You’ve cleared nothing up and just dodged my question again.
Would the FBI/DOJ leaking information about a FISA application during an ongoing investigation be legal?
There are federal prosecutors and a grand jury convened for McCabe for leaking to the media and somehow the thought of Strzok and the DOJ leaking the existence of the Page FISA is not logical and out of touch with reality.
The existence of the Page FISA. I don’t think Strzok leaked it, I think Page did to WaPo’s Devin Bartlett the day following the text from Strzok. “Well done Page”What intel do you think they were talking about leaking? What proof do you have that he was a source for that intel?
The proof will come from their testimony, same as how McCabe got rolled. It’s CYA time and they are all out for themselves.
And when I’m not wrong about this will you run off and create another alt to post under?And when you're wrong about this one you're just going to move on to the next Trump-servicing conspiracy theory and pretend you never brought it up. And if you do mention it again, you'll just say something stupid like "Derrr but at least I din bet on it."
ing loser.
You’ve been dodging simple questions today should I ask Adam or can you answer on your own?
What erroneous narrative are you claiming I’m actively pushing?
Would the FBI/DOJ leaking information about a FISA application during an ongoing investigation be legal?
Like Papa’s cooperation you boasted about?Imagine if he gets a deal and it’s full cooperation
Like the wire you said Papa was wearing?
You should give all your proof to Mueller he seems to need help proving collusion.
Time to show some integrity Spurm, you are long overdue.
which one of you little pussies created the Raul Manafort alt just to read my replies and not have to use your main account
So the set up was true information?
lol
There was FISA app for Carter Page, true information. If the FBI leaked that information to the WaPo would that be illegal? Yes or no.
Sentence longer than Susan Rice’s.Like Papa’s cooperation you boasted about?
Like the wire you said Papa was wearing?
Deep state Ken
cheap political hac Kavanaugh agrees if Dem Pres, but Repug Pres is untouchably above the law
LORDY!!!!
what got leaked?
I see TSA crying about leaks with zero specificity
If the FBI leaked the Carter Page FISA information to the WaPo would that be illegal? Yes or no.
I would guess so, I have no idea.
Did that happen? Yes or no.
“But there is a much less nefarious possible explanation here: That Strzok and Page were not discussing fostering leaks but, rather, combating them.”
“It's important to note that in the first text, Strzok doesn't just talk about the “media leak strategy” but about a strategy being coordinated with the “DOJ” — the Justice Department. That could be read to suggest this was, indeed, about Sessions's anti-leak effort.”
“In addition, Strzok's “Well done, Page” text is also completely unclear.”
“Could it be a reference to some success in the anti-leak effort, perhaps by preventing certain details from appearing in print?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...mpression=true
First, we frequently find that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some instances, more than 100 people. We recognize that this is a challenging issue, because keeping information too closely held can harm an investigation and the supervision of it. Nevertheless, we think the Department and the FBI need to consider whether there is a better way to appropriately control the dissemination of sensitive information.
Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
I would guess so, I have an idea.
But you have no conspiracy theory.
TSA wrong about pizzagate---or about everything.
That's not a rebuttal.
Never said that. I'm not the one here who is unwilling to consider other possibilities, that's you. What I said was texting "media leak strategy" isn't proof of a literal strategy to leak to the media. You can't handle the possibility of other interpretations that don't fit the "Deep State is out to get MY PRESIDENT" hysteria.
You think. That's a good start. That means there could be other outcomes.
muh alts
You keep asking this question because apparently you haven't figured out how to scroll back to previous pages in the thread.
Let's recap. This started with you saying you were okay being wrong about Susan Rice being indicted because you didn't bet $2K on it. I said that's because you don't care about your integrity. You claimed I wasn't doing enough to call out people pushing the Russia collusion narrative. I said the failure to actively contradict every erroneous narrative is not the same as actively pushing a false narrative.
Are you caught up?
You've been carrying water for pro-Trump conspiracy theorists for over two years. You were wrong about Pizzagate. You were wrong about Susan Rice. You were wrong about Seth Rich. You were wrong about Hillary Clinton having Parkinson's disease. I can only imagine how much you've been wrong about topics that I haven't cared to devote hours of spare time to reading and posting about, but given your tendency to repeat whatever the Trump-serving echo chamber tells you to believe, I'm sure there's more.
But specifics don't really matter as much as the consistent devotion to arguing in service of Donald Trump's corruption and obstruction.
Maybe? What does this have to do with your certainty of the meaning of Strzok's text in the absence of proof?
Let me know when they find those Strzok/Page leaks. Until then, you're just speculating the way your masters tell you to.
Last edited by Spurminator; 09-12-2018 at 11:34 AM.
So, as evidence that the Strzok texts *couldn't possibly* be about combating leaks in the FBI, you've decided to show that there is a problem with leaks in the FBI.“But there is a much less nefarious possible explanation here: That Strzok and Page were not discussing fostering leaks but, rather, combating them.”
“It's important to note that in the first text, Strzok doesn't just talk about the “media leak strategy” but about a strategy being coordinated with the “DOJ” — the Justice Department. That could be read to suggest this was, indeed, about Sessions's anti-leak effort.”
“In addition, Strzok's “Well done, Page” text is also completely unclear.”
“Could it be a reference to some success in the anti-leak effort, perhaps by preventing certain details from appearing in print?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...mpression=true
First, we frequently find that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some instances, more than 100 people. We recognize that this is a challenging issue, because keeping information too closely held can harm an investigation and the supervision of it. Nevertheless, we think the Department and the FBI need to consider whether there is a better way to appropriately control the dissemination of sensitive information.
Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
See how the echo chamber makes you stupid?
“But there is a much less nefarious possible explanation here: That Strzok and Page were not discussing fostering leaks but, rather, combating them.”
“It's important to note that in the first text, Strzok doesn't just talk about the “media leak strategy” but about a strategy being coordinated with the “DOJ” — the Justice Department. That could be read to suggest this was, indeed, about Sessions's anti-leak effort.”
“In addition, Strzok's “Well done, Page” text is also completely unclear.”
“Could it be a reference to some success in the anti-leak effort, perhaps by preventing certain details from appearing in print?”
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
