FBI Agent Peter Strzok Decided Which Hillary Emails On Weiner’s Laptop Could Be Examined By FBI

a reply to: Boadicea

I could be wrong, but I think that having classifies material outside of appropriate secured areas is a crime, regardless of who you are, who you know, or how important you think you are. If you are Secretary of State, a previous first lady, or a wrinkled up hag who makes Satan look like a boy scout. (IMHO)

a reply to: network dude


As someone that has had to go through the debriefing process when leaving a cleared government position it is abundantly clear that what she did was illegal

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Strzok hates Clinton nearly as much as he hates Trump, so why would he do her any favors?

wtf?

I forget, some people rely on the echo chamber for their news. Strzok's texts make it clear he thought Clinton is corrupt but, as for some reason I need to keep repeating, he preferred a corrupt but stable president to a corrupt and unstable one.

K. Just give us the direct quotes that show his thoughts that Clinton is corrupt, and the direct quotes that show he hated her as much as he hated Trump.

You say it's ckear, so this isn't something that needs to be bantered about. Just give us the quotes. If it's as you say, this should be easy for you to definitively defend.

Let's see these clear examples.

I have a feeling you are going to be waiting for quite a long time.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: network dude


As someone that has had to go through the debriefing process when leaving a cleared government position it is abundantly clear that what she did was illegal

do you think that it's even remotely possible that in all her exposure to the Government and how it works, she was able to make it to where she is and NEVER have been briefed on proper ways to deal with classified material? I ask, because it would seem to be impossible, and if she did, then there is no excuse for lack of intent, thus proving she should be charged for those crimes.

a reply to: network dude


Intent is not needed, again , that is made very clear. I was in USSS, so here is an example that was given to us. If I have the POTUS schedule and route information and I accidentally leave it in a public place and it gets picked up by someone and they use it to harm the POTUS, I am being charged and it would be gross negligence. Now, my intent was not for any of that to happen and if it does I will still be charged. So intent does not matter


Her server is equivalent of leaving something in a public place, because she is removing it from where it belongs and putting it out onto an unsecured location(her server)

a reply to: Xcathdra

These people are absolutely done for, their criminality is blatant, all of the investigations in to Trump have set a precedent for the same exact investigations to be held for the opposite side, a theory I think holds wait to say the least!

Once these emails are actually investigated, we shall see the guilty exposed to the fullest.

Wtf is 100percentfedup.com?
It's like you guys search for keywords on Google and then post whatever crap that comes up. Judging by the OP thread history (not hard to find) this is another fake bs story.
Why are Moderator tolerating this kind of bull?

a reply to: elementalgrove


I agree with you, but ,again, sadly Sessions is MIA on all of this

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

Normally I would agree and search warrants require specifics related to the investigation. However in this case the search warrant was intentionally restrictive and not in the interests of justice.

I think I can see that. Obviously, there would have to be some prior discussion and preparation to set it up, which very well could have taken place on that server, since it was reportedly already in existence. So it would be reasonable to search at least some period prior.

To me the way this is looking is the FBI went out of there way to intentionally not find anything damaging to Clinton.

It sure looks bad in terms of the totality of circumstances and evidence. This isn't just one isolated misstep. It's just one more!

a reply to: tadaman

The time before Clindung was SOS is relevant because that is the time period when she set up her private server. It would display her intentions for the private server and her reason /purpose in using it.

Thank you -- and yes! It took me a while, but I can see that no. Her use wouldn't just happen by itself. There would have to be some preparation involved.

If in preparation for her entering the office of SOS, she set up the server to specifically be used for work, then she has to clearly explain what its intended purpose was for. It seems like it was set up to organize crime and its daily operations outside of any oversight.

It also occurs to me now -- and this may just be me! -- that those emails may very well also disclose upon whose instruction she set it up. I still suspect this was Obama's SOP, and that Team Obama instructed Hillary to use a private server.

Obama's pseudonymous emails on Hillary's server are still sealed. And those are just the ones we know about.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: DJW001


What do you have to back up that comment that he hates Hillary as much as trump? He said he wanted Hillary to win 10 million to 0. This is part of a larger thing that really upsets me. People state things with no facts to back them up and never get called out for it.

Click on the above link. Fearing Trump is not the same as loving the alternative. Anyone with an understanding of human nature would prefer a corrupt, but stable president over a corrupt and unstable one.

I don't see any indication that Trump is unstable. He may be different or unorthodox, but not unstable. I can make a logical case for everything here has done including the tweets. It appears to be part of a strategy that may or may not work. We shall see, but in no way is he unstable.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Boadicea

I could be wrong, but I think that having classifies material outside of appropriate secured areas is a crime, regardless of who you are, who you know, or how important you think you are. If you are Secretary of State, a previous first lady, or a wrinkled up hag who makes Satan look like a boy scout. (IMHO)

And I would agree...

But the rules of evidence and proper investigatory procedures should also be the same -- no matter who you are, who you know, or how important you think you are. That's my concern.

Having said that, I would think that if criminal charges are ever brought against Trump (and some others), they could use this example to plead common law and equal application of the law to nullify much of the case against him.... If this standard is used to investigate and/or exonerate Hillary, then the same standard must be used to investigate and/or exonerate Trump.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: DJW001


ARE YOU SERIOUS with that? Tell me that was ajoke or sarcasm

Go beyond Fox.

A typical article to make people automatically believe the official stories.

Good Propziganda 🤪

a reply to: DJW001


And, I am sorry, but since when did vanity fair or any other fashion magazine become a political outlet? They should just stick to telling what scarves are in this year

Looks like Strzok was in charge of deciding who the FBI/DOJ was politically supporting.

The criminal implications were covered up systematically.

Professionals at work.

And yet it failed 💥😎💥

a reply to: Boadicea

It's reasonable on the surface, but she still had intelligence that could be passed on. She ran for President, so checking out continued email issues would also be considered.

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: Boadicea

It's reasonable on the surface, but she still had intelligence that could be passed on. She ran for President, so checking out continued email issues would also be considered.

Good point too. Especially if she retained her security clearance -- I don't believe we know for sure if she still has it even to today. There were also rumors that Obama was forwarding his presidential daily briefings to Hillary during the campaign. I can see where that would all be quite pertinent.

Ya'll should have seen what went down in that "CNN Doxxed meme guy" thread.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Strzok hates Clinton nearly as much as he hates Trump, so why would he do her any favors?

wtf?

I forget, some people rely on the echo chamber for their news. Strzok's texts make it clear he thought Clinton is corrupt but, as for some reason I need to keep repeating, he preferred a corrupt but stable president to a corrupt and unstable one.

And if he's an honest person interested in carrying out the law, shouldn't he have been in the fight to remove *both* corrupt officials rather than attempting to choose for the American people which corrupt official was better for all the rest of us?

To that end, he is as corrupt as the rest and everything he's done now becomes suspect and tainted and therefore could be ruled as almost invalid.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ya'll should have seen what went down in that "CNN Doxxed meme guy" thread.

💥😀💥

"smoke and mirrors failure"