Posted by DrJohn on 14 December, 2017 at 6:16 pm. 46 comments already!



This is a good time to take a good look at the texts sent by Peter Strzok, the actions of James Comey and how they dovetail with the official actions of the FBI.

Over at The Daily Caller Chuck Ross has integrated the dossier timeline with the texts, but here we will examine events from a slightly different perspective then we’ll circle back..

August 6, 2016:

In one exchange from August 2016, the FBI’s Lisa Page forwarded a Donald Trump-related article to Peter Strzok, writing: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.”

He responded: “Thanks. It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.’”

This seems clear. Strzok was going to protect the country from Trump.

August 15, 2016

But an Aug. 15, 2016 message has come under more serious scrutiny.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page.

Andy is believed to be Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

“It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok added.

The dossier was the insurance policy

Strzok was at least part of the editing of the Comey statement:

The FBI agent who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia — because he sent anti-Trump messages to a colleague — oversaw the bureau’s interviews with ousted National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Fox News confirmed on Monday.

Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, also was confirmed to have changed former FBI Director James Comey’s early draft language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her private email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

Strzok interviewed Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson and Hillary Clinton

The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server.

Yet somehow they escaped prosecution for lying to the FBI because Strzok wasn’t going to jeopardize Clinton’s campaign.

The FBI agreed to destroy evidence on behalf of Clinton aides:

See the letter Rep. Bob Goodlatte sent to Loretta Lynch here.

Cheryl Mills was also granted immunity by Lynch’s DOJ.

Now for a laugh

A top counterintelligence agent, Peter Strzok, exchanged the messages with Lisa Page, a senior F.B.I. lawyer. Some messages criticized Mrs. Clinton’s team, the Obama administration, Congress and other Democrats. But the two appeared appalled at some of Mr. Trump’s comments during the campaign and feared that he would politicize the F.B.I.

They were afraid that Trump would politicize the FBI? How’s that for irony?

Now for the cherries on top of the cake

obama helps Clinton hide the bodies:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struck a deal with the State Department while serving in the Obama administration that allowed her to take ownership of records she did not want made public, according to recently released reports.

Clinton and her then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials.”

Judicial Watch made the revelation after filing a FOIA request with the State Department and obtaining a record of the agreement.

The newly released documents show the deal allowed Clinton and Abedin to remove documents related to particular calls and schedules, and the records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.” Abedin, for instance, was allowed to remove electronic records and five boxes of physical files, including files labeled “Muslim Engagement Documents.”

How high does this go? This high: obama declares hillary innocent in April of 2016:

In his appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, President Obama told Americans not to worry, because “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. … Guaranteed. Full stop.”

But the reason the email affair of the Democrats’ presidential front-runner is so important is that it has already been proved that she handled classified information, after categorically denying doing so, through the private server she set up at her home in New York state. Unlike protected government communications, those emails could have been intercepted or later compromised by foreign governments like those of Russia or China, or by nongovernmental personnel tied to terrorists.

So when President Obama went on to double down on his claim last year that “I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” he was doing, as president, exactly what he was promising not to do — interfering.

In fact, he was declaring her innocent before she has been proven guilty or not guilty.

Here is a critical portion of the Trump/Clinton timeline from Chuck Ross:

Feb. 27, 2016 — Strzok interviews Jake Sullivan, a former Clinton State Department aide and adviser to her campaign.

March 2 — Asked by Page who he planned to vote for, Strzok replied: “I suppose Hillary.”

March 4 — Strzok writes to Page of Trump: “Omg he’s an idiot.” He says that a Trump victory in the GOP primaries will be “good for Hillary.”

“God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0,” Strzok writes.

April — The law firm for the Clinton campaign and DNC hires opposition research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. Fusion would go on to hire Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the infamous dossier.

April 5 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

April 9 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

May 16 — A draft of a statement that then-FBI Director James Comey was preparing to release at the conclusion of the Clinton email probe was circulated among top FBI officials, including Strzok. “Please send me any comments on this statement,” wrote FBI chief of staff James Rybicki.

Strzok has since been identified as the agent who suggested that Comey remove the legally-loaded term “grossly negligent” to describe Clinton’s email use and replace it with the term “extremely careless.”

May 24 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Heather Samuelson.

June 12 — Strzok writes: “They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate the absolute bigoted nonsense of Trump.”

June 17 — “Now we’re talking about Clinton, and how a lot of people are holding their breath, hoping,” he tells Page, appearing to reference a meeting that is not described.

June 20 — Steele writes the first of 17 memos that make up the dossier. He alleges that the Kremlin has recruited Donald Trump as an asset and that Russian operatives had been feeding the Trump campaign negative information about Clinton.

June 27 — Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets in secret with former President Bill Clinton. The meeting forces Lynch to step away from the Clinton probe.

July 2 — Strzok and Justice Department lawyer David Laufman interview Hillary Clinton.

July 5 — Comey announces that he would not refer charges against Clinton to federal prosecutors.

What makes this critical? This is the segment of time leading up to Comey’s exoneration of Clinton. Strzok’s overt political bias affected the course of events. His hatred of Trump led him to determine that Hillary Clinton would not face legal jeopardy and remain a viable candidate. He did so by changing the findings of the email investigation:

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.

In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.

Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.”

He added, “The edited statement deleted the reference to gross negligence – a legal threshold for mishandling classified material – and instead replaced it with an exculpatory sentence.”

The edits also showed that references to specific potential violations of statutes on “gross negligence” regarding classified information and “misdemeanor handling” were removed.

Catherine Herridge of Fox News says that the term “grossly negligent” was removed from the draft twice and that it was Strzok who did the editing. Further, the investigation had assessed that it was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s server as hacked.

The FBI is now in the midst of a crisis of confidence:

Sixty-three percent of polled voters believe that the FBI has been resisting providing information to Congress on the Clinton and Trump investigations. This is a remarkable finding for an agency whose new head said a few days ago that the agency was in fine shape. No, it isn’t.

Fifty-four percent say special counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest that prevent him from doing an unbiased job, also according to this month’s Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll. So, given this finding, the silence from the special counsel on the subject has become downright deafening.

These are significant findings about an operation that was supposed to bring more objectivity and less partisanship to the Trump-Russia investigation. Clearly these numbers indicate that there is a crisis in public confidence in both the FBI and Mueller. What makes these findings important is that, with Trump’s approval rating at 41 percent, these results include large numbers of voters who don’t like Trump yet who now agree that these investigations have veered off course.

To repeat- the FBI investigation concluded that HIllary Clinton had been grossly negligent and it was likely the highly classified material on her server had been accessed.

Peter Strzok changed those findings and James Comey went along with them. 

As previously stated, Strzok and Comey changed the findings to safeguard the viability of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. The dossier was the insurance policy in case Trump did win. This is a full blown conspiracy.

Had Clinton won, we would never have known any of this.

Trey Gowdy thinks Andrew McCabe will be gone from the FBI by next week. That might be just the beginning.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x