I have no intention of defending Strzok. What he did regarding the texts was monumentally stupid if nothing else.

But what happens after Nunes asks him, "What did you mean by 'we're going to stop him.' in your text messages?"

And Strzok replies, "I meant that we, the voters in the presidential election will stop him by electing Hillary Clinton."

I'm totally with you in that what he wrong looks REALLY bad given his position, but where do you go from there? Especially considering that the people elected Trump and low and behold there wasn't some FBI cabal that overturned the peoples will?

Or more realistically, this has nothing to do with finding proof of any wrongdoing, it's just all about throwing more shit into the air to distract from something else...

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

It doesn’t go anywhere. The IG report essentially concludes obvious bias amongst investigators did not effect decisions or the outcome of the Clinton matter. This is pure political theater. Strozck may plead the 5th, play dumb (per your post) or throw someone else under the bus. None of those lead anywhere.

He should be fired for his stupidity.

Next up will be the IG report on the Russian investigation. My opinion is we will see some real issues re political bias, Obama’s hand, manufactured information to justify surveillance, etc. Again, perhaps no real outcome in the IC but will be used effectively for the legal defense of those in the crosshairs.

(AGAIN, this is my opinion and pure speculation based on info as I understand it). I’d be interested in hearing from some of the LR litigators as to the value to the defense team IF I’m in the ballpark.

How did a third party (superior/boss/agent) become aware of the information that was being exchanged that is now being questioned (i.e., the messages)?

I guess we'll have to see whether or not Strzok first complies with the subpoena (I don't know that he has much choice about that) or if DOJ/FBI refuses to allow him to testify, and then whether or not he invokes Fifth Amendment protections. If he does appear and doesn't take the Fifth, we'd then have to see how he characterizes his text exchange with his lover, Page. Various pundits and commentators out there have noted that:

1. Strzok promised his mistress and fellow FBI official, Lisa Page -- who was fearful of a Trump presidency -- that "we'll stop it," meaning that presidency.

2. What's notable is that Congress requested that DOJ turn over all materials related to Strzok's and Page's conduct, yet the Strzok text -- the now-infamous "we'll stop it" response to Page's text to him expressing her fear of the Manhattan real estate developer's potential presidency, was somehow missing. It wasn't until the IG report that Strzok's "we'll stop it" reply was finally revealed. How likely is it that this single, particular text was simply overlooked when the remainder of the Strzok-Page materials were turned over to Congress?

It seems to me that Strzok is caught in a web of his own making. And the "we'll stop it" text response isn't the only instance in which it appears he was contemplating ways in which to interfere first with a presidential election and then with the post-election installment of the newly elected president into office.

1. According to the IG, Strzok prioritized the Trump-Russia investigation over the Clinton email investigation, after sitting for a month on revelations from the FBI's New York office that more of her emails had been found on disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop. Why he did such a thing is open to question at this point. The IG apparently didn't find the FBI agent's explanations for why he did that convincing, however, noting that "we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias." ("Midyear" was the code name for the Clinton investigation.)

To me, it seems like Strzok wanted to take out Trump more than he wanted to devote any additional time and effort to the Clinton investigation. There are other texts he shared with Page that suggest such an attitude as well. I'm sure if Strzok decides to answer questions from the judiciary committees in Congress he'll have to explain his thinking on these matters.

From the tone and tenor of those texts, it looks like Strzok was thinking on just how to leak information (from the Russia investigation, which may explain why he prioritized efforts toward that activity rather than the Clinton email examination) that would ruin Trump, if he somehow managed to defeat Clinton, who was the prohibitive favorite at the time. It may have been the 'insurance policy' he'd been looking for in an August 15, 2016 text exchange with Page. And it would have been the vehicle he'd have used to 'stop it' (a Trump presidency, if Hillary somehow managed to lose... which she eventually did). At that time, as has been noted, Clinton was favored to win easily. But from outward appearances, it seems like Strzok, in order to prevent a Trump presidency, was prepared to compromise sensitive sources and methods in the Trump-Russia investigation to do so.

Strzok's explanations for his texts -- that they were just idle talk between Page and him -- were found to be unconvincing by the IG, and in reading those explanations one can see that he was struggling mightily to both diminish their importance yet also avoid implicating himself in an effort to ruin the incoming president's tenure before it even got started.

From the texts he also appears to have blamed himself for sitting on the Clinton investigation throughout September and October to the point where Comey, once the Weiner laptop's Clinton emails became known, felt forced to reopen the email investigation in late-October, throwing the presidential campaign into turmoil as a result and very possibly driving the final nail into the coffin that was Clinton's electoral defeat on November 8, 2016. (Strzok to Page: "I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with [Midyear]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.")

How Strzok intended to "fix it and finish it" appears to be through use of investigatory materials and information gleaned during the course of the Russia investigation, materials he may have been intending to leak in hopes of ruining Trump and ending his presidency before it really could get started. Strzok, may have only been stopped from doing so because the text exchanges he shared with his lover, Page, came to Mueller's attention, leading both of them to be fired from the Russia investigation before he could cash in his 'insurance policy.'

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

bro, many words signifying nothing. this IG report was thorough and unsparing. our FBI director promised accountability. and, you'll note - trump, whose side you're consistently on and that's your constitutional right - did not suffer any leaks of this investigation during his campaign. right? yes, right.

i'm glad you and i both agree that, and i'm glad you and i also agree federal officers in every agency commit misdeeds, and we need to be vigilant, make sure they're investigated, make sure the offenders are held accountable, and when they are then we need to maintain, not erode, trust in our institutions (which is the opposite of what you've temporarily been doing, notwithstanding the fact that i know you and i stand arm and arm in this).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The blinders you are wearing are extra large. Blindly trusting our institutions because they are our institutions is not what thinking people do.

One simple question: The IG report claimed with certainty "no political bias". However, the IG report didn't offer any reason for the bias. How can you accept, "we don't have a reason why this was done, but we know it wasn't because of political bias".

A report is not unsparing when it doesn't stand up to reason and common sense.

An FBI director promising accountability means nothing when you can't look at facts with reason and common sense and call things for what they are.

It's made worse when people fall for that nonsense based on their own political leanings.

You seem invested in DOJ and the FBI walking away from criticism of the practices and procedures, and some personnel, involved in this IG report and the broader media scrutiny both have been undergoing of late, sir. And I'm consistently on the side of accountability and "trust but verify," which is a standard in the industry in which I work (aviation security). Do I trust that DOJ and FBI will enforce the law as it's laid down in the books and as created by Congress and signed by the president? I sure do. But do I also want verification that both institutions will do so every time and in a fair and impartial manner? Doubly so.

Here's just one fact from the IG investigation:

-- The FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who led both investigations (Clinton email and Trump-Russia, until he and his paramour, Page, were booted from Trump-Russia by Mueller, when those incriminating texts they shared came to light) promised he'd prevent Trump's election. Now whether or not he was just making figurative pillow talk with his mistress, fellow FBI employee Lisa Page, can be debated, for sure. But even the IG found his explanations for the texts he sent unpersuasive.

On page 420 of the report, the IG stated that the conduct of the five FBI employees (that includes Strzok and Page) "has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation (the Clinton email/server matter), and impacted the reputation of the FBI."

Those are not my words nor my characterization of the matter. They're the words of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. Here's a particularly harsh passage from the IG in re the Strozk texts:

"[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] 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."


The IG closed this section with the statement that Strzok's decision to deprioritize the Midyear investigation in favor of the Trump-Russia investigation "led us to conclude that we did not have the confidence that Strzok's decision was free from bias." Again; those are not my words, they're the words of the Inspector General. And they're fairly damning regarding both the actions of the lead agent (Strzok) and the supervision of said investigations by those senior to Mr. Strzok. Where were they while this agent was working to apparently undermine one investigation (Midyear) and possibly setting up to leak the contents of another one (Trump-Russia) to the press?

Just the issue outlined above indicates a potentially serious problem within certain leadership levels in the FBI. Now maybe much of what Strzok, Page and the three other FBI employees were saying amounts to nothing more than hot air, and maybe not. And maybe these people were all just trying to impress each other with the perceived power they apparently felt they held, but maybe not. This is where Congress needs to exercise its legitimate oversight authority and dig into the matter fully and thoroughly (and fairly).

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

it is not worth continuing this with you, because you're civil, you're a gentleman, but you're also a serial propagandist, on a daily basis, and the only reason i post to what you write is to remind readers there's a fact-based reality one can attach to an issue if one is interested.

the very IG report that got released, the very same unsparing report, is the check! is the transparent check! is the "verify" of your trust and verify! sheesh.

thankfully we do have someone on this board who works daily in that office who knows what he's talking about. GMAN has posted to these threads recently, injecting some truth for whomever wants to read it (and, sadly, righty as represented on this forum board isn't interested in any expert testimony).

honestly, i wouldn't care. i don't care. just, to be crystal clear, your love for, and faith in, this country's institutions is ardent only when the weather is fair and the "right" people are being investigated. to you, the DOJ, the FBI, and any other foundational pillar guarding our democracy is expendable when your side gets whatever short term benefit it wants. if your cover wasn't blown long ago, it's certainly blown now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I agree on your assessment of Big Kahuna, and as a long-time forum member and lurker, I'd ask this: Why is he here and posting his nonstop propaganda? He probably starts more Lavender Room threads than anyone else, many of which contain his brand of right wing bullshit, lowering the level of discourse here, all the while with a pretense of knowledge and fair-mindedness that isn't really there. Didn't he lose a bet and agree to leave this forum???

I left voluntarily for several years, after Mr. Mopdahl -- with whom I had a bet about the 2012 presidential election and who, being a gentleman, removed the stipulation that I'd have to leave. I decided to do so anyway, for quite awhile. And he was the only one with the authority to enforce the terms. Not you. Though I suppose the site's proprietor is free to act on your unstated desire and boot me and any others who are upsetting the collective wa of this little corner of the internet. Doing so would probably gladden you, it appears.

Really, I get the feeling that you're more comfortable with an echo chamber environment that confirms your own biases and preconceptions, one that confuses legitimate criticism (and a desire for accountability on the part) of a derp state. Notice, please, that I didn't say "deep state" because, quite frankly, that IG report reads more like a description of the Keystone Kops, in the form of Strzok and co. and their foibles.

There's a dark undercurrent running through that IG report, however, one that indicates a probable desire on the part of some executive-level leaders within the premier law enforcement organization in the government to invalidate the results of a presidential election, and that's disturbing to me, as it should be to anyone who's paid attention to this matter since the summer of 2016.

But my criticisms, as well of the criticisms of others here in the LR when it comes to the IG report and its description of the actions undertaken by certain members of the FBI investigating the Clinton email matter, must of course be some sort of sympathy or ideological affinity for that fellow currently occupying the Oval Office, correct? I believe there's more than enough cited evidence contained within that IG report to warrant a deeper examination of DOJ and the FBI, in the matter of the Clinton email investigation, by Congress, which has oversight authority over those organizations. Do you dispute that Congress has such authority? Most likely, you'll dispute that the facts contained within the report merit such a response by the legislative branch, and I would accord you the respect of your opinion.

You should ask yourself, if the matter were reversed and DOJ and FBI had been caught out tolerating (at minimum) such antics on the part of employees and agents out to prevent a lawfully elected presidential candidate from your ideological side of the aisle from taking office, whether you'd then be more accepting of the revelations revealed in such a report? I know I would, regardless of ideology. Wrong is wrong, whether from a legal, moral, professional or ethical viewpoint.

But I suppose any demurral from the desired narrative here (i.e. our noble Department of Justice and the FBI has no issues and it investigated itself and we should now express our gratitude for it doing so and get on with our lives) amounts to support for that Manhattan real estate developer currently sitting in the White House) is nothing but "rightwing bullshit," do I have that right?

Lastly, please show me where, in any thread I've either started or commented on since my return in 2017, I've expressed any support for either Republicans or that fellow in the Oval Office. I'll gladly stipulate that my ideology is more comfortably placed within the (fiscal) conservative/libertarian spectrum, something I make no secret of. That alone should tell you that the "rightwing bullshit" I spout doesn't have a place within the populist firmament as it's currently constituted in this country.

Please feel free to keep pigeonholing me and anyone else whose opinions and beliefs run counter to yours, sir.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

no. there isn't. that's trumpist horseshit. what there is, however, is a group of trumpists who want to sow distrust, mistrust, discord, among americans. they place their ideology above their country. and what is their (your) idealogy? to tear down every existing institution, to sow fear, hate, and distrust, to set one citizen against another, anything short of civil war and - who knows? - maybe that if it comes to it, whatever it takes, so that this country (or some warped new one) can be rebuild it in their (your) image.


you're offering your typical binary choice between what you think, versus what's not real. there is a third option, that the FBI is the best federal law enforcement agency in the world, all the while suffering from the same problems as does any organization.


you do it every day. every day. this thread as an example. you try to hide it. unsuccessfully.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This has made the FBI look really, really bad. I think they demonstrated clear bias and those involved need to be held accountable. Thankfully Comey's higher loyalty was was defeated by his lower intelligence.

As Dan has noted, the good thing is that such an internal investigation has seen the light of day. In a thoroughly corrupt organization there wouldn't have been anything remotely approaching an inspector general investigation in the first place. So that's a good thing. The organization did at least acknowledge an issue and at least nominally investigated it (the IG cannot compel testimony, subpoena witnesses and so forth -- and Hillary World's denizens chose not to speak with IG investigators -- so it's helpful to think about an IG investigation as more of a human resources action than something that could be construed as a criminal or civil investigation).

Sadly, it's a common refrain of hardcore defenders of the FBI and DOJ that critics of its actions since at least the summer of 2016 are just out to destroy these organizations, which is not true in any sense of the word. But it does seem to some of us critics that these two agencies are doing an effective job of casting aspersions on themselves, with no help from any of us "rightwing bullshit flingers."

Rogues and bad actors are a fact of life in any organization, and the FBI and the DOJ are certainly no exceptions. Hopefully, this latest internal investigatory process will see those five FBI employees (Strzok, Page, et al), at minimum, receive the justice they've brought on themselves. Their expressed disdain for lawmakers, an incoming president (as well as former presidential candidate) and an evident above-it-all contempt for the legislative branch's oversight prerogatives should worry everyone participating on this thread. That it apparently doesn't bemuses me and also confuses me, in equal degrees.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Replace DOJ and FBI with Baltimore PD or St Louis PD, brother.
If you were black, you'd be writing the same stuff about them.

A dim and inelastic mind sees everything as a conspiracy, and a weak heart and shallow ballast causes one to lose faith easily. Or you're made of stronger stuff. Who wants to spend whole days trying to persuade people to lose their faith?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Your "Trumpist horseshit" comment may be over the top and uncalled for. BK refers to a dark undercurrent at high levels of FBI that grew as a result of the frustration of investigators having to deal simultaneously with investigations of the two very candidates for the office of president. In a right and just America this should never have happened. A disservice to our Republic existed because both candidates should have been up for jail time and not time in the People's House. Neither candidate was suitable for office and the DOJ and the FBI were squarely in the middle of a conundrum never prior imagined. All sorts of good people are now soiled. The IG report, as is, serves as evidence that there is no deep state to be feared or taken down. That good men and women in service to their country can fall short in trying times.

The main perpetrator of Trumpist Horeshit seems to be the Horse himself. I am giving BK a pass here and a BZ for engaging on the topic.

If rule of law and justice are to remain the solid cornerstone of our nation, all should be thankful for the IG report and subsequent actions by Congress and DOJ in response.

Well, Tony may have real problems with some bad actors at the top of DOJ, not be out to harm it for the republican cause, and still think we are fortunate to have all these agencies in their current form. People on the left, like Dan, may be running to defend the DOJ, not simply because they hate trump and want the DOJ to get him, but because of the import of the institutions.
Sure their are plenty on either side that have run to one or another corner for partisan purposes, but for the sake of these conversations we're probably well ahead if we proceed, as if the higher motivation is the driver.

Apparently, he and his lawyer aren't as smart as you, since they say that a subpoena is unnecessary and that Strzok will testify without immunity and without invoking the Fifth.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You are the king of right wing propaganda here, and I've even caught you plagiarizing right wing blogs (during our Parkland debates). It makes me continue to wonder how much of your long-winded diatribes are your own work.

I'm serious... how did this info get out? Did they take screen shots of their texts and post it to social media?