FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: BlueAjah

This is TREASON.

Woooooo! lol. You are a real piece of work, sir. hahaha. Stir that pot Dude! Some day you might just get what you wish for, but WARNING, be careful what you wish for. It could be dangerous territory.

ok... the proper term would be Sedition...

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ParkerCramer

You are amusing, if nothing else.
You rail about others being one-sided.

You should read your post that I am replying to...

Edit to add:
I wasn't worried.

Please quote it, and show us what you are referring to??

originally posted by: ParkerCramer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships
Flashback When Obama Insists He Doesn't Get Involved With FBI Intestigations!

OBAMA: “I can guarantee. I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.”

WALLACE: “Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?”

OBAMA: “How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.”

news.grabien.com...

Well maybe Obama was not under oath but this sure proves him a liar.

And Comey was under oath, what is that called?

Perjury?

😳

😳

You Sir are the epitome of what is wrong with America, always stirring the pot and sowing disharmony.......

I bet your momma is so proud.😕

This isn't the first time I've seen this twisted logic - where supporting the duly elected President of the United States is called "sowing disharmony". Is that in the handbook in between "discord" and "division" ?

originally posted by: ParkerCramer

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ParkerCramer

You are amusing, if nothing else.
You rail about others being one-sided.

You should read your post that I am replying to...

Edit to add:
I wasn't worried.

Please quote it, and show us what you are referring to??

Here you go....

Who secretly switched...hahaha 
Do you not keep up with talking points? 

Really? 
The Law? 

Two individuals have pleaded guilty to BREAKING THE LAW, two more are under indictment..... 

EVERYTHING else is speculation by pundits, and passed on by one sided cheerleaders. 

Don't worry, I expect your reply to be about the memo, Clinton, Comey, anything, except THE LAW. 

a reply to: ParkerCramer

how could you possibly believe that THEY will show you anything, except what benefits them?

BECAUSE it will benefit them! Whether that means it keeps them out of jail and puts someone else in jail, or if it means the pick up where the jailed left off, or any other way a person might benefit by throwing someone else under the bus.

They yacht together, they travel together, they ALL signed on to more Illegal Surveillance.

Yup... because it benefits themselves...

They all have one job, convince us they are for us, and the other side us out to destroy us/America.

Yup. And they all have something else in common: They are all power hungry SOBs that will eat their own if it empowers them. Because that's the thing about power and the power hungry. They don't want just some of the power or even most of the power... the need ALL of the power.

They're frenemies... not friends. They will stab each other in the back if the right opportunity presents itself.

a reply to: Boadicea

Fox News Alert!

This is some lively political theater we're experiencing here. Here's a link to the document.

Here's the bit in question from the document:

7. On September 2, 2016, Page wrote about preparing talking points for Director Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”78 This text raises additional questions about the type and extent of President Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email scandal and the FBI investigation of it.

There's an interesting footnote:

78 DOJ-PROD-238. The Justice Department notified the Committee that it had redacted other text messages that
were personal in nature or relating to other investigations. See Jan. 19th Boyd letter, supra note 5. Presumably, because this message was not redacted, the Department believes it may relate to the FBI’s investigation of classified information on Secretary Clinton’s private server.

What do you make of that? I find it interesting that once more, they don't just include the full text messages. Actually, I don't really find it interesting — I find it par for the course. Consider that Johnson also pushed the "secret society" bit for a couple days before walking that back when the rest of the texts revealed the context. (and really, who thinks secret societies actually refer to themselves as "the secret society?").

What's stands out in that case is that Johnson KNEW what the proper context was but not only that, so did the right-wing media outlets that were playing along with his absurd, disingenuous shenanigans. How? Because they too had been given the text messages — a month earlier.

Then we had bits of text messages released that were hyped as showing Strzok and Page discussing how they could circumvent monitoring on their work phones. That led to a thread just like this where people were beside themselves based on the deliberately misleading reporting. Then, looking at the letter on which the reporting was based, the additional text messages revealed conclusively that no, that's not what they were talking about at all.

I dunno. A former President once said, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

The seven words lifted from a text message and offered with no context are being touted by Fox News as smoking gun for *something* — it seems the insinuation is that Obama was directing Comey in some way? Not only is that not what the seven words seem to show (they show a top investigator being asked to prepare talking points for his boss to brief the President on, which is not at all untoward) but the actual document (which again, doesn't quote even one text in its entirety), has a footnote admitting that an assumption is being made about what it refers to.

Guess what wasn't happening on September 2, 2016? An investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server. It was almost another month before the Abedin laptop was discovered to contain emails. An event that led to what? The re-opening of the investigation and an announcement a week before the election that one of the two candidates was back under investigation again. Not something that would seem to indicate a cabal working to benefit that candidate. So instead, people who want to keep hope of conspiracy alive — such as you have — attribute this as a "warning" for *something*.

That blows my mind frankly. That evidence directly refuting the CT can be speculatively twisted, with no evidence to substantiate the twist, to become less-than-superficial evidence *in support* of the same CT.

In my opinion, what we're seeing here are desperate spasms from the GOP and the right-wing media to create chaos and confusion after a much-hyped memo failed to deliver. The first shot was to release the Grassley-Graham referral from which it seems the Nunes memo was created. Which really calls into question what the purpose of the Nunes memo was in the first place.

I'll go ahead and add my speculation here. Remember that Nunes wouldn't answer as to whether or not he coordinated with the WH to release his memo? I think it's quite possible that the WH became aware of the Grassley-Graham referral (possible even after being briefed by Nunes) and decided that they really wanted that launched as a narrative by their stooge Nunes who simply produced a concise version, tacking on an unrelated paragraph about the Strzok text messages for good measure, and set about having it hyped up in the media by his cohorts (Gaetz, DeSantis, Meaddows, etc)

Now we have yet another distraction from Johnson, who has proved to be willing to play stupid games in just the last couple weeks with the same material.

It makes me wonder what's in the Schiff memo. I wasn't too pressed about it before but so far the Trump loyalists who last week couldn't stop claiming how for transparency they were, have scrambled to lay the groundwork for heavy redaction. They've also claimed that it somehow was insulting to Nunes (more redaction, possibly about his coordination with the WH?). Schiff has asked that the FBI indicate which of any redactions were at their request with an implication that there is information that might be "unfavorable to the President."

Perhaps those two are actually connected? It would be "unfavorable" for Trump and cast Nunes in a bad light if it once more was demonstrated that as with the failed "unmasking" narrative, Nunes was coordinating with the WH — AND, as with the unmasking fail, making a big production to mislead the public into believing that he hadn't been. Remember that even though it turned out he got the "unmasking" narrative directly from the WH (literally, at the WH SCIF), he made a big production of going to the WH an pretending to brief the administration... about the information they'd just given him?

Oh, and let's not forget that out of the blue, a Russian prank call from A YEAR AGO just happens to be getting blasted around the right-wing media echo chamber to paint Schiff as a desperate fool? (Never mind the same two successfully pranked Nikki Haley as well — makes you wonder if they're not working for the Kremlin?)

Anyway. Fun times.

a reply to: angeldoll

I agree with much of what you said here (for distinctly different reasons but we agree on this one point nonetheless)

People throwing around things like treason etc (and even more priceless, the pro trump pro Constitution types constantly agitating for people to be charged convicted and hanged for "sedition" which was wildly unconstitutional even by 1860's standards!)

And people trying to whitewash away the very troubling things coming to light because it was their team that did them...

They're all enablers who are actively involved in setting the stage and laying the groundwork for some very scary things that should be unthinkable to be thought and then actions taken on these unthinkable thoughts!

I don't care which side you're on or etc... Frankly though, I wish that everyone on both sides would step back and realize that the corruption collusion and etc we've already seen ample evidence of existing and being all too common is crappy third world hellhole style governance and needs stomped out! Likewise, the other stuff we're seeing wrapped around all this is exactly the formula necessary to start a civil war to distract people from the crappy third world hellhole style governance!

For the good of the nation as a whole people need to remove their heads from their rectums and insist on real solutions to the very real issues while making it known that more attempts at distractions of the partisan sideshow variety will be met with very real righteous anger.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ParkerCramer

how could you possibly believe that THEY will show you anything, except what benefits them?

BECAUSE it will benefit them! Whether that means it keeps them out of jail and puts someone else in jail, or if it means the pick up where the jailed left off, or any other way a person might benefit by throwing someone else under the bus.

They yacht together, they travel together, they ALL signed on to more Illegal Surveillance.

Yup... because it benefits themselves...

[quote[They all have one job, convince us they are for us, and the other side us out to destroy us/America.

Yup. And they all have something else in common: They are all power hungry SOBs that will eat their own if it empowers them. Because that's the thing about power and the power hungry. They don't want just some of the power or even most of the power... the need ALL of the power.

They're frenemies... not friends. They will stab each other in the back if the right opportunity presents itself.

They will never give you the power to stop it all.
They will give you enough to believe they are for you.

Yes they will offer up one of their own once in a while, just to keep up the front.

You will never elect a savior, it won't happen.

We are are only choice.

Check back in a month, a year, ten years and let me know how it changed...😁


MTUBY
It's all a show...ENTERTAINMENT!!!

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you make some very interesting points... many that point to shenanigans by both parties in all three branches of government. There are many things that don't make much sense to me, but there isn't much about "Obama wants to know everything" to misunderstand or conflate. And just for the record, I did quote the pertinent part about this possibly referring to the email investigation:

Senate investigators told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

I have no doubt that there are complicit -- and therefore guilty -- parties on all sides. And I have no doubt that the political critters are twisting this any and every way possible for their own political purposes.

So enough already. The ONLY remedy is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

a reply to: roguetechie

For the good of the nation as a whole people need to remove their heads from their rectums and insist on real solutions to the very real issues while making it known that more attempts at distractions of the partisan sideshow variety will be met with very real righteous anger.

Agreed. I'm damn sick of the "partisan sideshow" and I think most people are. But we're even more sick of the government sideshow that makes big show of investigating and reviewing and studying... but they never quite find what they're looking for.

But before finding solutions, we have to know what the problems are. The real problems. Garbage in and garbage out. The public can and will figure it out when we know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Eh, Obama could deny it, but I think it's still good evidence.

I think it's doubtful that anything could be done with it.

I just meant it was good evidence in the court of public opinion...

FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'



Government is us, and were doing things RIGHT!

a reply to: ParkerCramer

They will never give you the power to stop it all.

Power is never given. You either have it or you don't... you either exercise it or you don't. If anything, we gave up our power when we decided to "trust" the government contrary to everything the Constitution was meant to be: A strict rein on government authority... with the burden of proof for anything and everything they do on THEM. It is up to them to prove themselves worthy to us.

They will give you enough to believe they are for you.

I don't care what they are willing to "give" me. I'll take what is mine. And in this case, what is mine (and yours) is the absolute right to demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth. When we have that, we'll figure out what is necessary and proper from there.

Yes they will offer up one of their own once in a while, just to keep up the front.

And we've accepted their crumbs far too many times.

You will never elect a savior, it won't happen.

Of course not. Maintaining and nurturing a Constitutional Republic is a team effort.... and protecting and defending freedom requires eternal vigilance -- which cannot happen in the dark!

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You would be formidable.

Well, thank you! That was an unexpected compliment.

You grow your own popcorn?

I have before, and I can again. It's just like growing sweet corn, but you can't grow both at the same time; they cross pollinate.

I haven't grown any in years, but then again I haven't needed this much popcorn in years either.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you know if the *recovered* texts from mid-December 2016 to May 2017 have been made public?

Kinda like when President Obama told O'Reilly during their Super Bowl interview that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS.Creep.

Alright folks, WikiLeaks dumped more documents they're hoping to hurt the Democrats with Ron Johnson dumped texts messages (there's a new thread, it's a big 'ol PDF). Relevant texts are on page 72-74.





It appears that Strzok was called in for a meeting and they're speculating that it was to come up with talking points for Comey following a breaking NYT piece. Looking back at what was published Sep 2, 2016 in NYT. The FBI released documents pertaining to the Hillary Clinton email investigation, specifically an interview from July with Clinton.

F.B.I. Releases Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Files

ETA:

After another reading, this appears to be two separate conversations. The first one appears to be them discussing his long work hours and the work hours of Andrew McCabe which transitions into the bit about the speculation over what his meeting on the 7th could be about.

Then the second one starts with "NYTimes.com breaking" and is about the document release from the FBI and the coverage in the media.

Remember what was going on in September of 2016. The FBI was investigating Russian interference in the election. My honest take on this is that they were speculating that Strzok was going to be asked in the Sep 7 meeting to summarize the investigation thus far for Comey so that he could brief Obama.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you know if the *recovered* texts from mid-December 2016 to May 2017 have been made public?

To the best of my knowledge, no, they have not been made public.

Apparently, the Senate Intel committee had asked the IG for the transcripts, and he refused, and turned everything back over to the DOJ/FBI.

I've been trying to follow up on this in between commenting and other stuff. If you find the answer before me, I'd be interested to know!

a reply to: watchitburn

Romney and McCain were both terrible candidates. We were all in a lose lose situation in '08 and' 12 no matter how it shook out.

I couldn't vote for either one. I swallowed hard and went Obama in '08 just because McCain was the opponent, and in '12 I actually voted libertarian.

McCain scared me because he was saying Bush didn't need Congressional approval for the sell- bail-out, and Romney was a white Republican version of Obama (he instituted Obamacare before it was Obamacare). I distinctly remember trying to understand what the Hades the Republicans were doing putting up that caliber of losers two times in a row...

TheRedneck

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you for posting the transcript... is it just me, or does that all sound quite disjointed? I'm having trouble following to be honest...

And here's a link for the new thread: Latest Strzok / Page text messages and emails from people involved - 500+ pages

I've just read what Ante shared so I can't really comment further.