FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents

Daily Caller ^ | January 21, 2018 | Chuck Ross

[billorites]

The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.

The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

“The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI’s technical system for retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,” Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of HSGAC. (RELATED: FBI Agents Discussed ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump Win)

He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.

Boyd attributed the failure to “misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.”

“The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected,” Boyd wrote.

Strzok and Page were significant players in the Clinton and Trump investigations. As deputy chief of counterintelligence, Strzok oversaw the Trump investigation when it was opened in July 2016. Weeks earlier, he had wrapped up his work as one of the top investigators on the Clinton email probe.

Both worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation until July 2017.

But Strzok was removed after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered text messages he exchanged with Page, with whom he was having an affair, in which both expressed strong criticism of Trump.

In one text, Strzok called Trump and “idiot.” In another, he said “F Trump.”

In another more cryptic exchange, Strzok spoke of an “insurance policy” that the FBI sought to take out in case Trump defeated Clinton in the election.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016.

“Andy” was a reference to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

“It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok added. Republicans have questioned what Strzok meant by “insurance policy.”

Page left the Mueller team prior to the discovery of the texts.

Johnson expressed concern over the missing text messages, which were sent during a key period of the Russia investigation. During that time frame is when the Steele dossier was published by BuzzFeed News, when Strzok participated in a Jan. 24 interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, and when James Comey was fired as FBI director.

The end date of the missing Strzok-Page texts is also significant. That’s because May 17 is the day when Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI’s probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

“The loss of records from this period is concerning,” Johnson wrote in a letter sent Saturday to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Along with its disclosure of the missing text messages, DOJ’s Boyd handed over 384 additional text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page.

[itsahoot]

The FBI should never wonder why people don’t trust them any longer .

Oh well nothing can be done now, no use crying over spilt milk.

[tired&retired]

Spoliation is defined as “the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence.” In practice, however, the definition of spoliation has been expanded to include the unintentional—and even negligent—destruction of evidence. Courts have expanded the definition because they recognize that lost or destroyed physical evidence is often the “most eloquent impartial ‘witness’ to what really occurred ….”

For that reason, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the courts’ inherent power and authority to control litigation, the courts need not find that the spoliator acted in bad faith before imposing sanctions, especially in criminal cases. Rather, courts should only consider evidence of bad faith in determining the severity of sanctions.

Courts have recognized that it is incredibly unfair to the party seeking the evidence to allow the spoliators to destroy evidence and then benefit from their conduct. Not surprisingly, the judiciary’s abhorrence of spoliation is very well established. In fact, courts confronted the issue of spoliation as early as 1722.

In Armory v. Delamirie, an English court elucidated the doctrine of spoliation for the first time when “the court allowed the plaintiff to bring an action in trover against a jeweler who had spoliated a jewel.” In sanctioning the spoliator, the judge instructed the jury that “unless the defendant produced the jewel and was able to prove its low quality, the jury was to presume the jewel was of the finest quality and damages should be determined accordingly.” In so doing, the judge there established the spoliation doctrine that has guided many subsequent evidentiary decisions. Unfortunately, many of the more recent evidentiary decisions in the United States regarding spoliatated evidence deviate from the spirit of this early decision. Specifically, a majority of jurisdictions hold that spoliators of evidence need not be sanctioned unless the party seeking the evidence can demonstrate that the spoliator(s) acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the evidence in question.

[Mathews]

Fire the top three management tiers, fire or mando-retire any field guys over 25 years, fire all field guys hired within the past 5 years and rebuild with what is left...

[publius911]

Gentlemen do not read each others’ text messages.

They are obligated to when they are employees of an official U.S. federal Agency!

Unless they decide to go rogue.
Then all bets are off!

Treason?
Sedition?

Take your pick.

[tired&retired]

Here is the Law that got Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby,Richard Nixon, Barry Bonds and many others in trouble.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800.)

[publius911]

Not hung... hanged.

[tired&retired]

Sorry.. left off the caption..

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

[publius911]

It also says MI5 when Christopher Steele was MI6. Not sure what the difference is but it’s a discrepancy.

One is GB internal, the other Foreign intelligence.

Been a while since I checked which is which...

[andmy_]

Strzok works in the FBI HR department. Of course the text messages were deleted. There is no excuse for this. There needs to be an immediate investigation (outside of crooked FBI) on who logged in and deleted the texts. Start the investigation NOW.

---

WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter.

The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/mueller-removed-top-fbi-agent-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html

Obviously Strzok was removed from the Trump Russian witch hunt because of the text messages and now they are saying they do not have them? They didn't expect Mueller's investigation to get exposed for the witch hunt it is. They didn't expect Congress to investigate the corrupt investigators. It's blowing up in their face. This story is going to blow up. This along with making the memo public are going to shut down the witch hunt investigation. The FBI HR department needs to be investigated now, seize their computers. What text messages were send from Mueller to the FBI HR department? Bet Mueller is on some of those missing texts.

[tired&retired]

So Strzok would be guilty of both Obstruction of Justice and Spoliation of Evidence?

[andmy_]

There is no evidence that he destroyed the texts or paid/instructed someone to destroy them.

However, there needs to be an investigation on what happened to the missing texts, who destroyed the texts, etc. ... Investigate F B I HR department. Find out what HR has access to, etc.

[tired&retired]

If the messages are gone and he was required to keep them, failure to keep the records is obstruction and spoliation.

[tired&retired]

Spoliation is defined as “the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence.” In practice, however, the definition of spoliation has been expanded to include the unintentional—and even negligent—destruction of evidence.

Courts have expanded the definition because they recognize that lost or destroyed physical evidence is often the “most eloquent impartial ‘witness’ to what really occurred ….”

[andmy_]

Good to know. Someone did something. They need an investigation regarding the missing texts. Get the texts from others who he was texting before the time frame and after. Especially before. Who was he regularly texting before the missing texts and then check their texts.

[SueRae]

Destruction of evidence. Hang every one of them. No effing job, no effing pension. Ticket to Leavenworth.

[itsahoot]

These people cannot be allowed to sit on the government payroll and then escape to a government paid retirement.

Well yes, yes they can and just watch, they will.

[Hostage]

They ‘can’ but the ‘will’ is yet to be seen. Because this is treason and not a misdemeanor level of bad judgment and misunderstanding.

[Hostage]

Look what’s coming out:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3624588/posts?page=445#445

No way these people walk. They may be lucky to be alive after this makes it way through history.

This SH*T is frickin HUGE!

[Captain Rhino]

How many other FBI agents’ text messages are missing for this period; all of them or just the agents in question?

[polymuser]

The cellular carrier doesn’t have them, either?