Abuse and Power by Carter Page

[honorentheos]

Meadows claims his committee uncovered an April 10, 2017, text from Strzok to Page in Justice Department documents saying: “I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.”

Carter Page also mentions this text message between Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI attorney. Do you think this is any indication of systemic partisan bias within the FBI?

Evidence of partisan bias among members of the FBI and DOJ? Sure. Systemic bias? Not at all. Everyone has bias, some people let it move them to justify actions they might not do in other circumstances. This is hardly a one-sided issue.

I don't believe the FBI was systemically working against Trump. The heart of the investigations appear rather professional. If it was systemic, we wouldn't be talking about the tidbits of information such as a text.

[honorentheos]

Thank you for your answer Honorentheos. I did read it. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats with policies as bad as Biden who don't carry the same baggage so maybe it's not important. But I'm still undecided on whether or not Russia or China could blackmail Biden over stuff like this coming out.

Stuff like what coming out?

[ajax18]

Is there any reason I should still read the book?

Absolutely, even if only to get the later parts where he talks in detail about the right to privacy and the surveillance state. He also has a nontraditional conservative view of US Russian relations that conflicts with Ted Cruz. You might be interested in that as well.

[ajax18]

Thank you for your answer Honorentheos. I did read it. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats with policies as bad as Biden who don't carry the same baggage so maybe it's not important. But I'm still undecided on whether or not Russia or China could blackmail Biden over stuff like this coming out.

Stuff like what coming out?

Something that could incriminate Hunter that Russia might use as a bargaining chip with a foreign power to keep covered up.

[Res Ipsa]

Meadows claims his committee uncovered an April 10, 2017, text from Strzok to Page in Justice Department documents saying: “I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.”

Carter Page also mentions this text message between Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI attorney. Do you think this is any indication of systemic partisan bias within the FBI?

Did the committee release the actual string of texts? Do we have evidence of what this alleged leak strategy was and whether it was implemented? What exactly was leaked, by whom, and why?

One text from one investigation is woefully insufficient to establish systemic bias within the FBI.

[honorentheos]

Stuff like what coming out?

Something that could incriminate Hunter that Russia might use as a bargaining chip with a foreign power to keep covered up.

Do you know have something specific from the emails you could link to? Or are you saying you think there is some mystery box information that hasn't come to light still?

[honorentheos]

Is there any reason I should still read the book?

Absolutely, even if only to get the later parts where he talks in detail about the right to privacy and the surveillance state. He also has a nontraditional conservative view of US Russian relations that conflicts with Ted Cruz. You might be interested in that as well.

I don't think Carter Page is a source I feel inclined to go to for the foundational views on privacy rights.

Is there something he said specifically you found revealing you hadn't thought of or known before? No need to quote, just summarize it.

[Gadianton]

You're killing me, Ajax. You're a lot like my right-wing friend in one important way. Whereas he's constantly spun up about the next email he gets from his fellow right-wingers, you've got the next Breitbart article or right-wing book. If you get owned on 10/10 points, you rush to find point 11 and move on. Like him, you're dead sure that you're right about everything in spirit, it's just a matter of finding that golden nugget of truth. All the debunked stuff doesn't register, even if it's wrong, it's still true in spirit --- it should be true. And if it's not true, it's just a matter of time before finding the example just like it that is true.

While I thoroughly enjoy Res and H going into long explanation mode because to be honest, I'm not the best student of politics and history, I feel like they're being taken advantage of. I vote that if H reads any more of your books, that you have to read Michael Cohen's book, "Revenge: How Donald Trump Weaponized the US Department of Justice Against His Critics".

I mean, that still doesn't even come close to evening the scales, but it would be a good faith attempt in that direction.

[Dr Exiled]

The lap top was verified as coming from Hunter Biden:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eting.html

Version given to FBI by computer repair shop verified and no tampering [by Russia]:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bid ... lysis/#app

"Big guy" is Joe Biden:

https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/hunter-bi ... er-laptop/

None of the above is relevant. Someone in an email calling Joe Biden the big guy doesn't mean Joe Biden was in on a deal with Chinese business. You know better, lawyer.

Worthy of further investigation, wouldn't you say? Mr. Bobulinski claims big guy Joe Biden used his office to get 10% from a Chinese deal. I wonder if the deal would have gone through had the big guy not been involved?

No one, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, should be above reproach. Our beloved Harry Reid went to Washington poor and left worth around $100 Million. I wonder how that happened?

My father knew some in the most beloved Gipper administration and they made $millions off of insider information.

Should this be allowed? Should team politics prevail over truth? If Trump had liaisons with underage girls on Epstein Island, I'd like to know and perhaps he should be charged? Clinton?

Anyway, yes, at this point we are dealing with conjecture against a beloved president who may have benefitted from corruption. Let's see and not dismiss it based on nonsense Russia hysteria.

[ajax18]

Absolutely, even if only to get the later parts where he talks in detail about the right to privacy and the surveillance state. He also has a nontraditional conservative view of US Russian relations that conflicts with Ted Cruz. You might be interested in that as well.

I don't think Carter Page is a source I feel inclined to go to for the foundational views on privacy rights.

Is there something he said specifically you found revealing you hadn't thought of or known before? No need to quote, just summarize it.

How about just to prove to me that you could slog through it and so you can give me your rebuttal? Or would the cognitive dissonance be too painful?