"No. No he won't. We'll stop it": Peter Strzok, when asked by his lover about Trump becoming President

CNN: How 7 words in the 500-page IG report give Donald Trump all the 'deep state' ammo he wanted

It has been a few days since the IG report on the Clinton e-mail investigation came out and I didn't see a topic on it here for some reason.

For those who have not been following the story, the Inspector General was investigating the e-mail server investigation to determine whether or not there was political bias behind the investigation. While the investigation determined that there wasn't any political bias on the part of former FBI Director James Comey, it did determine that he was insubordinate for announcing that there would be no charges filed against Hillary Clinton without clearing it through his bosses at the DOJ.

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle had it out for Comey. Republicans felt that he was biased against Trump and wanted to undermine him right to the point where he stated that he was hoping that his actions would result in a special counsel investigating him. Democrats blame him for Trump being president, with their belief that if he kept his mouth shut about the investigation into Hillary Clinton being reopened days before the election, then she would be president right now.

The main thing that has a lot of Republicans up in arms is the text exchanges between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, another FBI employee he was having an affair with:

While those particular messages came out a long time ago, one inflammatory message wasn't released until last week, which Strzok said the words "We'll stop it," while trying to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected president a few weeks after he won the Republican nomination.

Republicans pounced on it, stating that it was more proof that there was bias in the investigation to protect Clinton and prevent Trump from being elected, especially since that particular statement was not included the original release of the lovers' text exchanges. Democrats stated that it was a nothingburger, being that it was only seven words out of a 500-page investigation. They also pointed out that Strzok, while a member of Mueller's team investigating possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, was promptly removed from the team after his messages were discovered.

Bill Maher, in the following panel, dismissed Strzok's message just trying to impress his lover (foul language is present in the following video):

Another person in the panel compared the bias against Trump to an agent having a bias against a serial killer or rapist he is investigating.

Hillary Clinton had only three words in response to the report, which has over 650,000 likes as of this post and counting:

While all of it looks bad for people on both sides, I think that the investigation should continue as long as they have evidence something foul on the part of the president is present. On the other hand, if they don't find anything, they will have to close it eventually.

Comey should be prosecuted as well as Hillary. Nothing will come of this though.

this is a perfect example of something where people will read into it what they want to fit their particular narrative.

if you believe there was political bias against trump you'll see this as concrete proof that strzok meant they would specifically use their position at the fbi to detrail trump's presidential bid.
if you don't believe there was political bias against trump you'll this is as more the general "we" ( those who dislike trump and see he's an idiot ) to not vote for the guy.

Can I assume these texts occurred on work phones rather than personal?

Your examples are pretty much how it is going as we speak. Many Democrats are saying "we" refers to anybody who dislikes Trump making it to the polls to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to stop him from being elected. Many Republicans are saying "we" refers to himself and other Never Trumpers in the FBI using their position to harm his chances of being elected either by covering up Clinton misconduct or manufacturing/leaking Trump misconduct.

Both sides agree that it was a poor choice of words since only a fool would say that it isn't a big deal for someone directly involved in the investigation (versus your average Joe or Jane with an "I'm With Her" bumper sticker on their car) to say something that can be argued as a sign of partiality towards Clinton and a cause for reasonable doubt. However, that's where the similarities in opinion end.

Either way, while it isn't a smoking gun that will result in the Mueller investigation being shut down, it will always be a talking point used against the investigation, especially since Strzok was on his team until the messages came out. If Mueller announced tomorrow that they found something that incriminates Trump directly, you can almost guarantee Guliani would be yelling Strzok's name within minutes of the announcement.

Yes, and there were calls to subpoena their personal devices as a result, since some of the messages implied that they continued their conversations elsewhere. The whole reason they used their work phones in the first place was to hide their affair from their significant others.

A subpoena for work phones is reasonable. Personal phone? I'd have deep reservations.

That all depends on what they are looking for. If they believe that a crime may have been committed, and they can convince a judge of that, then personal devices are fair game with a warrant. With work phones, a subpoena isn't even necessary (except in certain situations) since they are the property of the US Government and not the employee it was assigned to.

Eh I think you're reading conspiracy into it.

If you believe in conspiracies based on one text from one low level FBI agent, you literally have an 85 IQ. Literally...this is why you work a crappy service job and live in a crappy apartment. That is the only mystery you will solve here.

You seem to be pretty confrontational today.

lol

some people are so bad at adulting.

Peter Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation but he still work on it for some time, that will be a point of attack for the White House.

Mueller most assuredly doesn't want to conclude/show his findings to the investigation close to the midterms. So either he'll finish it by the summer or it will extend pass the the midterms.

Says the guy who literally believes anything negative about Trump that he hears/reads ANYWHERE.

says the guy who posts infowars as a source

Dude led the FBI's investigation into HRC's use of a private server, literally. He was literally Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence that led the Russian investigation, Not exactly low ranking, at the time.

The great irony here is that whether there was political bias or not, these fools only helped Trump get elected.

That's because the facts back it up.....................maybe you should learn facts.

The FBI did indeed do that. Therefore I find it illogical to hear them cry now.

The IG report found 0 criminal wrong doing.

if one can proove how bias changes facts I am in, otherwise, a fact is a fact

Am I the only person that hates the word "lover"?

Can't take anything seriously when that word is in the title.

Oh, you mean that guy that was fired as soon as his boss found out about his biases? See, that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. When Democrats find one of their own doing something wrong they fire them, when Republicans find one of their own doing something wrong they give them a show on Fox and make them president of the NRA.

I am ok with bias as long as facts remain facts.

I am not happy that bias alone might open up an investigation on things that appear to be insignificant. however, if they lead to facts of actual substance then I dont have a problem with it.

@joebones5000: But what if the bias checkers are biased?

:-P

And he did absolutely nothing to actually stop it from happening. Case closed?

I am all for 'the investigation might have bias, let them report what they have currently and we will decide if they are'

I am all for that, lets do that today!

lets see how many on The Right think that is a good idea.

The report explicitly indicated that no decisions "were affected by bias or other improper considerations."

But hey, let's pick one text out of a mountain of reviewed correspondence and evidence, 'DEEP STATE HURR DURR.'

@theone86: You mean “fired” as soon as the bias became public knowledge.

But this thread is a joke, the left will argue it´s nothing while at the same time still convinced that Russia and Trump colluded despite 0 evidence to back it up.

But no matter what at least the bias is known and if anyone is convinced it´s only limited to this guy, they clearly don´t care about the facts.

Russia and the trump campaign have been proven to have colluded. But deny the facts.

@LJS9502_basic: Gotta love the spin you are trying here.

But how long is Mueller going to take before he finds this “evidence” you speak of.

Only one spinning here is you. You continue to deny facts.

@LJS9502_basic: You failed to answer how long before Muelle finds this “evidence”

We are on year 2 now. Is it going to be year 4 ? Or shortly before the 2020 presidential election?

Nothing happens over night. In depth investigations can take years.

For the record, I seriously doubt Strzok, despite his obvious hatred of Trump, did anything that caused great harm to the president, and if he really wanted to hurt Trump, then he would have did like the guy on Bill Maher's panel said and leaked the fact that Trump was under investigation to the media prior to the election.

However, if everything was the same but we replaced the year 2016 with the year 2008 and replaced the name Trump with the name Obama, I can all but guarantee that the media (and this forum) would be ready to burn down the FBI and would be calling for President Bush's arrest regardless of whether or not any actual misconduct took place.

That isn't me trying to bring whataboutism into the conversation, it's me pointing out how our biases control what we are willing to believe when it comes to presumed innocence.

@LJS9502_basic: But as you said the evidence is there, so what take years?

One thing leads to another. You have to be thorough.

Peter Strzok escorted from FBI building on Friday, lawyer confirms.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this and how both Democrats and Republicans spin this before all the facts are out.

No I don't, I mean fired as soon as Mueller found out about it. I shouldn't expect you to know that, though, seeing as how it's a fact and Trumpettes are immune to facts.