Sad Days at The FBI

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

If there was any agency in DC that I thought was above scandal it was the FBI. I had several friends who were FBI agents and they seemed 100% dedicated to doing the right things. Now that bubble seems to be breaking more every day as something negative comes to light. I still have lots of respect for the FBI and think the vast majority of the people are above reproach. But there appears to be a mess in the top echelons. It started with Comey's integrity coming under question and continues to fester. We now have indications there has been a "secret society" dedicated to bring down Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/23/fbis-strzok-and-page-spoke-secret-society-after-trump-election-lawmakers-say.html

And then there are five months of missing texts missing. Can you say Watergate all over again?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/23/why-fbis-missing-five-months-texts-is-worse-than-watergate.html

Then we learn that Strzok and Page are lovers, both working in counter intelligence. And other FBI agents are asking why they are still employed and working together. Good question.

And to say the least this is very interesting:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/23/fbis-strzok-allegedly-dismissed-mueller-probe-no-big-there-there.html

[TitanTiger 20,511]

19 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

 It started with Comey's integrity coming under question

No one with any sense questions it.  Only those hellbent on defending Trump do.

 

19 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

and continues to fester. We now have indications there has been a "secret society" dedicated to bring down Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/23/fbis-strzok-and-page-spoke-secret-society-after-trump-election-lawmakers-say.html

Even the guy making that charge based on the texts says "I'm not saying that actually happened." 

 

19 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

And then there are five months of missing texts missing. Can you say Watergate all over again?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/23/why-fbis-missing-five-months-texts-is-worse-than-watergate.html

I'll admit this is a bad look, but thus far there is no indication we have a Watergate type of erasure thing going on here.  It appears some devices were misconfigured and conflicted with the message retention software the FBI has.

 

19 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Then we learn that Strzok and Page are lovers, both working in counter intelligence. And other FBI agents are asking why they are still employed and working together. Good question.

And to say the least this is very interesting:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/23/fbis-strzok-allegedly-dismissed-mueller-probe-no-big-there-there.html

At the same time this guy who was so against Trump believed there wasn't going to be anything to the Russia investigation and was hesitant to even join the team. 

My guess is, you've got a few agents who aren't fans of Trump (stands to reason, since over half the country who voted voted against him) making silly remarks that are rather easy to make look sinister, but that's about as far as it goes.  I could be wrong, but the Fox coverage on this seems a bit sensational...like they are pumping it up to look worse than it actually is.

[Grumps 3,704]

The reason that Comey seems dirty to me is that, after his investigation, HE made the recommendation for Mrs. Clinton not be indicted. I don't see how in the world that fits in his job description. I would have thought that the FBI investigates and reveals their information and then the AG's office decides whether to pursue charges.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

The reason that Comey seems dirty to me is that, after his investigation, HE made the recommendation for Mrs. Clinton not be indicted. I don't see how in the world that fits in his job description. I would have thought that the FBI investigates and reveals their information and then the AG's office decides whether to pursue charges.

Are you certain this is how it works...that investigators never provide their recommendations to prosecutors?  And if the DOJ disagreed with his recommendation, don't they have the power to indict a person anyway? 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

This write up from the non-partisan National Constitution Center seems to indicate that this is rather normal:

Quote

 

...the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime.  It was created to do investigations – period.  When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-does-the-fbi-have-power-to-decide-who-gets-prosecuted

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Are you certain this is how it works...that investigators never provide their recommendations to prosecutors?  And if the DOJ disagreed with his recommendation, don't they have the power to indict a person anyway? 

I absolutely am NOT certain. I can understand Comey providing a recommendation to prosecutors, but not providing a recommendation to the American public. Can you recall an FBI director giving a live interview with a similar recommendation? CERTAINLY the DOJ could have disagreed, but how likely was it that Loretta Lynch would disagree with Comey's public recommendation to stay away from their parties only hope for the presidency?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Just now, Grumps said:

I absolutely am NOT certain. I can understand Comey providing a recommendation to prosecutors, but not providing a recommendation to the American public. Can you recall an FBI director giving a live interview with a similar recommendation? CERTAINLY the DOJ could have disagreed, but how likely was it that Loretta Lynch would disagree with Comey's public recommendation to stay away from their parties only hope for the presidency?

That doesn't seem all that unusual to me either, given the high public profile the case had garnered and the fact that it involved a candidate in the Presidential race in the heat of the election cycle.

[AU64 10,122]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That doesn't seem all that unusual to me either, given the high public profile the case had garnered and the fact that it involved a candidate in the Presidential race in the heat of the election cycle.

If you can find and link at least one other instance where the sitting FBI Director has done this publicly in the this manner I will accept that it might not be "unusual"....Until then.....seems to me this is a first....and therefore is not just unusual...it is unprecedented.  And the fact that a presidential candidate was involved was even a better reason for his recommendation to be kept very confidential and only made to Ms Lynch....but then of course, seems he did not trust Lynch did he? 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Just now, AU64 said:

If you can find and link at least one other instance where the sitting FBI Director has done this publicly in the this manner I will accept that it might not be "unusual"

Can you think of another case like this?  Seems like a rather unrealistic standard to meet for a situation so unprecedented.

 

Just now, AU64 said:

....Until then.....seems to me this is a first....and therefore is not just unusual...it is unprecedented.  And the fact that a presidential candidate was involved was even a better reason for his recommendation to be kept very confidential and only made to Ms Lynch....but then of course, seems he did not trust Lynch did he? 

Why would he think he couldn't trust and needed to pressure the AG under an Democratic administration to not indict their party's candidate for president?  That makes no sense.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Some FBI guys have said that Comey wrote his recommendation BEFORE they even interviewed Hillary. It was also noted that with the unprecedented nature of this it was highly unusual for Comey not to even attend the interview. Comey talked to Lynch. Knowing what was coming she said she would abide by Comey's recommendation and of course she did. As is almost always the case, the whole truth of this sordid mess will eventually be known. Too many players for it not to.

And one congressman, Trey Gowdy who has seen the texts isn't pooh pooing the possibility of the so-called "secret society."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/23/fbi-secret-society-texts-trey-gowdy-fbi-agents-peter-strzok-lisa-page

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Some FBI guys have said that Comey wrote his recommendation BEFORE they even interviewed Hillary.

Which standard of proof are you using now?  A WSJ investigation isn't enough to get you to believe Trump banged a porn star and paid her off, but "some FBI guys said" is enough to make you suspicious of Comey?

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Which standard of proof are you using now?  A WSJ investigation isn't enough to get you to believe Trump banged a porn star and paid her off, but "some FBI guys said" is enough to make you suspicious of Comey?

 

 

This good enough for you ? Probably not but ask me if I care.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

This good enough for you ? Probably not but ask me if I care.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html

So you believe "fake news" CNN, but not the Wall Street Journal?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Quote

A person familiar with the matter pushed back on the notion that Comey had already reached a conclusion that affected the investigation.

The person said back in spring 2016, agents and Justice Department officials were talking about how the investigation would end and there was a belief that the evidence was going in a direction to not support bringing charges. This individual said by April 2016 the FBI had reviewed most of the evidence and didn't find evidence suggesting that Clinton had violated federal law. The person said the FBI wanted to interview her but didn't believe it was going to change the outcome.

The source also said Comey was not involved in the day-to-day steps of the investigation, so even if he reached a conclusion it wouldn't have affected the result of the investigation.

A second person familiar with the matter told CNN that Comey had not already made up his mind, and that it did not influence the investigation. The second source says the FBI had already reviewed much of the evidence by spring and it was becoming more clear that it was not likely to support bringing charges.

That's from your link. 

Again, I'm amazed at how little it takes to get you to believe things that back people and narratives you like, and how much it requires for you to believe something that doesn't.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

So you believe "fake news" CNN, but not the Wall Street Journal?

Well, it depends...

[Auburn4life 24]

The FBI declined in a response to a list of questions, including about whether messages were deleted and if / how many officials had problems with their same FBI-issued phones. 

So when asked if other FBI agents phones had the same problems, they declined to answer

More so, they can't answer if the messages were deleted from the phones themselves or investigate the phones to see if any messages can be recovered directly from the phones. 

I would like to know if it was normal between two FBI agents to have 50,000 text between each other in a 5 month period.

There is definitely a bias here. One text said, I hope the Trump hotel fails. Another, F^%& Trump.  Also evidently things about his kids. Lets not forget this is Law Enforcement that is supposed to remain unbiased. They also texted about damage they had done with the Clinton investigation and how they could "fix" it and make it right. 

Once more, Strzok has no interest in participating in an investigation that might clear Donald Trump. His only interest is if something is there so he can fix what he did with the Hillary email investigation. As law enforcement he should equally want to clear the innocent as to catching the guilty. 

Not saying this is true, but looks like a cover up. Sure is convenient that those messages between those 5 months are missing. Looks like the bias of a few in the FBI outweighed their impartiality. IMO, it appears this way. 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 minutes ago, Auburn4life said:

The FBI declined in a response to a list of questions, including about whether messages were deleted and if / how many officials had problems with their same FBI-issued phones. 

So when asked if other FBI agents phones had the same problems, they declined to answer

More so, they can't answer if the messages were deleted from the phones themselves or investigate the phones to see if any messages can be recovered directly from the phones. 

I would like to know if it was normal between two FBI agents to have 50,000 text between each other in a 5 month period.

There is definitely a bias here. One text said, I hope the Trump hotel fails. Another, F^%& Trump.  Also evidently things about his kids. Lets not forget this is Law Enforcement that is supposed to remain unbiased. They also texted about damage they had done with the Clinton investigation and how they could "fix" it and make it right. 

Once more, Strzok has no interest in participating in an investigation that might clear Donald Trump. His only interest is if something is there so he can fix what he did with the Hillary email investigation. As law enforcement he should equally want to clear the innocent as to catching the guilty. 

Not saying this is true, but looks like a cover up. Sure is convenient that those messages between those 5 months are missing. Looks like the bias of a few in the FBI outweighed their impartiality. IMO, it appears this way. 

 

Thanks. Right in sync with my OP plus more.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

30 minutes ago, Auburn4life said:

The FBI declined in a response to a list of questions, including about whether messages were deleted and if / how many officials had problems with their same FBI-issued phones. 

So when asked if other FBI agents phones had the same problems, they declined to answer

I agree, this question needs to be answered.

 

Quote

More so, they can't answer if the messages were deleted from the phones themselves or investigate the phones to see if any messages can be recovered directly from the phones. 

The story said that the back end server that saves all the texts didn't work on some of the phones because they had been misconfigured.

 

Quote

I would like to know if it was normal between two FBI agents to have 50,000 text between each other in a 5 month period.

That seems like a lot of damn texts.  But I'd be interested to know how that number is calculated.  For instance, does it count group texts that the two of them happened to be a part of with multiple members?  If so, if say there are 5 people in a text group, does each text sent to the group get counted just once (from the sender) or are they counting all the messages hitting the other four phones?

 

Quote

There is definitely a bias here. One text said, I hope the Trump hotel fails. Another, F^%& Trump.  Also evidently things about his kids. Lets not forget this is Law Enforcement that is supposed to remain unbiased. They also texted about damage they had done with the Clinton investigation and how they could "fix" it and make it right. 

If you think you're ever going to find a lack of political bias or feelings about certain candidates in any area of law enforcement or government, you're crazy. 

The people in these things ALL have biases because they are human.  They have opinions.  They have opinions about candidates and leaders who hold views different from theirs.  That is normal.  What matters is, can you do your job despite any feelings in favor of or opposed to a certain person?

 

Quote

Once more, Strzok has no interest in participating in an investigation that might clear Donald Trump. His only interest is if something is there so he can fix what he did with the Hillary email investigation. As law enforcement he should equally want to clear the innocent as to catching the guilty. 

Not saying this is true, but looks like a cover up. Sure is convenient that those messages between those 5 months are missing. Looks like the bias of a few in the FBI outweighed their impartiality. IMO, it appears this way.

This may well be true of Strzok and his friend.  What it doesn't do is implicate Comey in any manner.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No one with any sense questions it.  Only those hellbent on defending Trump do.

So Democrats wanting Comey to resign in late 2016 was just a dream? It wasn't reality?

 

Quote

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California

"Maybe he's not in the right job," she said to CNN on Nov. 2. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."

Pelosi continued that Comey's letter to Congress about the review of Clinton's emails was a "mistake."

Former Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada

In October, Reid suggested Comey's actions "demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information" and may have violated "the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election,"in a letter to the director.

Reid wrote that he has "been a supporter" of Comey's and "led the fight" to get him confirmed, as he believed Comey was a "principled public servant."

"With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong," Reid added.

read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cry-foul-comey-firing-previously-calling-resign/story?id=47352885

 

The only reason Comey survived after the election was because he opened an investigation into the Russian interference into the 2016 election and also investigated any Russian links to the Trump campaign. That's literally the only reason Comey was safe. Democrats supported the investigation so Comey got enough support to stick around. Before the Russia investigation however; Democrats were pretty united that Comey needed to step down.

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree, this question needs to be answered.

 

The story said that the back end server that saves all the texts didn't work on some of the phones because they had been misconfigured.

 

That seems like a lot of damn texts.  But I'd be interested to know how that number is calculated.  For instance, does it count group texts that the two of them happened to be a part of with multiple members?  If so, if say there are 5 people in a text group, does each text sent to the group get counted just once (from the sender) or are they counting all the messages hitting the other four phones?

 

If you think you're ever going to find a lack of political bias or feelings about certain candidates in any area of law enforcement or government, you're crazy. 

The people in these things ALL have biases because they are human.  They have opinions.  They have opinions about candidates and leaders who hold views different from theirs.  That is normal.  What matters is, can you do your job despite any feelings in favor of or opposed to a certain person?

 

This may well be true of Strzok and his friend.  What it doesn't do is implicate Comey in any manner.

That one raised my eyebrow. 330 + a day. Much like the ridiculous number of women Wilt Chamberlain claimed to have bedded over X number of years.

Is this not special investigation worthy by Jeff. Who knows what is going on?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

More on the "Secret Society"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/23/senators-want-doj-to-explain-delay-in-revealing-that-strzok-page-texts-were-missing-as-secret-society-details-emerge.html

[homersapien 11,452]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I could be wrong, but the Fox coverage on this seems a bit sensational...like they are pumping it up to look worse than it actually is.

Naaaaah.....    

[homersapien 11,452]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

I absolutely am NOT certain. I can understand Comey providing a recommendation to prosecutors, but not providing a recommendation to the American public. Can you recall an FBI director giving a live interview with a similar recommendation? CERTAINLY the DOJ could have disagreed, but how likely was it that Loretta Lynch would disagree with Comey's public recommendation to stay away from their parties only hope for the presidency?

It would have been public regardless of how he announced it.  It would be the first question asked of either Comey or Lynch.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

More on this topic FWIW.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/24/michael-goodwin-evidence-suggests-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-fbi.html

“Evidence.”

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Evidence.”

It is an opinion piece (not mine) and I said FWIW. I hope it is all false. The last thing I want to see is the FBI tarnished any more than a few high level folks already have

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/24/michael-goodwin-evidence-suggests-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-fbi.html