Flighty wrote:

I mean you're right, the FBI played a major part in getting Trump elected. That was inappropriate. And it's also inappropriate to communicate on your FBI device that you are plotting against a president or president-elect, unless it is part of an FBI investigation. Which frankly, it shouldn't be, because FBI is probably not the right organization to investigate a sitting president. FBI reports up the chain of command directly to him. A special prosecutor, or Congress, are the right organizations to investigate a president.

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I mean you're right, the FBI played a major part in getting Trump elected. That was inappropriate. And it's also inappropriate to communicate on your FBI device that you are plotting against a president or president-elect, unless it is part of an FBI investigation. Which frankly, it shouldn't be, because FBI is probably not the right organization to investigate a sitting president. FBI reports up the chain of command directly to him. A special prosecutor, or Congress, are the right organizations to investigate a president.

OK let me get this straight.

Strzok led a coup against Trump.

But the "FBI played a major part in getting Trump elected."

Alrighty. Totally coherent.

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I mean you're right, the FBI played a major part in getting Trump elected. That was inappropriate. And it's also inappropriate to communicate on your FBI device that you are plotting against a president or president-elect, unless it is part of an FBI investigation. Which frankly, it shouldn't be, because FBI is probably not the right organization to investigate a sitting president. FBI reports up the chain of command directly to him. A special prosecutor, or Congress, are the right organizations to investigate a president.

OK let me get this straight.

Strzok led a coup against Trump.

But the "FBI played a major part in getting Trump elected."

Alrighty. Totally coherent.

What was your question again? Do you consider our current situation coherent and realistic? I don't. But, here we are.

Ken777 wrote:

The FBI is worried about their image, yet they fired two very senior Executives instead of quietly telling them to file their retirement papers. That leaves the FBI with the stench of Trump all over it. No one looks to Trump for integrity, but we have looked to the FBI for it - and we have for generations. Disgraceful, like we expect from Trump, but not the FBI.

tommy1808 wrote:

No surprise that the current administration wants to get rid of counterintelligence specialists.

Peter Strzok and his fellow FBI travelers have a certain political orientation that's worth examining

Since no hint of evidence was found that political orientation played any role in how they went about their work, political orientation is irrelevant. FBI agents are entitled to have opinions in private too.

Best regards
Thomas

LittleSprocket wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

No surprise that the current administration wants to get rid of counterintelligence specialists.

Peter Strzok and his fellow FBI travelers have a certain political orientation that's worth examining

Since no hint of evidence was found that political orientation played any role in how they went about their work, political orientation is irrelevant. FBI agents are entitled to have opinions in private too.

Best regards
Thomas

No hint of evidence huh? You mean besides calling the target of their current investigation the President and vowing to do everything they can to get Trump removed...no hint of evidence whatsoever huh?

2122M wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

No surprise that the current administration wants to get rid of counterintelligence specialists.



Since no hint of evidence was found that political orientation played any role in how they went about their work, political orientation is irrelevant. FBI agents are entitled to have opinions in private too.

Best regards
Thomas

No hint of evidence huh? You mean besides calling the target of their current investigation the President and vowing to do everything they can to get Trump removed...no hint of evidence whatsoever huh?

Correct. No hint of evidence. Thinking that Americans were going to vote against him is not "vowing to do everything they can to get Trump removed"

A study conducted by people that know a whole lot more than you and I came to the conclusion that his political orientation had no bearing on his work. If you want to disregard that, there is nothing anyone can do or say to stop you, but it still means you are choosing to ignore the facts.

2122M wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

No surprise that the current administration wants to get rid of counterintelligence specialists.



Since no hint of evidence was found that political orientation played any role in how they went about their work, political orientation is irrelevant. FBI agents are entitled to have opinions in private too.

Best regards
Thomas

No hint of evidence huh? You mean besides calling the target of their current investigation the President and vowing to do everything they can to get Trump removed...no hint of evidence whatsoever huh?

Correct. No hint of evidence. Thinking that Americans were going to vote against him is not "vowing to do everything they can to get Trump removed".

USSC wrote:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

910A wrote:

Boy, if the FBI fired every employee that discussed politics at any point in the agency e-mail system, then I suppose we could close down the FBI since there wouldn't be any employees left.

aviationaware wrote:

910A wrote:

Boy, if the FBI fired every employee that discussed politics at any point in the agency e-mail system, then I suppose we could close down the FBI since there wouldn't be any employees left.

Strozk did not discuss politics. He conspired to manipulate the 2016 Presidential election and wilfully threw the Clinton email investigation to get her off. Not only was it right to fire him, but he should be on trial for treason.

VTKillarney wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Today's news suggests otherwise.

Nah... today's news show the US politics just had their first witch hunt since the Hillary investigation.
Beat regards
Thomas

An important detail: The disciplinary investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility which is an independent disciplinary arm of the Agency. The OPR found that it was proper to discipline Strozk. The degree of discipline may have been politically influenced, but the appropriateness of discipline itself does not appear to have been politically influenced.

Ken777 wrote:

The FBI is worried about their image, yet they fired two very senior Executives instead of quietly telling them to file their retirement papers. That leaves the FBI with the stench of Trump all over it. No one looks to Trump for integrity, but we have looked to the FBI for it - and we have for generations. Disgraceful, like we expect from Trump, but not the FBI.

DL717 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-who-sent-anti-trump-tweets-fired-n900161

No doubt there will be some political fallout over this firing. At the end of the day, though, it probably will not change much since people's minds seemed to be made up.

Peter Strzok and his fellow FBI compatriots have a certain political orientation that's worth examining, but the only people attempting to do so are the most inflammatory partisans. "Trump-hating deep state operative!" and "noble defender of democracy!" are both inaccurate.

About time. Now for his mistress.

2122M wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Yawn. FBI agent says they won’t let Trump become president. How would he do this? Coup?

Given that he said that before the election, I'm sure he meant they would do it by voting.

DL717 wrote:

2122M wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Yawn. FBI agent says they won’t let Trump become president. How would he do this? Coup?

Given that he said that before the election, I'm sure he meant they would do it by voting.

Riiiiight. I have some swamp land, you want it?

WarRI1 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Given that he said that before the election, I'm sure he meant they would do it by voting.

Riiiiight. I have some swamp land, you want it?

I have to wonder, don't you, about how one FBI Agent could influence an election in the US?

WarRI1 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Given that he said that before the election, I'm sure he meant they would do it by voting.

Riiiiight. I have some swamp land, you want it?

I have to wonder, don't you, about how one FBI Agent could influence an election in the US?

Ken777 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I haven't followed this too closely, what did he do beside sleeping with a coworker and sending private texts ?

The Agent sent texts to another (female) Agent he was having an affair with. He used his FBI phone so his wife wouldn't see them on his family phone. Neither Agent made the texts public bus a very serious IG Inspector did.

Part of the problem was that the two agents did not like Trump and texted we will stop him" (or similar words - it's too late to take time to look it up. The big issue is the us of "we". The GOP ran with that as something terrible. Normal people will consider it probably refers to "voters", as in "We The People".

The firing of this Agent was Trump getting his nasty little way. This one was on the level of the women he groped and bragged about it on a bus.

aviationaware wrote:

Also, he was not fired on a whim of President Trump's, but after recommendation of the DoJ Inspector General. Big difference.

IG Report wrote:

But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.

Recommendations
For these reasons, and as more fully described in previous chapters, we recommend the following:

1. The Department and the FBI consider developing practice guidance that would assist investigators and prosecutors in identifying the general risks with and alternatives to permitting a witness to attend a voluntary interview of another witness, in particular when the witness is serving as counsel for the other witness.
2. The Department consider making explicit that, except in situations where the law requires or permits disclosure, an investigating agency cannot publicly announce its recommended charging decision prior to
consulting with the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, U.S.Attorney, or his or her designee, and cannot proceed without the approval of one of these officials.
3. The Department and the FBI consider adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of Department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements.
4. The Department consider providing guidance to agents and prosecutors concerning the taking of overt investigative steps, indictments, public announcements, or other actions that could impact an election.
5. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General consider taking steps to improve the retention and monitoring of text messages Departmentwide.
6. The FBI add a warning banner to all of the FBI’s mobile phones and mobile devices in order to further notify users that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
7. The FBI consider (a) assessing whetther it has provided adequate training to employees about the proper use of text messages and instant messages, including any related discovery obligations, and (b) providing additional guidance about the allowable uses of FBI devices for any non-governmental purpose, including guidance about the use of FBI devices for political conversations
8. The FBI consider whether (a) it is appropriately educating employees about both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules pertaining to the acceptance of gifts, and (b) its disciplinary provisions and penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct.
9. Department ethics officials consider implementing a review of campaign donations when Department employees or their spouses run for public office.

WarRI1 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Given that he said that before the election, I'm sure he meant they would do it by voting.

Riiiiight. I have some swamp land, you want it?

I have to wonder, don't you, about how one FBI Agent could influence an election in the US? Of course if it was a Organizational plot, like the W.H would have us believe it is still a ridiculous premise born of a twisted mind. Of course the CIA may have been plotting also, and the Secret Service members who have are afraid of being fired. Everybody is plotting against him except you know who, our friendly Dictator from Russia.

DL717 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Riiiiight. I have some swamp land, you want it?

I have to wonder, don't you, about how one FBI Agent could influence an election in the US? Of course if it was a Organizational plot, like the W.H would have us believe it is still a ridiculous premise born of a twisted mind. Of course the CIA may have been plotting also, and the Secret Service members who have are afraid of being fired. Everybody is plotting against him except you know who, our friendly Dictator from Russia.

If I’m not mistaken, he use the term “we” won’t let it happen when describing the posibility of Trump being elected. Who the hell is “we”?

2122M wrote:

DL717 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I have to wonder, don't you, about how one FBI Agent could influence an election in the US? Of course if it was a Organizational plot, like the W.H would have us believe it is still a ridiculous premise born of a twisted mind. Of course the CIA may have been plotting also, and the Secret Service members who have are afraid of being fired. Everybody is plotting against him except you know who, our friendly Dictator from Russia.

If I’m not mistaken, he use the term “we” won’t let it happen when describing the posibility of Trump being elected. Who the hell is “we”?

VOTERS!