'cookieChoices = {};'

It Is Not A Good Idea
To Act As If You Can Not Accomplish
What You Were Elected To Do


Wednesday, June 20, 2018

How Did Peter Strzok's "We'll Stop It" Text Get Deleted or Go Missing from Archiving?

From Ace of Spades:
Here's the efforts it took to get the text back -- efforts, of course, that the FBI did not take, preferring to let buried evidence lie. 
What Horowitz did not explain -- and was not asked -- was why Strzok's portion of the Aug. 8, 2016 message was so difficult to find. Horowitz said that the FBI’s failure to discover the text messages raises concerns about whether the bureau was able to collect all of its agents’ and officials' text messages. 
"We are not convinced that the FBI was collecting 100 percent of the text messages," he said. 
The official story we're getting is that this text wasn't originally archived because there was a period of several months when the automatic-archiving system wasn't capturing texts. But... As Mollie Hemingway points out starting around 16:00 here, that December-May glitch where texts weren't being auto-archived does not include the August "We'll stop it" text -- so why was that text not turned over? 
Did Peter Stzok intentionally delete it? And if so, what does that suggest about his state of mind -- you know, his intent? 
Prosecutors routinely cite efforts to cover up an action as consciousness of guilt and therefore as proof of intent. Also see Sheryl Atkinson's discussion of the FBI's and DOJ's illegal redactions of information not for "national security purposes," but for the forbidden purpose of sparing them from embarrassment and/or criminal inquiry. 
The head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), is not only seeking redacted material but also is trying to find out who is responsible for withholding it. Improper redactions are when federal reviewers - -in consultation with their political masters -- block out parts of documents that the public or Congress is entitled to see. 
Under policy and law, redactions are only permitted in limited, carefully defined circumstances, such as to protect national security. After all, government officials do not lord over us; they work for us, on our behalf. They own neither the documents they generate nor the information they collect; we do. 
Yet, too often, the feds have redacted information in an apparent attempt to obstruct efforts to investigate their actions, or to prevent release of material that implicates them in embarrassing behavior or wrongdoing. ... 
He includes some seemingly outrageous examples found among text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his reported then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page. 
One of them reads, "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA," where "Stu for this FISA" was redacted in a version turned over to Congress. "FISA" refers to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates limited terms under which the FBI can wiretap U.S. citizens. 
It's not known who "Stu" is but a man named Stuart Evans is National Security Division deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. And the date of the text coincides with the timeframe in which FBI agents successfully convinced a FISA judge to let them wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. 
Other redactions included: "Went well, best we could have expected. Other than L.C.'s quote, 'the White house is running this'” (the initials “L.C.” had been redacted); and "Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT" ("BO" had been redacted).
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Older Posts Newer Posts