February 7th, 2018

Recent revelations from the Strzok/Page archives

The Strzok/Page texts are the gift that keeps on giving:

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”…

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

It sure does. Especially since Obama has vociferously denied knowing anything about the details:

In the fall of 2016, Mr. Obama’s spokesmen at the White House were stating repeatedly that the president didn’t know details of the probe, and didn’t want to know.

“The White House is going to be scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of political interference in prosecutorial or investigative decisions,” said then-press secretary Josh Earnest on Oct. 31, 2016.

Two days earlier, Obama deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters that the White House had been caught by surprise when Mr. Comey announced that the FBI had uncovered more Clinton emails.

“We saw it in the media. That was the first we learned of it,” Mr. Schultz said.

Mr. Schultz, who is still serving as a spokesman for Mr. Obama, had no immediate comment on the disclosure about the FBI agents.

Of course not. It’s not necessary, because only the right seems to care.

In addition, the lovers’ texts reveal that the FBI got the Weiner laptop emails (containing some from Clinton that may have been classified) in late September of 2016. And yet when Comey told Congress about this a full month later, he said he’d been briefed on it the day before.

Did this mean that the information about the Weiner laptop emails from Hillary was withheld from Comey till then? Or does this mean he was lying when he indicated he’d just learned about the matter the day before? Or was his statement to Congress on that purposely misleading although technically correct? Here’s what he told Congress:

In connection with an unrelated case [the Weiner case], the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday…

Note that he doesn’t say “I was briefed on this for the very first time yesterday,” or “I just learned yesterday of the existence of…”. He merely said he was briefed on it yesterday. It might have been the 20th time he was briefed, right? Lawyers tend to be very careful about how they talk.

Whichever it was, it’s not good. But as far as I can tell from a quick look it’s almost solely on the right that’s it’s been reported so far, except for a brief mention from the WaPo. The WaPo coverage is actually a rather interesting example of how to bury a story. The title of the article is “FBI texts reveal admiring view of then-director James Comey.” Sounds like a big ho-hum, as well as being favorable to Comey, right? The article is long; about 1000 words, and it’s basically about how much Strzok and Page admired Comey. The part that mentions the timing of when the FBI learned about the Weiner laptap emails from Clinton occurs around 800 words into it, long after the point when most people would probably have stopped reading it. Not only that, but this is how it’s presented:

The texts also make clear that FBI leadership knew weeks before Comey alerted Congress that a trove of emails relevant to the Clinton investigation had been found on a laptop belonging to former Rep. Anthony Weiner. It remains unclear why the FBI waited a month before revealing the discovery of new emails and before obtaining a warrant to scour them. On Sept. 28, 2016, one month before the news became public, Strzok told Page that he’d been summoned to the deputy director’s office because “hundreds of thousands of emails” had been turned over by Weiner’s attorney to prosecutors as part of a sexting investigation, with a “ton of material” believed to be from Weiner’s wife.

“This,” Strzok wrote, “will never end.”

A person could read that and not think there was any problem there other than some sort of minor delay. Notice that there’s no mention of Comey’s statement to Congress that he’d been briefed on it the day before, which was a month after the FBI got the emails.

Now, maybe I’m missing something. But when I Googled “fbi learned of new emails on weiner laptop back in sept 28” I got plenty of right-wing sites with the story, but virtually none in the MSM or on the left (unless you consider the Wall Street Journal to be the MSM) except the WaPo article I just discussed. So there’s two stories: the facts of the story itself (the content, if you will) and the coverage/noncoverage of the story (the process angle).

If a story falls in the forest and the MSM steps over it and moves on, does anybody hear?

[NOTE: And this on Sidney Blumenthal has nothing to do with Strzok/Page, but it’s of interest and I thought I’d put it in this post, too. Blumnethal may just be the Zelig of the left—although he’s less an observer and more actor.]

[ADDENDUM 2/8: Of the two text stories that appeared in Fox, the first one—about Obama wanting to be briefed on the FBI investigation—may have referred to the investigation of Russian interference in the election rather than the Clinton email investigation. This WSJ article says that the information that the reference was to the Russia story came from “associates of the FBI employees involved in the exchange.” Make of that what you will. We don’t know whether this is true or who the “FBI employees” are (they seem to be colleagues of Page and Strzok), but on the whole I’m inclined to believe that Obama was briefed on the Russia case rather than the Clinton email case. Because the Russia investigation was a counterintelligence operation, it would have been proper for Obama to have been briefed on it, unlike the email case.

The original Fox story said, “this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.” Perhaps those questions have been answered. The timeline (the email investigation had been temporarily closed at the time) also suggest that those “associates of the FBI employees involved in the exchange” are telling the truth.

The other parts of the story seem quite solid.]

55 Responses to “Recent revelations from the Strzok/Page archives”

  1. s1c Says:

    Just remember – Obama had a scandal free eight years as POTUS!

  2. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    This reminds me of the much less consequential incident when the MSM refused to cover John Edward’s affair with Rielle Hunter while his wife was being treated for cancer, until the National Enquirer forced the issue. And not immediately after that, either – it took a while for the whole charade to collapse and for the MSM to reluctantly take notice. Could we maybe get the National Enquirer interested in these texts?

  3. Barry Meislin Says:

    Absolutely nothing about any of this (or FISA) in the NYT International Edition today (Wednesday, Feb. 7).

    (How very curious!)

    They do mention FISA in the NYT on-line version, though.

    They seem to prefer to publish the toxic fantasies of Lawrence Wilkerson (but then, I guess Mohammad Javad Zarif wasn’t available).
    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/254927/times-op-ed-accuses-jewish-billionaires-of-agitating-for-war-against-iran

  4. Manju Says:

    So the FBI discovers the emails in Sept. Their options:

    1. Do not disclose to congress because:
    a. Department policy is to not disclose such investigations.
    b. Department policy to not comment on investigations close to an investigation.

    2. Disclose to Congress in September.

    3. Disclose to Congress in October.

    1 is most favorable to Clinton, but is normal and is the treatment Trump received. 2 hurts Clinton but is better than 3, which is literally an October Surprise.

    So the FBI chooses the worst possible option for Clinton, in part because Comey felt that there were anti-Clinton agents in the department who would leak the info to the press (or Rudy Guilliani, I might add).

    Doesn’t this demonstrate a scandal in the opposite direction?

  5. Manju Says:

    1b should be “b. Department policy to not comment on investigations close to an election” not investigation.

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Manju:

    You seem to be missing the part of the story that most interests me, which is Comey’s statement that seemed to say he had just found out. And now we learn this was a month after the FBI found out.

    But in response to your points (I’m doing this quickly so there are no links, but this is the situation that I recall): Comey had to disclose it to Congress because he had already told Congress about the earlier investigation of Hillary’s emails and was required to update them in a timely fashion of any new development. That’s the difference. What’s more, there are some reports (I don’t know if they’re true and don’t have time to check it out right now) that the FBI wasn’t going to announce it to Congress at all except that the District Court was going to disclose them very soon, and so Comey had to disclose it when he did in order to finesse the court’s announcement.

  7. sdferr Says:

    Per Manju: “investigation”! Ha.

    Per AG Lynch and Director Comey: not investigation, certainly, but “matter”!

    That is to say: matter which doesn’t matter.

  8. parker Says:

    This conspiracy was all about protecting hrc in order to protect bho and elect the shrew queen to advance the ‘progressive’ agenda to ” fundamentally transform” America, the torch bearer of Western Civilization. .

  9. BrianE Says:

    I had read the emails were discovered during the NYPD investigation of Weiner and the FBI disclosed them only because the local authorities threatened to release them first.

  10. MatthewM Says:

    “If a story falls in the forest and the MSM steps over it and moves on, does anybody hear? ”
    If only there was some guy who could shout from the rooftops via twitter and not be ignored by the MSM.

  11. Chris Says:

    These texts are about Russian hacking of the election, NOT the Clinton email investigation:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texts-from-2016-show-fbi-employees-preparing-obama-briefing-on-russia-1518036629

    Supposition that this is actually about Anthony Weiner’s laptop is totally unsupported.

  12. BrianE Says:

    “I had read the emails were discovered during the NYPD investigation of Weiner and the FBI disclosed them only because the local authorities threatened to release them first.”

    …And upon inspection, I was completely wrong. It was FBI agents that leaked to the press that it was Weiner’s laptop that contained the emails.

  13. Barry Meislin Says:

    Well this settles it:
    https://pjmedia.com/video/scrupulous-obama-2016-claimed-not-talk-fbi-directors-pending-investigations/

    We can all shut up and go home now.

  14. Cornhead Says:

    There is a theory floating about that the FBI intentionally put Carter Page into the Trump campaign as a mole and in order to get dirt on Trump.

  15. kevino Says:

    RE: “Note that he doesn’t say “I was briefed on this for the very first time yesterday,” or “I just learned yesterday of the existence of…”. He merely said he was briefed on it yesterday. It might have been the 20th time he was briefed, right?”
    You are correct, but if Congress had any guts, they’d recall Comey and ask about that. Let the American people see what sniveling little weasel he is.

    And the next set of questions will start: “What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?”

  16. Barry Meislin Says:

    Andrew McCarthy’s suggestion is related, and damning:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456185/nunes-memo-rod-rosenstein-can-clean-mess

    But I don’t think there’s a hope in hell that it will be considered, since the horns are locked in this battle to destroy the sitting President.

  17. John Guilfoyle Says:

    Is “manju” the sanskrit word for “pretzel”?
    Because xhe’s twisted xheself around pretty hard to defend 0 & the woman-who-will-NEVER-be-president.

    The parallel point to Neo’s response, that Comey was “required to update them (Congress) in a timely fashion of any new development,” is that he had been drafting early “we’re not going to prosecute” speeches before the investigation had even talked to all the players. All of this quacks like a “conspiracy to exonerate” the-woman-who-will-NEVER-be-president duck & the little twin “get Trump” duck.

    This is now getting close to the meat of the sandwich: the woman-who-will-NEVER-be-president broke any number of laws & 0 was complicit & actively skirting the law & its enforcement. Still no hard blowback on them yet…maybe it’ll come.

  18. OlderandWheezier Says:

    We understand, Chris, that in your haste to be a good little foot soldier, you’re attempting to characterize this as something that somehow exonerates Obama, the FBI, Clinton, etc.

    But what part of “In addition…” do you not comprehend?

    Maybe you should read this part more slowly – the FBI got the Weiner laptop emails (containing some from Clinton that may have been classified) in late September of 2016.

    Which means they apparently sat on it, deliberated whether or not they should even report it, and eventually decided to release the news about 10 days before the election (oh, and made doubly sure to announce before November 8 that they’d found nothing new). Since by then, of course, the anointed one’s lead was seemingly insurmountable.

  19. Steve57 Says:

    How is this not obstruction on Obama’s part? On the one hand he was making very public declarations with absolute certitude that Clinton was innocent, that she might have been careless but Hillary would never intentionally harm national security, blah blah blah.

    Essentially telling the FBI along with the rest of the world exactly the result he expected.

    Then he demanded regular updates so he would know everything they were doing.

    Like good lap dogs the FBI actually salted Comey’s remarks with Obama’s talking points. Extremely Careless rather than grossly negligent, and Comey rewrote the statute to include intent while as written it doesn’t require intent.

    JFK used the IRS in the exact same way. He’d make public speeches, or answer questions at pressers, essentially giving the IRS their marching orders. As a result they set up what they called the Ideological Operations Audit Group to target Kennedy’s right-wing opponents.

    But we don’t have any record of Kennedy demanding updates on everything the IRS was doing. Which on its own would be intimidating to any agent (that would be any agent with two brain cells to rub together) who knew they were investigating the President’s chosen successor.

  20. Chris Says:

    Older, the email investigation was closed in July 2016.

    The text messages Neo references – and quotes a Fox news article as raising questions re: Obama’s involvement in the email investigation – came out on September 2nd, 2016.

    The laptop was found – according to the same article – on September 28th 2016.

    There was no email investigation open when those texts were sent, so it’s very unlikely they were referring to the email investigation. QED. It seems far likelier this was about the open and active investigation into Russian interference in the election.

    The argument you’re trying to have about how long it should have taken for the laptop discovery to be announced is a separate conversation I’m not addressing in these posts.

  21. Kyndyll G Says:

    I suspect that there’s something here that’s getting dangerously close to secrets that the hard left needs to keep secret. The troll army has been out in force everywhere in the last few days, even in places where you hardly see drive-by trolls.

  22. Manju Says:

    You seem to be missing the part of the story that most interests me, which is Comey’s statement that seemed to say he had just found out.

    Well, I think you answered this yourself. He said his team briefed him “yesterday”; not that he found out yesterday.

    Even if one thinks this deceptive, it would more logically be evidence of anti-Clinton bias…since the delay produces an October Surprise against her campaign, as a opposed to less effective September one

    Comey had to disclose it to Congress because he had already told Congress about the earlier investigation of Hillary’s emails and was required to update them in a timely fashion of any new development. That’s the difference.

    A more accurate sentence would be; “Comey argued that he had to disclose it to Congress because…” DOJ aground that he follow the regular procedure.

    I’m not saying Comey’s argument is wrong. Rather, even if you accept it, you just revealed another way that Trump was treated more fairly than Clinton: the original promise to publicly update them, though I’m just assuming this had to be public.

  23. Steve57 Says:

    Manju, you need to ask for a refund from Jedi Mind Trick School.

  24. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    parker,

    In order to “fundamentally transform America” it must first be torched and then burned down to the ground… that has always been the final phase in their planned transformation. Being irredeemable, ALL the deplorables must be exterminated.

    Steve57,

    Didn’t you get “the memo”? To even suggest that the first black President could be complicit in criminality is to reveal one’s racist motivations. No more “sacred ox” exists on the Left than that meme.

  25. Barry Meislin Says:

    Occam’s razor says:

    “Comey tried to sit on it until he couldn’t any longer.”

    (IOW, all Comey had to do was hold on until the first Tuesday of November 2016.)

    Poor Comey, alas and alack…. Poor fellow.

    (Does this mean that in addition to the thanks we owe Bernie Sanders, that we must also show the utmost gratitude to Huma Abedin and—most of all—Anthony Wiener? Yuck and double yuck; but it appears that this may well be the case….)

  26. John Guilfoyle Says:

    Ok Steve57…you owe me a new keyboard…just laughed coffee right out my nose…but that was funny.

  27. neo-neocon Says:

    Barry Meislin and all:

    By the way, in one of the many ironies connected with the entire story, recall that it was Comey’s revealing the re-opening of the Hillary email investigation that triggered the post-Trump-election call by Democrats to launch an investigation into whether Comey’s pre-election announcement unduly influenced said election against Hillary.

    And that, in turn, was the investigation that led to the uncovering of the Strzok/Page emails.

    You cannot make this stuff up.

  28. om Says:

    Neo:

    Hoisted their own petard or the Wlle B Coyote crew.

    After all the years of Republicans being or acting the “stupid party” it is a welcome change for the democrats to be revealed for what they and the press are.

    Too bad that the stakes are so high; comments by former high up civil “servants” warnng (threating?) Trump not to mess with the “intelligence” agencies. Who do they think they work for? I guess they have told us, it’s not us.

  29. F Says:

    Neo:

    Yes, it was the re-opening of the Hillary email investigation that lead to the Dems calling post-election for an investigation of whether or not that announcement influenced the election. But I don’t think it matters: I believe many Democrats were in such disbelief about Hillary’s loss that they were going to find something to investigate Trump for. And in fact, Democratic efforts to nullify the election were not limited solely to investigating Comey’s re-opening of the email investigation.

    In fact the Dems tried all manner of things to nullify the election: Getting Jill Stein to call for a recount in a critical state, turning electors, leaks from the Executive Branch, going after General Flynn — the range of efforts to overturn the election was extensive and continues right until today. Even if Comey had never re-opened the email investigation, and assuming Trump still won, we would still be going through some sort of opposition effort. It’s who they are, it’s how they work.

    This election was over a year and a half ago and there is a large number of political operatives who still remain committed to fighting the results. I think this might be a unique experience in America’s political history, and I am troubled and saddened by it.

  30. Paul in Boston Says:

    Where’s Mueller in all this? Didn’t he find out about Strozk and Co. and summarily remove them from his crew without making it public? Why isn’t his entire operation tainted by their presence?

  31. AesopFan Says:

    Manju Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 6:59 pm

    Even if one thinks this deceptive, it would more logically be evidence of anti-Clinton bias…since the delay produces an October Surprise against her campaign, as a opposed to less effective September one
    * * *
    To argue that Comey had an anti-Clinton bias, in the face of all the evidence to date, is laughable.
    However, no one has ever SFAIK given a confirmed explanation of why the FBI aka Comey did not sit on the Weiner laptop (heh) until after the election.

    Some have speculated that other LEOs, and lower-caste agents at the FBI, knowing about the trove, would eventually leak that Comey was hoarding the emails, and he decided that he couldn’t hold out until after the election.
    There have not been a lot of pro-Trump leakers anywhere that I remember, so that’s probably a long shot.

    Others have speculated that he was concerned about the back-lash to his exoneration speech, believed the polls, concluded that the risk to Hillary was minimal, and decided to put himself forward as the “impartial hand of justice” because it wouldn’t make any difference.

    That would fit the timeline thusly: discover the unfortunate circumstance in September; learn enough about the contents to decide they aren’t going to devastate Clinton’s position* (the Democrats had already bought into the “no indictment = not guilty) ploy; watch which way the winds are blowing for a month to see if Trump is getting ahead (in which case, suppress at all costs); decide that waiting too long would lose him virtue points, and leave no margin for spin control if something unexpected happened; get plaudits for being “fair and impartial” then announce “sorry nothing to see here” and therefore no harm, no foul.

    I think he underestimated the degree to which the Dems would jump on him for even suggesting that there might be more problems for Hill, rather than discerning his clever strategy.
    Vitae notwithstanding, he is cleverly conniving, but not really very people-smart.

    It makes a good TV spook show plot.

    *I have no clue at this point if he knew that Weiner’s drive contained classified material (it did), but he announced that “nothing incriminating” had been found (lie or wishful thinking, take your pick).

  32. AesopFan Says:

    Chris Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 6:40 pm
    Older, the email investigation was closed in July 2016.
    * * *
    The FBI claimed to close the investigation, which had never been pursued in anything close to normal procedures, but they knew the matter was not over with in the view of the right, and fair-minded independents.

    Obama could well have wanted to know if any new developments were going to torpedo the elaborate subterfuge that was in play.
    And something did, of course, although from an unexpected quarter.

    BTW, can anybody explain to me why, if Huma knew her emails were going to Weiner’s laptop, she had not already accidentally lost it in a lake before the LEOs got hold of it?
    Is she really that stupid or complacent? Or clueless?

  33. Francesca Says:

    This whole thing is depressing, disheartening, and very, very sad.
    If I were a drinking woman . . .

  34. Griffin Says:

    I agree with Francesca. I’m so tired of all this stuff.

  35. AesopFan Says:

    BrianE Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 5:00 pm
    “I had read the emails were discovered during the NYPD investigation of Weiner and the FBI disclosed them only because the local authorities threatened to release them first.”

    …And upon inspection, I was completely wrong. It was FBI agents that leaked to the press that it was Weiner’s laptop that contained the emails.
    * * *
    First-run of the Google, we are both half-right, half-wrong. Assuming none of this is fake news, of course.

    Before Comey’s announcement, disgruntled agents leaked news of the find, per Giuliani via Huffpo. Look at the bolded sentence especially, to add to some other points made up-thread today. Also note that SFAIK Giuliani and Trump did NOT proclaim the news to the media prior to the announcement (just hints; looks like there wasn’t any interest in doing some investigative journalism).

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-fbi-clinton-emails_us_581c9e3fe4b0e80b02c93d6b

    11/04/2016 11:49 am ET Updated Nov 04, 2016

    “Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails tied to Hillary Clinton before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The former New York City mayor and Trump surrogate has recently dropped a series of hints that he knew in advance that the FBI planned to look at emails potentially connected to Clinton’s private server.

    “I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”

    Giuliani also said he expected Comey’s announcement to come weeks before it did.

    “I had expected this for the last, honestly, to tell you the truth, I thought it was going to be about three or four weeks ago, because way back in July this started, they kept getting stymied looking for subpoenas, looking for records,” he said.

    FBI officials knew about the newly discovered emails weeks before Comey’s announcement, according to multiple reports.”
    * * *
    So the FBI was still working the email case as if it were open after July, but didn’t find anything until the Weiner case dropped into their laps in September.

    However, the information that the emails were on Weiner’s laptop came after the announcement, per The New Yorker. I wonder who the “government sources” were this time?

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comeys-letter-and-the-problem-of-leaks

    By Jeffrey Toobin October 29, 2016

    “These questions, in a way, miss the point. The issue is not the propriety of Comey’s letter. The issue is the propriety of Comey’s letter and the leaks that followed it. It is worth noting, at the outset, that Comey’s letter said only, “I­n connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Within moments of the release of Comey’s letter, though, government sources leaked that the “unrelated case” was that of Anthony Weiner, who is being investigated for sexually explicit correspondence with an underage girl. Weiner, of course, is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton, and the leaks suggested that the new evidence consisted of e-mails found on computers that Weiner and Abedin may have shared.”

    * * *
    And yes, some of the emails were classified at the time.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/29/huma-abedin-emails-state-department-anthony-weiner-319635

    By BRENT D. GRIFFITHS 12/29/2017 08:36 PM EST

    “Five of the messages from Abedin were marked classified, like numerous other emails that were sent or received by Clinton or her aides then deemed classified by the State Department in the process of preparing them for public release in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. Friday’s batch of emails is connected to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that is seeking access to work messages Abedin sent from a personal email account.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/29/state-releases-huma-abedins-work-docs-found-anthony-weiners-computer/990912001/

    “The State Department released about 2,800 emails, only a few of which included classified information, as part of a successful lawsuit by conservative legal group Judicial Watch.

    Also in that hearing, Comey testified that Abedin forwarded “hundreds of thousands” of messages involving Clinton — some of which contained classified information — to her husband so he could print them out. [how is this not enough to put both of them in jail?!?]

    However, just days later, the FBI sent a letter to the Senate panel explaining that Comey’s assessment was inaccurate.

    Only 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation were found on Weiner’s laptop, the FBI said then. A majority of them ended up on Weiner’s computer because of backups from Abedin’s personal electronic devices — and Abedin forwarded only a “small number” of the emails, the FBI said.

    Of those forwarded to Weiner, only two email chains contained classified information, the FBI said. Ten other email chains that had classified information were on the laptop because of backups, the FBI said. What’s more, all 12 email chains had been previously reviewed by investigators.

    President Trump fired Comey on May 9, the same day the correction letter was sent to the Hill.”

    * * *
    Make of that last bolded section what you will; I’m sure I can twist plot-points enough to make it fit, but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of FBI directors?.

  36. AesopFan Says:

    Chris Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 4:53 pm
    These texts are about Russian hacking of the election, NOT the Clinton email investigation:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/texts-from-2016-show-fbi-employees-preparing-obama-briefing-on-russia-1518036629

    Supposition that this is actually about Anthony Weiner’s laptop is totally unsupported.
    * * *
    Chris, Chris, Chris: Do you really think this crew is going to accept the WSJ’s interpretation without dispute?
    Or any other media site’s for that matter – left OR right.
    Maybe there is some evidence for the conclusion, but I’m not paying WSJ to get past their wall.

  37. AesopFan Says:

    MatthewM Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 4:43 pm
    “If a story falls in the forest and the MSM steps over it and moves on, does anybody hear? ”
    If only there was some guy who could shout from the rooftops via twitter and not be ignored by the MSM.
    * * *
    Indeed.
    On the other hand, one can’t guarantee what this hypothetical shouter would actually say, only that the MSM would react negatively to it.

  38. AesopFan Says:

    Mrs Whatsit Says:
    February 7th, 2018 at 3:38 pm
    …Could we maybe get the National Enquirer interested in these texts?
    * * *
    https://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/barack-obama-fbi-hillary-clinton-investigation/

    LEAKED TEXTS!
    Hillary’s Secret FBI Operatives: Obama ‘Wants To Know Everything’
    Ex-Prez implicated after ‘guaranteeing’ he didn’t interfere in investigation!

    By National ENQUIRER Staff
    Feb 7, 2018 @ 8:28AM

    https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/hillary-clinton-fbi-investigations-scandals/

    FIX WAS IN!
    Hillary Clinton’s FBI Spies — Secret Texts Expose Rigged Investigation
    Leaked docs raise new questions about Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch and James Comey!

    By National ENQUIRER Staff
    Jan 22, 2018 @ 15:58PM

    https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/donald-trump-fbi-investigation-conspiracy/

    BOMBSHELL REPORT!
    The FBI’s Plot To Impeach Donald Trump
    Proof that rogue agents are out to destroy the Presidency!

    By National ENQUIRER Staff
    Dec 27, 2017 @ 11:32AM

    * * *

  39. The Other Chuck Says:

    I agree with Francesca and Griffin. I’m past being tired of this and into disgust. The spook agencies of NSA, CIA, and to some extent the FBI seem to be in cahoots with each other and have become politicized.

    What’s been exposed of the FISA court system is so troubling that it would be better to abolish it. Secret courts have no place in a democratic system. This is all becoming reminiscent of a Kafka novel and is very disturbing.

  40. John Guilfoyle Says:

    Ok…now that Mrs Whatsit prophesied the National Enquirer chasing the Clinton/FBI/Obama FIX…H/T Aesop…Can she please shoot me some lotto numbers? Up to $21 million here on Saturday…Daddy needs a win!

  41. Chris Says:

    AesopFan-

    “Chris, Chris, Chris: Do you really think this crew is going to accept the WSJ’s interpretation without dispute?”

    Thanks for the clarification – as you say, the commenters here won’t accept any info that contradicts the narrative of a malignant president and DOJ, even if it does come from a major, right-leaning newspaper.

    This is an excellent stopping point for me. Cheers!

  42. FOAF Says:

    Which “malignant president” are you talking about, Chris? The one who repeatedly had private meetings at the White House with the murderous antisemitic hatemonger Al Sharpton? And who was recently seen in a smiling photo with Louis Farrakhan?

  43. Barry Meislin Says:

    “I’m so tired….”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwEcRqHJnA

    But the Democrats certainly aren’t.

    They’re gearing up, circling the wagons, lashing out. (Nothing new there, of course….)

    They can’t believe any of this; ergo it’s not true. Can’t possibly be true.

    Nope, it’s a conspiracy of the deplorables. (Besides, Hillary shoulda won anyway; so what right do the deplorables have to complain?…)

    Yep, it’s “Tora, Tora, Tora”—with everything that that implies—for the “loyal (heh) opposition”.

    And the country can go to hell….

  44. AesopFan Says:

    Chris Says:
    February 8th, 2018 at 2:54 am
    AesopFan-

    “Chris, Chris, Chris: Do you really think this crew is going to accept the WSJ’s interpretation without dispute?”

    Thanks for the clarification – as you say, the commenters here won’t accept any info that contradicts the narrative of a malignant president and DOJ, even if it does come from a major, right-leaning newspaper.

    This is an excellent stopping point for me. Cheers!
    * * *
    As with Newman v. Peterson, so with Chris v. anyone.

    You missed the “without dispute” qualifier.
    I’ll accept any source with unimpeachable evidence, but not spun-off speculations, left or right.

  45. AesopFan Says:

    The Other Chuck Says:
    February 8th, 2018 at 2:33 am
    This is all becoming reminiscent of a Kafka novel and is very disturbing.
    * * *
    From le Carre to Kafka is but a short step..

  46. AesopFan Says:

    I linked this article earlier in the week (copied from a PowerLine post), but there are some additional comments since then that are plausible plot-lines for Comey’s withholding of the Weiner emails for a month.
    I’m partial to them, since they agree with my own speculations above!

    https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-theory-of-carter-page-fisa-fraud.html

    mark wauck said…
    Tx, Tom. I think you hafta be right about people talking to the IG–and Congress. Knowledge of this stuff was bound to trickle out from the inner circle. That’s clear in the case of the Hillary email investigation MYE (Mid Year Exam), since there would have been multiple agents working on it, and not all among the Illuminati of the Bureau, so to speak. But even on the Carter Page/Steele cases, I think knowledge must’ve trickled out. People talk, people make educated guesses, etc.

    Speaking of guesses, my guess re the reopening–and it is a guess–runs along these lines. Because of the adverse publicity Comey decided that some public gesture had to be made to maintain the reputation of the Bureau–and, more importantly, his own reputation. He probably did this on the supposition that, even if this hurt her a bit, she still had the election in the bag at that point. Given what the FBI already knew about her, as President she was unlikely to exact petty revenge.

    February 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM
    Tom May said…
    Mark, I think you’re correct – but I think it went further than just maintaining Comey’s reputation. I think there was a mutiny underway with Agents threatening to go public – just before the election with bombshell info on the bias of the previous “investigation” and the fact that the FBI was sitting on Weiner’s laptop.

    I find it very strange that no explanation has come forward to why this happened when it did – except that Comey didn’t like Hillary, which clearly doesn’t make sense based on the prior whitewash. Why isn’t the mainstream media interested in this story? Hmm.

    February 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM
    mark wauck said…
    “I think it went further than just maintaining Comey’s reputation. I think there was a mutiny underway with Agents threatening to go public – just before the election with bombshell info on the bias of the previous “investigation” and the fact that the FBI was sitting on Weiner’s laptop.”

    Tx, Tom, I should’ve thought that through before responding. It seems clear that there are unhappy agents now who are willing to talk to IG/Congress, so there’s every reason to suppose that they were unhappy back then, too, and might’ve said so.

    February 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM

  47. Barry Meislin Says:

    “And that, in turn, was the investigation that led to the uncovering of the Strzok/Page emails.”

    Irony of ironies, indeed….

    Except that the loyal opposition doesn’t “do” irony; at least not in this case. (The stakes are too high and this uppity President must be destroyed—so who has time for irony?)

    And no, they don’t accept that “Strzok/Page” has anything to tell them.

    (It’s just GOP “obfuscation”, you see.)

    Crickets. Nothing to see here. Move on.

    This, the biggest government scandal since Watergate, with some believing it’s far worse.

  48. Manju Says:

    Well, this one fell apart faster than usual.

    I didn’t realize at first that this was the product of Sen Ron Johnson, the bozo who tried to tell us a week or so ago that an “informant” collaborated the existence of a “secret society” within the FBI.

    Sorry guys, but this ones going nowhere faster than Seth Rich and Uranium-One. My advice: if one your peeps on Team Red is caught pulling a Tawana Brawley, wait at least 2 years before giving them the benefit of the doubt.

  49. Lurch Says:

    Manju and his/her ilk can attempt to spin this ’till the cows come home but it’s in the legal system now. I wonder if Trump will pardon Obama? Or will he end up in Gitmo? Perhaps The President is keeping the place open for more than one reason.

  50. The Other Chuck Says:

    Manju:

    Senator Ron Johnson is no bozo. He is a small industrialist and businessman who beat the odds and with no political experience managed to get elected – twice – as a Republican in a blue state. He is my hero for one thing he’s accomplished. He is the man responsible for the 20% small business exclusion in the tax reform bill just enacted. He was willing to scuttle the law without it. There are countless small businesses that will use it to expand and hire.

  51. FOAF Says:

    “if one your peeps on Team Red is caught pulling a Tawana Brawley,”

    The person who actually pulled the real “Tawana Brawley” was repeatedly invited to Obama’s White House for private meetings. Nice to know that manju thinks a murderous antisemitic demagogue like Sharpton is a big joke.

  52. Lurch Says:

    Before our eyes, we see Manju morphing into Baghdad Bob. Incredible to me when Americans place loyalty to power above their own freedoms.

  53. Avi Says:

    Permission to borrow the term “ Zelig of the Left”

  54. blert Says:

    Chris, the WSJ has been repeated deemed to the LEFT of the NY Times in survey after survey.

    The WSJ hires from the exact same pool of J-school graduates — that’s why.

    Murdock’s politics are to the LEFT of the GOP.

    Starting with unlimited immigration.

  55. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Secret society? Have people figured out the DS yet… naw, Republicans weren’t supposed to do that on their own.

    This is all becoming reminiscent of a Kafka novel and is very disturbing.

    For spies, spymasters, intel analysts, and interrogators, all this stuff is pretty normal and expected.

    They just don’t talk about it, because the shadow world is a bit different than the MainSewerManipulation propaganda they put out.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge