FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

In any other crime are the text messages of the investigating officers relevant???


If I murder someone, is it a get out of jail free card if the investigation can not provide their personal text messages to the defense?!?!


Of course not..

If I break into a house do I get to call the investigating officers private text messages as evidence????

What if, while I am under arrest for either crime, I claim that it is all a set up.. these guys are out to get me????


Do I then have a right to the investigating officers personal text messages???


Of course not..

Under the laws in my state of MO if an investigating officer uses his personal cell phone / computer / pda / camera / cell phone camera etc for official business it can be subpoenaed as evidence.

Text messages are a bit different however if info about the investigation is exchanged via text it could be subpoenaed. Emails used in official business are subject to our sunshine laws and if you send case material via a persona email address the personal email account is covered and can be subpoenaed.

If you can establish an investigative reason to review text messages then yes (civilian or an officer). Now with that said if your place of employment provides you with a cell phone or pays the bills for the cell phone your kinda screwed. If I am not mistaken the text messages in this instance were from government issued phones.

Also, in this case, evidence led investigators in Congress to believe a conspiracy occurred (more than 2 people involved) and that evidence of that crime was contained in text messages by certain persons.

I was thinking about that as well. If these messages were on a work phone, provided and paid for by the FBI then they are fair game.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Bias doesn’t matter.. it is irrelevant..

Destroying or falsifying evidence matters..


How the investigating officer felt about the accused is irrelevant.

So proving X or Y agent didn’t like trump is irrelevant.

So what evidence did they fabricate????

What evidence originated from them , for them to have fabricated it??

Actually what matters in this case is 'confidence' in the outcome.

Would a jury perhaps find differently if they were able to view the destroyed evidence?

You can't say if they would or would not. A skilled defense attorney could make a persuasive case though.

The simple fact they spoke of an insurance policy in regards to Trump is enough to know without doubt that they were doing something illegal.

This isn't rocket science.

a reply to: ausername

I'm trying to remain optimistic, but it's getting really damn hard.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Bias doesn’t matter.. it is irrelevant..

...when it involves guys on our side.

There finished that for ya.

a reply to: Grambler

How did it get this bad,

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
The simple fact they spoke of an insurance policy in regards to Trump is enough to know without doubt that they were doing something illegal.

This isn't rocket science.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Did that 'insurance policy' include an agreement to fabricate evidence or falsely record statements on their Form 302s?

***

ETA: I just think this investigation has unraveled and the chances of prosecuting anyone, now, are so small that it doesn't warrant the money to continue negligently investigating it.

Anyone anti-Trump should really be disgusted with the FBI.

Boyd attributed the failure to “misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.”

“The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected,” Boyd wrote.

Am I reading this right? Is he saying the texts were never collected? I was under the impression they had them and they got deleted........

As for bias -

Bias by an investigator can destroy a prosecution. Especially if it is shown through questioning that the bias in question caused the officer to ignore other suspects / witnesses.

A biased investigator could very well walk themselves into a legal minefield by depriving a persons constitutional rights by a person acting under color of law (this is civil as well as criminal law).

To use Mueller's situation -
His investigators have shown a bias against Trump. Through their investigative techniques and their communications (emails / text messages / etc). Mueller's mandate was to investigate anything related to the 2016 election and russia trump collusion.

Collusion is not a crime.
The only people thus far charged are linked to Trump by association and have nothing to do with the 2016 election or trump russia collusion while at the same time we have evidence the same investigators committed crimes and intentionally covered up crimes for Clinton and her cronies.

Solely to take out Trump and his administration.

Not only is that a crime, its a coup and is treason. Placing our government into constitutional crisis gives aid and comfort to our enemies via an intentionally planned situation that creates a disorganized and ineffective administration.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
The simple fact they spoke of an insurance policy in regards to Trump is enough to know without doubt that they were doing something illegal.

This isn't rocket science.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Did that 'insurance policy' include an agreement to fabricate evidence or falsely record statements on their Form 302s?

Who knows because apparently at least with Hillary they didn't record their interview.

Also it must just be a huge coincidence that these bias agents interviewed mills and huma and from their own notes knew that they were lying but didn't charge them, but then charged people in trumps team for that very thing.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

Boyd attributed the failure to “misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.”

“The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected,” Boyd wrote.

Am I reading this right? Is he saying the texts were never collected? I was under the impression they had them and they got deleted........

Yeah i am not buying that. Thus far it only seems to have affected these 2 people.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Grambler

How did it get this bad,

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.
- Thomas Babington Macaulay

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Grambler

How did it get this bad,

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.
- Thomas Babington Macaulay

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. "
- Abraham Lincoln

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Grambler

How did it get this bad,

Well, when the government is in charge of investigating itself this was bound to happen. It is like the mob having the Consigliere as the prosecuting attorney.

Well, how convenient is this?!

And it just happens to be the period of time
when The FBI was investigating Trump?

Not buying this accidental "wipe".

Release The Memo!!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
The simple fact they spoke of an insurance policy in regards to Trump is enough to know without doubt that they were doing something illegal.

This isn't rocket science.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Did that 'insurance policy' include an agreement to fabricate evidence or falsely record statements on their Form 302s?

Who knows because apparently at least with Hillary they didn't record their interview.

Also it must just be a huge coincidence that these bias agents interviewed mills and huma and from their own notes knew that they were lying but didn't charge them, but then charged people in trumps team for that very thing.

It's standard that they don't record interviews. They say it interferes with their technique of building a rapport with interviewees. Think about that.

The FBI's policy is to take notes and transcribe them to Form 302.

Whatever they officially *note* becomes the official record of what was said -- whether it was actually said or not. The interviewee doesn't even get to sign off on what they *noted* was stated.

See...this is what gives the FBI the ability to operate arbitrarily...FORM 302. They can literally decide that you said or did not say things if they interview you.

AND...if they indict you for making false statements and you claim you never said what they claim you said...guess what? You will be indicted for making false statements! The question then becomes, "Were you lying when we interviewed you or are you lying now."

Read this: Beware When The FBI Is Not Recording

If Trump agrees to be interviewed by the FBI but under the condition he is not recorded *like Hillary,* he better be recording the interview himself.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

Boyd attributed the failure to “misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.”

“The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected,” Boyd wrote.

Am I reading this right? Is he saying the texts were never collected? I was under the impression they had them and they got deleted........

Yeah i am not buying that. Thus far it only seems to have affected these 2 people.

That is what I want to see going forward. If it only affected these 2 people, or even a small group, that explanation doesnt hold up.

Just added TheHill's coverage to the op. This is from that article and touches on cell phones -

Johnson, who chairs the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, asks Wray to explain the scope of the missing messages, and if the FBI has searched Strzok's and Page's non-FBI phones for possible federal records.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like I said...there is no scenario I can think of where this would occur, especially with the NSA. I have worked on government data centers quite a bit.....losing 6 months of data doesn't happen by accident.

That reminds me of when Lois Lerner's 30,000 IRS emails over a period of two years went "missing". At least the Inspector General found them on disaster recovery tapes five months later.

Knowing how corrupt the entire Obama administration has been for years, we'd be fools not to have preserved and backed up this information for them without their knowledge.

Strzok & Page's relationship and personal opinions have been taken way out of proportion by the right, in defense of Trump. But this is truly suspicious and strange, and it makes you wonder if the deleted messages actually contained something really incriminating. I don't care how much Strzok thought Trump was an idiot, I'd expect an insightful individual to think that, it is only to his credit. But this doesn't look accidental to me and it sure makes me think he may have admitted to foul play in the missing texts.