Strzok text and why isn't anyone asking the obvious?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If Trump is found guilty (even if by association) will you trust that the investigation was carried out properly?

First off, see shooterbody's post as to whether or not Mueller's investigation is to determine guilt or innocence.

Once you've wrapped your head around that, consider the following:

So far we have Manafort and Gates under indictment for events that took place years before Trump was ever considered a candidate.

Flynn & Papadopoulos under indictment for lying to federal agents. These are minor process crimes and the exact same kinds of things that Mills and Abedin were not charged for.

We have the Podesta group (which was implicated in the Manafor/Gates indictments) closing up shop and scattering to the winds.

We have members of the investigative team being taken off the investigation for questionable activity on and off the clock.

We have the spouse of one of those on the investigative team shown as being paid by the company which generated the dossier.

We have the dossier itself as being used to obtain FISA warrants.

We have a judge who was (still is?) on the very same FISA court who has recused himself for unknown reasons.

Would you accept the termination of the investigation if it is shown to have been a biased bit of political hackery to begin with?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's a simple yes or no question. It doesn't take multiple paragraphs to say yes or no.

Let me make it a little simpler. Ignore my other question. If Trump is found innocent, will you trust the investigation?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's a simple yes or no question. It doesn't take multiple paragraphs to say yes or no.

Let me make it a little simpler. Ignore my other question. If Trump is found innocent, will you trust the investigation?

(sorry I'm butting in)
If Trump is found guilty I will think it was a setup to keep him from exposing the "man behind the curtain".

If Trump is found innocent, then I will laugh. Knowing they tried to flip and flop everyone they could get their hands on, spent millions of dollars on an investigation started over a false report; and still they couldn't touch him.

*I'm not so much a Trump supporter as I am an anti-Washington supporter. Trump is like a bull in a china shop and the whole lot of them are nervous (R&D alike!). Now if we could somehow get term limits....

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

First things first.

Your question is irrelevant as it makes an erroneous presupposition. Investigations are not to determine whether or not there is guilt or innocence. The purpose of an investigation is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to move forward with an indictment and then prosecution; or in Trump's instance, an impeachment.

If you ask an appropriate question, perhaps you'd get an answer.

Second, you're asking me to give you an answer based on something that has not yet happened.

Regardless of the outcome, I will have to wait until the investigation is over and until what is released publicly has been reviewed before I can tell you whether or not it is trustworthy to me.

a reply to: Martin75

If Trump is found guilty I will think it was a setup to keep him from exposing the "man behind the curtain".

If Trump is found innocent, then I will laugh. Knowing they tried to flip and flop everyone they could get their hands on, spent millions of dollars on an investigation started over a false report; and still they couldn't touch him.

So personal bias dictates whether the investigation is trustworthy. I thought so, and I assume the stars you got are from others who are currently participating in the thread so I know their answers as well.

This is what I assumed.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Martin75

If Trump is found guilty I will think it was a setup to keep him from exposing the "man behind the curtain".

If Trump is found innocent, then I will laugh. Knowing they tried to flip and flop everyone they could get their hands on, spent millions of dollars on an investigation started over a false report; and still they couldn't touch him.

So personal bias dictates whether the investigation is trustworthy. I thought so, and I assume the stars you got are from others who are currently participating in the thread so I know their answers as well.

This is what I assumed.

Not My bias.....Strzok's bias. He had his hands in everything. I was fine until the text....
(always thought it was a witch hunt but whatever)

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's a simple yes or no question. It doesn't take multiple paragraphs to say yes or no.

Let me make it a little simpler. Ignore my other question. If Trump is found innocent, will you trust the investigation?

This is impossible to answer.

If he finds trump guilty, shows physical proof like communications between trump and russia that are clearly a giant the law, sure I will buy that.

But if he finds him guilty based on a feeling or something, or if he charges him with things that Hillary and her team were left off for, it becomes far more troubling.

In the same tomen, if physical proof is presented that trump seriously broke the law, but Mueller let's him off because they are friends, I wouldn't accept that.

So it depends on what we learn as to how the investigation was carried out.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Why isn't anyone asking the real obvious question. Why is the media pushing this story so hard and why are the texts (which would be pretty important to the ongoing investigation) being made so public? Is the FBI always so lenient with their evidence where they just let it out to the public like this?

The media is making this crap headline news for a reason, they have an agenda and I think that's to preoccupy people with these leaks so that more important issues keep going ignored, like net neutrality and Trump allowing oil drilling and fracking in our national parks. What is the purpose of letting all this information out to the public? Usually investigations are kept locked tight from the public, especially ones as "important" as this one, so why make everything with this one so public day after day and week after week?

Do you guys honestly think the media doesn't have an agenda on reporting this stuff like they are? It's a form of social engineering and you guys are eating it up. Look at the divide they've created with their coverage over the past few years, you guys are so blind to it it's crazy. The media is spitting out propaganda left and right and you guys eat it up left and right. Sad.

Public opinion has no affect on the outcome of the investigation but they sure do love us arguing over it. While we fight we divide ourselves. We are doing the heavy lifting for them.

Or, more likely, they'll report it because ratings and whatever spin they can put on it.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Martin75

If Trump is found guilty I will think it was a setup to keep him from exposing the "man behind the curtain".

If Trump is found innocent, then I will laugh. Knowing they tried to flip and flop everyone they could get their hands on, spent millions of dollars on an investigation started over a false report; and still they couldn't touch him.

So personal bias dictates whether the investigation is trustworthy. I thought so, and I assume the stars you got are from others who are currently participating in the thread so I know their answers as well.

This is what I assumed.

Why are you so caught up on stars?

Did the internet points matter break your zen?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: shooterbrody

You have yet to answer the question. If Trump is found guilty by association, will you trust the outcome of the investigation?

what does "guilty by association" mean?

you do understand muellers investigation ends only with a recommendation to congress to impeach or not?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Excellent question. Right up there with, why aren't any of them in jail yet?

Been waiting for some time for that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Just to add more weight to your thread.

Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe

It is obvious that McCabe and Comey among others in the "intelligence community" were not only rooting for Shillary, but were trying everything in their power to get her in office. Thankfully it didn't work, but that witch and her rapist husband are not in jail yet, so we are not in the clear.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe

We are lucky this was exposed in the first place.
There is an ongoing IG investigation into the hillary email shenanigans, and it "just so happened" that some of those working on that mess also got assigned to the SC investigation.
Coincidences eh?
The dip#s still inhabiting the doj and fbi were so arrogant they did not realize this when starting the SC investigation and thought that would be enough cover.

It tells me that something came up in the course of the investigation to suspect Strzok of something. Enough to have accessed his texts at the least....likely much more....theyve been sitting on it for 6 months.

ballotpedia.org...

I think this guy is the IG.

He'll get to the bottom of things.

His case of Sen Stevens, sounds like Flynn.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The sheer number of media types etc who have lost their jobs and shows to the running battles so far for his attempted circular logic to possibly hold any water!

These guys wouldn't eat their own in such epic numbers just to sell a Trojan Donald...

They're narcissists after all, sacrificing their game is like a yakuza cutting of both his pinky and ring finger in one whack!

Aka, not gonna happen!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

dude I agree with you 100%.

this is what i have been saying. something very strange is going on. its very clear mainstream media has no intention of covering anything important...and we are being given bread crumbs daily in this soap opera.

The other thing i find strange is when news articles were put out that "U.S. is vulnerable to EMP strikes"..."Pentagon searching for anti-missle locations on West Coast"...I was baffled by that being in the mainstream media. Like wtf? That is not information that would/should ever get blasted across the world's biggest media outlets. we supposedly do all types of # for "national defense" yet that gets thrown out? come on man...

Also its very odd to me, the whole North Korea thing, i dont buy any of it. [To me North Korea is a queen on the political chessboard, it can move across the field in any direction with the justification pre-programmed into us. Its like a loaded gun ready to be drawn taking us 0-100 and our compliance is "conditioned" ]. Name one guy who has supposedly talked as much # as kim and threatened the U.S. for this long, who remained in power this long?
North Korea runs dark every night because they dont have the power grid and infrastructure to run electricity at night. The country has no food either. And your telling me this country is going to take on the military industrial complex leader using technology over half a century old, when we have access to technology involving directed energy weapons from satellites? North Korea also is supposedly threatening the whole world? It doesnt add up. [all the north korea videos/images seem out of place to me, like those fake execution videos].

I might sound crazy but I have two suspicions:

1. There might be a nuclear "orchestrated event" intentionally mislabeled as a "war". Agenda21/depopulation purposes.

2. A distraction from the "space fence"...I have been feeling weird vibrations in the air/atmosphere like pressure/energy in the air [hard to describe, think of when someone drives by bumping subwoofers in their trunk, you feel the bass] along with weird sounds and very heavy chemtrails in my area.
Elana Freeland has written 2-3 books on the subject, very well cited/documented fact based material. She connects chemtrails, HAARP, Ionospheric manipulation, surveillance etc [weather geo-engineering is a bs cover story they give us].

I included two good intervierws where she explains what the "Space Fence" is and what Lockheed Martin is doing in the name of "military defense":

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Mainstream News is SURGICAL in coverage. They would never be pumping out meaningful information. Very smart people are being led on and distracted right now. my reasoning may not be incorrect but we are definitely being distracted.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why is nobody asking why this was being discussed with McCabe in the first place? Apparently Page threw out a scenario in McCabes office as to how Trump doesn't get elected...meaning they were discussing all of this directly with McCabe....

It's a good question. One I've wondered myself. Lots of folks have questioned why these swamp creatures were put in charge of the "investigation" to begin with...

Could this be a case of giving these guys just enough rope to hang themselves? Did Trump et al put these guys in exactly this position knowing they would abuse it and be caught red-handed -- with the necessary proof to charge and convict?

I don't know... but I wonder.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

My immediate thoughts are:

Over half the country did not vote for trump and his approval ratings are at a historic low.
How many of the members of the Congressional Investigative Committee have said politically bias things in private and public? All? Every day? Does that disqualify them to investigate?

Everyone discussed the election in 2016 and everyone had a strong opinion.

If it effects their job in any way, they need to be demoted, fired, investigated et al.

Otherwise we can not condemn people for political opinions. Everyone has them.

They have not given a reason as to why Strzok and his mistress have been demoted and the subject of Inspector general investigations, but it very likely was not political bias, it was having an affair, which is a security and blackmail risk.

Secondly:

Why isn't this exchange between them being discussed?

The agents also don’t seem to have been fans of Attorney General Eric Holder.

“Oh God, Holder! Turn it off turn it off turn it off!!!!” Strzok wrote when Holder appeared at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016.

“Yeah, I saw him yesterday and booed at the TV,” Page replied.

www.politico.com...

AS for your excerpt, it is impossible to tell without full context of the texts that preceded it and followed, but I suspect that was the point of the GOP Sub-Committee releasing just that excerpt.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: shooterbrody

You have yet to answer the question. If Trump is found guilty by association, will you trust the outcome of the investigation?

what does "guilty by association" mean?

you do understand muellers investigation ends only with a recommendation to congress to impeach or not?

Plus indictments and charges for anyone that is guilty, but not the President of The United States.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It's more than just bias.

It's discussing an insurance policy with McCabe in the event that the guy they hate trump wins.

For the millionth time, this is more than just bias. As is Mueller hiring lawyers that have defended Hillary.

But even if we overlook this alone, we still have leaks from Mueller team, stonewalling the oversight committee, and charging trumps team for lying when they let Hillary's team off for lying.

So yes, there needs to be more than just bias.

But when we see there is bias, and then we see the things I mentioned occuring, it leads people to believe that bias is having an effect.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I wholeheartedly hope ANYONE associated with this investigation in any way that committed a crime is charged and prosecuted to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

I agree with this portion of your post, and I think most americans would as well.

Everyone discussed the election in 2016 and everyone had a strong opinion. If it effects their job in any way, they need to be demoted, fired, investigated et al. Otherwise we can not condemn people for political opinions. Everyone has them.

We have the results of the hillary email investigation that some of these same people worked on, and now some of the behaviors they have exhibited during this investigation to evaluate their performance.

People in the email investigation were given immunity to obtain cooperation; Flynns activities were sent to a grand jury and he was offered a plea deal to cooperate.

When the same people are involved in both cases how can you not question the investigation?

Especially when this is a "special prosecutor" led investigation.

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

The whole point of the SC is to ELIMINATE conflicts of interest. This team seems to only have increased the conflicts of interest.