd like to clarify my position. I don't think there is a giant web of nefarious actors working in concert with each other to undermine Trump. I think there are individuals who are clearly biased that have allowed those biases to color their work product. I think in Comey's case it was less about him being partisan and actually about that he cared more about the FBI's reputation than in seeing justice, which is why it is so ironic and hilarious because the FBI looks absolutely terrible now.

[Lewkowski]

But a jokey text message trumps actual facts and evidence. Who cares if the FBI acted utterly professionally in keeping the investigation of Russia's collusion with Trump's campaign a secret - but her emails and his text.

Given the nature of the situation, the accusations made, the 'jokey text messages' and the special council reassigning him there are a lot of unanswered questions. Why are you opposed to an investigation being very transparent? What could be more transparent than to have Pete testify before a House committee?

[Steely Glint]

The Russian collusion was a giant zero.

Yes, that's why there's only been... *checks notes* five indictments or arrests of senior Trump campaign people and/or associates so far.

Honestly, even without mentioning direct Trump campaign collusion, they could have made a public statement to the effect that Russia was directly trying to meddle in the outcome of the election. Without even mentioning who they were trying to meddle with it on behalf of people, it still could have been as damaging to Trump's campaign as the Comey letter was to Clinton.

Even the biased Strzok said there was nothing there when he got assigned to it. The fix was in getting Clinton off not in necessarily sabotaging Trump, while people would certainly be biased against Trump they probably didn't see it as necessary since every analysis called it for Clinton. Why risk their careers?

Have you considered the possibility that the reason Clinton wasn't prosecuted was because she didn't do anything prosecutable? Or if she did do something prosecutable, they were not able to actually find enough evidence that would stand a realistic chance of getting a conviction?

Have you considered that maybe every time every time something Republicans dearly wish to be true but turns out to, in fact, not be true it's because most of the things Republicans believe are total nonsense and not because "liberal bias" is everywhere?

I'd like to clarify my position. I don't think there is a giant web of nefarious actors working in concert with each other to undermine Trump. I think there are individuals who are clearly biased that have allowed those biases to color their work product.

Not to get all both sides or anything, but...



From the IG report you're getting the Strzok stuff from.

I think in Comey's case it was less about him being partisan and actually about that he cared more about the FBI's reputation than in seeing justice, which is why it is so ironic and hilarious because the FBI looks absolutely terrible now.

While I actually agree with your assessment of Comey's motives and character (he basically said as much in his book), if you'd take two minutes to step outside your little bubble on Trumpland media, you'd see that idea that the FBI looks 'absolutely terrible' is nonsense.

[Loki]

It doesn't help Lewk's case that FBI agents, like most law enforcement, are overwhelmingly Republican. The New York office in particular was seen as rabidly anti-Clinton (and really pro-Giuliani). One of the reasons Comey had that email press conference was to keep the New York office from rebelling.

[Aimless]

Steely might enjoy this:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...-the-ig-report

Quick overview of some of the more interesting aspects of the IG report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-tak...-investigation

More in-depth review:

https://mobile.twitter.com/FoiaTheTh...85785568894976

(long twitter thread, unrolled here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...368643584.html)

[Aimless]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fe4_story.html

[Lewkowski]

Steely - Here are the incitements, none of which point to collusion by Trump with Russia.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

[Aimless]

This type of investigation typically runs for over three years. In two years they've indicted around twenty people and secured plea deals with some, several of them very close to Trump and his campaign. None of us know what information the prosecutors currently have and what they're working towards, but we do know that the targets and subjects of the investigation--and Trump himself--have frequently lied about their questionable contacts with various representatives and associates of Putin and Russian intelligence. To dismiss an investigation as a failure when it's yielded this many indictments and pleas halfway through its likely lifespan is idiotic, especially given the collective assessment of the intelligence community as well as that of non-crazy Republicans in congress.

[Steely Glint]

Steely - Here are the incitements, none of which point to collusion by Trump with Russia.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

You should really click on those links in that article.

as well as that of non-crazy Republicans in congress.

Both of them?

[Lewkowski]

This type of investigation typically runs for over three years. In two years they've indicted around twenty people and secured plea deals with some, several of them very close to Trump and his campaign. None of us know what information the prosecutors currently have and what they're working towards, but we do know that the targets and subjects of the investigation--and Trump himself--have frequently lied about their questionable contacts with various representatives and associates of Putin and Russian intelligence. To dismiss an investigation as a failure when it's yielded this many indictments and pleas halfway through its likely lifespan is idiotic, especially given the collective assessment of the intelligence community as well as that of non-crazy Republicans in congress.

How convenient that the investigation gets to continue straight through the mid-terms. Prediction: Articles of Impeachment don't even get past the House.

[Aimless]

How convenient that the investigation gets to continue straight through the mid-terms.

Another remarkably stupid comment. The investigation began before the presidential election and it will take however long it takes to wrap up. If you're concerned about it not being done by the midterm elections, then you can always encourage these shady fuckers to just 'fess up and cooperate more enthusiastically with Mueller's team, but, given that the intelligence community appears to have reason to believe Russian intelligence will try to interfere again during the upcoming elections, I doubt the investigation would stop before then no matter what you and the crooks you support would like. Now, I understand it would have been different if all of these assholes had been Muslims or black or whatever, but you should at least try to pretend to care about justice and uncovering the truth.