Comey and Mueller

[Joe Fan]

From a review of the texts between Peter Strzok to mistress Lisa Page -- both were Mueller Team Members at the time

"We cant' take that risk" (of Trump winning)​

It is also clear McCabe was knee deep in this stuff as well

 

[OUBubba]

You mean people saw electing DJT as dangerous to our Republic? Seems prescient to me.

I mean yesterday he responded, almost as if on cue, to a news story by MSNBC that was discussing his penchant for DVR'd cable news and 12 diet coke's a day..."fake news" as he's shotgunning a diet coke and watching cable news.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Clearly shot-gunning diet coke is an impeachable offense. Maybe we can add that to the Mueller report.

 

[NJlonghorn]

From a review of the texts between Peter Strzok to mistress Lisa Page -- both were Mueller Team Members at the time

"We cant' take that risk" (of Trump winning)​

It is also clear McCabe was knee deep in this stuff as well

So . . . Page threw out an idea in a meeting with McCabe and Strzok. Strzok liked the idea, but thought it was necessary only if Trump won the election. Strzok went on to say that was unlikely, but that they needed to follow through on the idea, just in case.

The key to whether this is scandalous or innocuous is what the idea was. Has anything come out about that? If not, this is much ado about nothing.

 

[Joe Fan]

You mean people saw electing DJT as dangerous to our Republic? Seems prescient to me.

I mean yesterday he responded, almost as if on cue, to a news story by MSNBC that was discussing his penchant for DVR'd cable news and 12 diet coke's a day..."fake news" as he's shotgunning a diet coke and watching cable news.

You used to pretend you cared about collusion, quite a bit. But you never had any actual evidence of any.
Here, actual evidence of potential collusion is handed to you.
And you suddenly want to talk about Diet Cokes.
How do you explain that?

 

[Joe Fan]

....The key to whether this is scandalous or innocuous is what the idea was. Has anything come out about that? If not, this is much ado about nothing.

Mueller himself disagrees with your take.

Here is another exchange between Peter Strok (PS) and Lisa Page (LP) - as you read it, keep in mind what job it is these people are supposed to be working on at this moment

Strzok/Page texts 10/20/16

PS - I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.

PS - I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!

LP - I don't know. But we'll get it back. ...
​

These two are the senior FBI lawyer and the senior FBI investigator who bailed out Hillary, interrogated General Flynn, and were part of the Mueller effort to take down Trump. Oh, and they were schtuping each other through all of this, on the Govt's dime.

 

[OUBubba]

You used to pretend you cared about collusion, quite a bit. But you never had any actual evidence of any.
Here, actual evidence of potential collusion is handed to you.
And you suddenly want to talk about Diet Cokes.
How do you explain that?

I seem to think that attorneys who work for the Justice Department are professional enough to not allow their personal beliefs overcome their professional ethics. I mean, if it were up to you people, only Trump supporting GOP members could investigate the President's administration. That would be off as well. Again, Mueller is a decorated veteran and was appointed by Bush and also served under Obama. It's petty to think he's going to allow petty things to get involved in the long run.

 

[OUBubba]

Mueller himself disagrees with your take.

Here is another exchange between Peter Strok (PS) and Lisa Page (LP) - as you read it, keep in mind what job it is these people are supposed to be working on at this moment

Strzok/Page texts 10/20/16

PS - I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.

PS - I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!

LP - I don't know. But we'll get it back. ...
​

These two are the senior FBI lawyer and the senior FBI investigator who bailed out Hillary, interrogated General Flynn, and were part of the Mueller effort to take down Trump. Oh, and they were schtuping each other through all of this, on the Govt's dime.

'PS - I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.". Truth is an absolute defense.

 

[Joe Fan]

I seem to think that attorneys who work for the Justice Department are professional enough to not allow their personal beliefs overcome their professional ethics. ....

You guys seem to be overlooking the fact the Special Counsel himself disagrees with you. It's a little weird watching you two try and rationalize this.

Peter Strzok was removed from the Russia investigation in late July, "immediately" after these text messages were discovered. Strzok was demoted and sent to the FBI equivalent of Siberia -- the HR Department.

The Special Counsel's Office was able to keep this quiet until mid-August. And the news media was able to hide it until Dec. 2. That is over 4 months of lag time.

 

[Joe Fan]

Andrew McCarty wrote a surprising piece this morning claiming he did not think the texts were a big deal, no different than the way anyone else speaks in private

But now he is walking it back. He says he had not seen all the Strzok-Page texts and now that he has seen more of them, he now disagrees with his own article

 

[OUBubba]

I care about a foreign government's illegal collusion with a political party during an election. I mean, your boy here is upset about Clinton selling him a $35 shirt as a "Canadian". I'm sure a few million of Russian oligarch money into US campaigns is going to raise eyebrows, right?

 

[Joe Fan]

'PS - I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.". Truth is an absolute defense.

Look, FBI agents get to have political opinions, just like anyone else.
But, what they cannot do is let those opinions hinder their ability to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. As appears to have happened here.

One thing I always encourage people to do to increase understanding is to flip the script and then ask the same question you originally posed. On this, try and imagine that during the Benghazi investigation, a top DOJ official "running the investigation" was caught sending out text messages to other DOJ employees that "this is finally how we get Obama out of office." The DC-New York corridor would have imploded.

 

[OUBubba]

I care about a foreign government's illegal collusion with a political party during an election. I mean, your boy here is upset about Clinton selling him a $35 shirt as a "Canadian". I'm sure a few million of Russian oligarch money into US campaigns is going to raise eyebrows, right?

Forgot linky: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/james-okeefe-wants-his-35-back-hillary-clinton

 

[OUBubba]

Look, FBI agents get to have political opinions, just like anyone else.
But, what they cannot do is let those opinions hinder their ability to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. As appears to have happened here.

One thing I always encourage people to do to increase understanding is to flip the script and then ask the same question you originally posed. On this, try and imagine that during the Benghazi investigation, a top DOJ official "running the investigation" was caught sending out text messages to other DOJ employees that "this is finally how we get Obama out of office." The DC-New York corridor would have imploded.

So, you think it was MORE fair to have the Starr investigation? He was a partisan. Don't try to sell me that Mueller is partisan. He's a boy scout.

 

[Joe Fan]

I care about a foreign government's illegal collusion with a political party during an election. ...

Is that really true?
If so, you must have cared when Clinton did it TO the Russians, right?
LOL

 

[Joe Fan]

.... Don't try to sell me that Mueller is partisan. He's a boy scout.

Mueller has no business on this matter. He has too many personal conflicts. His mere presence violates DOJ policy. I have laid all this out in the past.

 

[Joe Fan]

Any reasonable person would conclude from this text that the two key FBI agents here are talking about using the "Russia investigation" as an "insurance policy" to hamstring/remove Trump in case he won the election.

There is no spinning this away.

 

[OUBubba]

Any reasonable person would conclude from this text that the two key FBI agents here are talking about using the "Russia investigation" as an "insurance policy" to hamstring/remove Trump in case he won the election.

There is no spinning this away.

That seems reasonable. I guess the point that you're missing is that because there exists a Russian connection to go after him on, REASONABLY, what's wrong with it? I mean where there's smoke there's fire, generally speaking. And, there's a crap ton of smoke that's going to highlight a fire somewhere. You and your kind were all over this "Watergate is nothing" back in the 70's, I'm sure. Nixon labeled the press as "your enemy". Turns out, Watergate was something and led to 48 people being found guilty.

 

[OUBubba]

Is that really true?
If so, you must have cared when Clinton did it TO the Russians, right?
LOL

Because it's the cold war. And, those in Russia cooperating with the US would be guilty in their country, not us in theirs? I think, much like Roy Moore, you have your pronouns switched up. "We" should be the USA. "They" should refer to Russia.

 

[Monahorns]

OUBubba, that wasn't the cold war. It was after. The CIA spread fake news through the Russian media to get Yeltsin re-elected. They also helped Putin get elected the first time. Then Putin turned on Clinton later. Putin is to Clinton what Hussein was to Bush.

 

[Joe Fan]

Because it's the cold war. ....

That Yeltsin election was 1996
The Cold War ended in 1992 (you could even argue 1989)

 

[Garmel]

That Yeltsin election was 1996
The Cold War ended in 1992 (you could even argue 1989)

....and he calls Trump stupid. LOL!

 

[NJlonghorn]

Mueller himself disagrees with your take.

Here is another exchange between Peter Strok (PS) and Lisa Page (LP) - as you read it, keep in mind what job it is these people are supposed to be working on at this moment

Strzok/Page texts 10/20/16

PS - I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.

PS - I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!

LP - I don't know. But we'll get it back. ...
​

These two are the senior FBI lawyer and the senior FBI investigator who bailed out Hillary, interrogated General Flynn, and were part of the Mueller effort to take down Trump. Oh, and they were schtuping each other through all of this, on the Govt's dime.

The comments that Strzok and Page made about Trump show clear bias and hostility severe enough to cloud their judgment. Those two agents should have declined to participate on the team investigating Trump, and Mueller was right to remove them from the team when he learned about the emails. I could also make a case that they should be subject to additional discipline.

But you suggest something much more sinister. You claim that the "path [Page] threw out for consideration" in Andrew McCabe's office involved removing Trump as an "insurance policy" in case he won the presidency. I'm asking you if that is just speculation / interpretation on your part, or if there is evidence to support your conclusion.

And by the way, don't lump me in with @OUBubba by referring to him and me as "you guys". I don't spend a lot of time debating with him on this board because you (and others) already do such a good job of jumping all over him. But don't mistake that for agreement on my part. I rarely agree with him. He is just as far out of the mainstream on the liberal side as you are on the conservative side.

 

[Joe Fan]

That seems reasonable. I guess the point that you're missing is that because there exists a Russian connection to go after him on, REASONABLY, what's wrong with it? ....

Again, the conversation described in that text reveals that it was in the office of Andy McCabe on the 4th floor. The three of them -- McCabe, Strzok, Page, perhaps Ohr too, were discussing how to either prevent Trump from getting elected, or, having a plan in place in case he was. They were doing this while at work and on the clock.

As a reminder, McCabe himself was already compromised by this time. His wife was running for office in Virginia and, miraculously out of the blue, got a $700,000 campaign gift from HRC/DNC.

On top of all this, we know via Ohr, that there was active knowledge and perhaps even participation on the 4th floor of DOJ in the creation by GPS Fusion of the infamous "Steele Dossier." That dossier was then used as a predicate for the FBI to obtain from the FISA Court the ability to wiretap the Trump Campaign.

So, to answer your question of "what's wrong with it?" -- For starters, none of these people should have been anywhere near this investigation. But they were and, as a result, we may be looking at the worst case of political corruption is US history.

 

[Joe Fan]

The comments that Strzok and Page made about Trump show clear bias and hostility severe enough to cloud their judgment. Those two agents should have declined to participate on the team investigating Trump, and Mueller was right to remove them from the team when he learned about the emails. I could also make a case that they should be subject to additional discipline.....

I think this is a good spot to point out that you've changed your story without actually admitting it

....this is much ado about nothing.

 

[Joe Fan]

....And by the way, don't lump me in with @OUBubba by referring to him and me as "you guys". I don't spend a lot of time debating with him on this board because you (and others) already do such a good job of jumping all over him. But don't mistake that for agreement on my part. I rarely agree with him. He is just as far out of the mainstream on the liberal side as you are on the conservative side.

I have grown to like ouBubba
He fulfills the stereotype of the average Dem voter
He is living, walking confirmation bias

 

[Joe Fan]

....He is just as far out of the mainstream on the liberal side as you are on the conservative side.

Maybe you are the one out there instead?
If true, you probably wouldnt see it, right?

 

[OUBubba]

I have grown to like ouBubba
He fulfills the stereotype of the average Dem vote
He is living, walking confirmation bias

Aweeee. Sometimes I push it further left than I really am just because you guys need to have someone represent the devil in absentia.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I think this is a good spot to point out that you've changed your story without actually admitting it

You quoted PART of what I said and then blatantly misinterpreted it. Here's my full post:

So . . . Page threw out an idea in a meeting with McCabe and Strzok. Strzok liked the idea, but thought it was necessary only if Trump won the election. Strzok went on to say that was unlikely, but that they needed to follow through on the idea, just in case.

The key to whether this is scandalous or innocuous is what the idea was. Has anything come out about that? If not, this is much ado about nothing.

I took the liberty of using the word "this" in its normal English connotation, i.e. to refer to what I was discussing at the time -- a particular email following up on a particular discussion. I still think this is much ado about nothing, unless more is known about the context. Hence my question about the context.

 

[Joe Fan]

....But you suggest something much more sinister. You claim that the "path [Page] threw out for consideration" in Andrew McCabe's office involved removing Trump as an "insurance policy" in case he won the presidency. I'm asking you if that is just speculation / interpretation on your part, or if there is evidence to support your conclusion.

....

I read his text as their work together in the investigation itself was the insurance policy. They were supposed to be looking into foreign contacts and attempts at foreign influence. That was the actual job. But instead, as they admit in these texts what they were actually doing was spending their time hating on Trump and trying to find a way to "get Trump" (that and quite a bit of extramarital schtuping). Either affect him losing or get him out of office if he won. Which, again, was not the job. But I would argue that the result of this "insurance policy" is exactly what we have been seeing for the last 11 months.

I also say there was a joint effort to create the Steele dossier. We now know Ohr participated in its creation which means his direct boss (Sally Yates) also knew. Which probably means her direct boss (Loretta Lynch) also knew. And if Loretta knew then you know who else also knew. I say Obama/Lynch allowing this level of coordination of the DOJ/FBI with the HRC Campaign to "get Trump" is illegal.

This 'dossier' was repackaged by the FBI to allow them to go back a 2nd time and obtain FISA warrants which effectively allowed the Obama Admin to surveil the Trump Campaign. The Obama Admin politicals then used their clearance to effect the unmasking of multiple Trump Campaign folks. The texts of those unmasked conversations were then spread around to lots of other other folks and even leaked to the media. Including among those recipients were Hillary and a few other members of her campaign team who, amazingly enough, still had the necessary security clearance. This definitely occurred post-election and some of it probably occurred in the last month or so of the election.

Think about that. The FBI/DOJ plotted with the HRC Campaign/DNC to get the NSA to tap the Trump Campaign during the election. You asked for sinister. Is this not 'sinister" enough for you?