Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Emails show Obama White House statements on Clinton probe worried FBI's Strzok
FOX News ^ | April 20, 2018 | By Pamela K. Browne, Cyd Upson

Posted on 04/20/2018 12:39:20 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

ames Comey isn’t the only one who took issue with Obama White House statements downplaying the Hillary Clinton email probe in 2016. A new email obtained by Fox News shows that even anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was concerned about their comments at the time.

Offering a glimpse into his actions while leading the Clinton investigation, the Strzok email shows the agent seemingly agitated over statements made by then-White House press secretary Josh Earnest claiming Clinton was not a target of the FBI probe.

"Below not helpful," Strzok wrote to top FBI counterintelligence official Bill Priestap and colleague Robert Jones on Jan. 30, 2016, from his FBI Washington Field Office. "Certainly the WH is going to do whatever it wants, but there is a line they need to hold with regard to the appearance of non-interference."

In October 2015, Obama told “60 Minutes” that Clinton had made a “mistake” with her private email server use but it did not endanger national security. In April 2016, he told “Fox News Sunday” that national security was not endangered, and Clinton would never “intentionally” put the country in jeopardy.

Strzok also noted those comments in his email, saying: "This coupled with the President's ‘no harm to national security’ statement provide a couple of data points for senior execs if the issue ever comes up in discussion at the White House."

Both Strzok and fellow FBI official Lisa Page were back in the spotlight this week after House Republicans named them in a letter to the Justice Department and FBI seeking a criminal investigation of key figures involved in 2016 controversies.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: crooked; election2016; hillary

1 posted on 04/20/2018 12:39:20 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Last I checked they still have a job?


2 posted on 04/20/2018 12:41:08 PM PDT by proust ("The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Sounds to me like Strzok is racist.

Jk.


3 posted on 04/20/2018 12:41:23 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“This coupled with the President’s ‘no harm to national security’ statement provide a couple of data points for senior execs if the issue ever comes up in discussion at the White House.”

An agreement to commit ‘Obstruction of Justice”.


4 posted on 04/20/2018 12:49:09 PM PDT by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heights
An agreement to commit ‘Obstruction of Justice”.

Depends on what your definition of justice is, as 0bama might quip.

5 posted on 04/20/2018 12:50:46 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: heights

——An agreement to commit ‘Obstruction of Justice”——

is by definition a conspiracy

Worse is a conspiracy to commit Obstruction of Governance


6 posted on 04/20/2018 12:55:48 PM PDT by bert (RE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

he was only criticizing barry’s typical white guy half


7 posted on 04/20/2018 12:57:58 PM PDT by sappy (criminaldems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bert

Conspiracy to commit Sedition is what it looks like to me


8 posted on 04/20/2018 12:59:24 PM PDT by atc23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"Certainly the WH is going to do whatever it wants, but there is a line they need to hold with regard to the appearance of non-interference."

...APPEARANCE of non-interference

Basically he is telling them that they aren't helping the with the corruption and coverup. He is telling them that they need to appear not to interfere while they are interfering.

Not that we didn't know this.
9 posted on 04/20/2018 1:05:40 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sappy

Lol—I think you got it figured out.


10 posted on 04/20/2018 1:18:08 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: heights

COLLUSION at its finest!


11 posted on 04/20/2018 2:20:49 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson