Posted on 06/16/2018 1:00:50 PM PDT by bitt
One of the interesting aspects of the IG report is the documented use of personal email by participants within the FBI “small group” Mid-Year-Exam (MYE) team. [pg 424]
One of those documented examples involves FBI Agent Peter Strzok downloading the content of the sealed Anthony Weiner Indictment, October 29, 2016, to his personal email address. Unauthorized extraction of a ‘sealed SDNY indictment‘, and transmission to a non-secure system, is a felony.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
According to Palmer, Christie doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ;-)
The Christie story appears to be unrelated, taking place over a year after Strzok emailed some sealed information to his personal account.
There are some fine lines.
Revealing the existence of a sealed indictment might not be a crime depending on whether details are revealed. And someone authorized to view a sealed indictment (like an FBI agent involved) may be only breaching department rules rather than the law by downloading it without good reason or permission. That’s why Christie uses some weasel words.
It’s true that bloggers are usually ignorant of claims they make about legal stuff, even when they chance upon a legitimate point.
THe Christie comment is about a situation that was referred to the DOJ OIG.
Perhaps you expected the wrong thing from Horowitz's report - even the unredacted version that we have not seen. The inspector general's role is to investigate and report facts about standards of conduct and performance within his purview, but his opinions about motives are not important. IG Horowitz would have been careful not to compromise or taint any evidence that would come before USA Huber's grand jury and be used in any subsequent trial. The real damage will be done in criminal court, not through administrative procedures. Trust President Trump!
Unrelated? It is about the leaking of a sealed indictment, which you have stated is not a crime!
**
Apparently, there is a class of people who can commit felonies without fear of retribution or consequences. There have been so many felonies identified among obamites and other liberals, that it’s outrageous. We need a new AG, DAG, and whoever else it will take to see some justice done, unless Huber is working up a HUGE number of indictments.
Sundance says "Unauthorized extraction of a ‘sealed SDNY indictment‘, and transmission to a non-secure system, is a felony." Although the IG report is mainly a whitewash, I am inclined to believe the IG report until sundance backs up his claim.
So you now agree that it is a felony. You agree that he put the sealed indictment on his personal computer.
But you don’t agree, with the IG report that states, other people had access to his computer and email?
Which, in turn means that indeed, he did leak the sealed indictment!
But wait, you finally say, “I am inclined to believe the IG report...”
You can’t have it both ways.
Stzrok will be in even more trouble when the report about the FISA abuses and FUSION GPS is released...this was just a palate cleanser, IMO..
“Slowly I turned, step by step...”
Just take a look at his life. Stupid people simply don't accomplish what he's accomplished. But some fools look at Trump's unwillingness to play the game in conventional ways and take that as stupidity. But that unwillingness is actually Trump's greatest strength.
No because he said he deleted work-related emails. That email was October 2016, and in the footnotes is says:
In addition, although we learned that a non-FBI family member had access to Strzok’s personal email account in 2017, Strzok told the OIG that no one else had access to his personal email account during the period in question (i.e., late October 2016).
So they exonerated Strzok on leaking or potential leaking. Of course that doesn't mean Strzok didn't leak and could have done that in any number of ways, not just emailing. Or that he lied about the claim in the footnote. There are no allegations in the report that he leaked. But once again, I ask, is it a felony. Sundance says "Unauthorized extraction of a ‘sealed SDNY indictment‘, and transmission to a non-secure system, is a felony."
Is is a felony, or not.
I have maintained since at least last February that Strzok (and others) violated the 4th amendment rights of DJT and his campaign staffers. I didn't just throw that accusation out willy nilly. Bongino and others have made that case for about a year and I agree the evidence is there with Strzok's trips to meet with the informants perpetrating the sting(s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.