Did Handel say Trump was a target of the investigation?

[mercuryblues]

Yup. She sure did. not once but twice

Handel: We would all agree that every one has personnel viewpoints, that is very true. But Agent Stzrok there is a very big difference between someone expressing his or her political views, generally and someone leading an FBI investigation making highly negative and explosive comments about the actual TARGET of that investigation. Would you agree? That's a yes or no.

Stzrok: rephrase the question, I don't understand..

Handel: You have an awesome talent for filibustering. You might think about running for the Seante.Uhm, I'll just say again, you were the lead investigators, one of the lead investigators and you made highly negative and explosive comments about the actual TARGET of an investigation....

[lapucelle]

1. Very nice catch. K&R. N/T

[mercuryblues]

4. We had just sat down to eat dinner

My spouse being very astute said. They all seem to appear smart, then you actually listen to what they say.

Then Handal comes up. and said that, I was OMFG did she Just say Trump was a

target

? I rewound it and yup, she sure did.

[H2O Man]

10. Great find!

A few days back, I posted an essay suggesting that Trump has become a target, nor merely a person of interest.

[doc03]

2. How can the target of a criminal investigation appoint someone

to the SCOTUS?

[safeinOhio]

6. More picks and shovels, please.

They are just about to hit rock bottom.

[RandomAccess]

3. I wouldn't put much stock in it

I don't give her much credit for brains or experience / knowledge

[chowder66]

5. I heard that and thought he should argue he wasn't a target per Comey's reply when Trump asked.

Granted I don't know the timeframe of the texts but I assume they were early on in the investigation.
So Trump was either not a target at that time or he was from the get-go.

[Honeycombe8]

9. I thought the same thing. Trump himself was not the "target" of an investigation...

at that time, is my understanding. That's what Comey said at the hearing, I believe, and he did reassure Trump of that. Trump even asked him to state that publicly. Comey did not do that because they don't make public statements of ongoing investigations that have not been revealed to the public, he said.

They were investigating Russia's activities, and had picked up communications with some on Trump's team. Not Trump himself.

[George II]

7. I watched the hearing from beginning to end, didn't catch that one....

....but did catch her giggling, smarmy attitude. Excellent catch!

[ancianita]

8. Please explain how she is in a position to really know, when the FBI hasn't announced.

Perhaps she's loosely, ignorantly using the word.

Let's not get too hyped about this.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I think people generally think of "Trump team" and "Trump" as the same thing.

It's not, but people are referring to it the same way, I think. Maybe not, but I think so.

In any case, I was surprised Strzok didn't correct that misstatement, if it was a misstatement. I'm guessing he wasn't focused on a detail like that for this hearing. Just a guess.

[triron]

13. Strzok seems sharper that that but then again maybe he had a lapse.

[ancianita]

16. Strzok didn't say anything to correct her because, consistent with his support of the FBI investiga-

tion, he shouldn't reveal. Period.

[triron]

12. Yes let's be cautious, but optimistic.

How would Handel know?

[Mr.Bill]

14. What committee(s) does she sit on?

Would that give her a security clearance with access to that information?

[ancianita]

17. There IS no security clearance for that info, or Schiff would have told us.

[triron]

19. Told us what? That there is a "security clearance..."?

[ancianita]

20. Reread the OP. That's what I'm referring to. It takes FBI leakage to know this. "Clearance" is moot.

[H2O Man]

15. The FBI can't

announce. It's not their call.

If the prosecutors had made Trump a target, they would have informed his legal team. There is more than a little evidence that Trump's legal team is coordinating efforts with republicans in the House, including some in this committee. Hence, it is possible that she knows.

[ancianita]

18. Seriously? Do you know that for a fact? If you do, then you have to say she just leaked.

Exactly why the FBI and Democrats have not trusted any investigative House committee.

[H2O Man]

21. I do not

"know that for a fact" that Trump is now a target. But I do know, for a fact, that if Trump has been made a target by the prosecutors, they would inform Trump's legal team. More, it is very well documented that some House republicans -- including Devon Nunes as the most glaring example -- have coordinated with Trump's team. Recall Devon's failed "emergency visit" to the White House to provide them copies of documents that the White House had given him a few hours earlier. Nunes said he would not head the committee he led after that, but was lying, as his future behaviors document.

Other republican House members have likewise coordinated with Trump's legal team. And that is exactly why the Democrats, as well as the FBI and other intelligence agencies, do not trust these republicans. (In federal cases, defense lawyers are given significant leeway to "leak," that no other lawyers enjoy. This was in evidence in the Timothy McVeigh case, for example, when his attorney was known to have leaked to the media. He admitted it, in fact.)

(Note: look into who is the co-owner of Nunes' family business. Remember that Nunes was in the Trump transition team, from November 2016 to January 2017. Small world.)

[ancianita]

22. "I do know for a fact, that if"...this is how we lose our way. You admit you cannot know for a fact.

That we don't know the FBI has informed the Trump legal team is exactly why we CAN'T know that the OP is right. AND we can't even credit House members with coordinating with anything but
Obstruction. Of. Justice.

That's all I'm saying.

"Coordination" between Nunes and the WH is such old circle jerk hype here, that we need not go into a spin zone.

In the end, I've not asking if you believe her. Or that you think Trump's a target.

I'm just asking if you support her position as credible before the American public, which the OP implies.

The OP is wrong.

[triron]

24. We don't need absolutism I think to post.

[ancianita]

27. In terms of national security & FBI intel, we do, if we want the Constitution to survive this prez.

[triron]

29. To post on DU???

[H2O Man]

30. Incorrect.

As I noted, I know for a fact the FBI did not inform Trump's team that he is a target. As I clearly started, the FBI does not, and cannot, do that. It is not their call. It is up to the prosecutors, who work in coordination with, but are distinct from, the FBI.

The OP is not "wrong." It quotes the words of a republican, who stated twice that Trump is a target. The republican may be right, or may be wrong. Either way, the republican being quoted is distinct from the author of the OP.

[ancianita]

33. OP says: "She sure did. not once but twice " The OP is wrong.

The use of the word, "target," is incorrect.
which I attempt to correct.

I can't believe I'm having a semantic debate about what a Republican thinks, based on how a Democrat mistakes his/her meaning.

And you support it?

[H2O Man]

35. She quoted the republican.

Hopefully, you do not disagree that the republican used the word "target." Hence, the OP is, by every definition, correct.

If you read the OP's title, it should be clear to even you that its author asked if the republican was right. The OP did not state that the republican was indeed correct.

My original response to you was to point out that you were incorrect in saying the FBI would inform anyone they were a target. That's not semantics. Rather, it is about how the system actually works. Thus, I said it again, when you incorrectly repeated the bit about the FBI.

Further, I pointed out exactly how that republican might have learned if Trump had become a target. This was in direct response to your statement regarding if it was possible -- not certain -- that the republican did know.

I support people being accurately informed on how the justice system works. I also support people's being accurately informed on how various people attempt to subvert the justice system.

[ancianita]

37. Fine. I'll agree in the spirit of understanding. Lately, I'm thinking it's a lost cause. The spirit

of the OP is, truly, a misunderstanding.

I'm not about how you argue. How the FBI works is exactly how we agree, and what the OP didn't understand.

My argument with you and the OP is how "the system... that republican might have learned if Trump had become a target..." -- and that it is not possible.

Regardless, I'll stop here.

You know what I meant. It's not possible.

[pnwmom]

23. That was killing me. I was wishing he'd called her on it. Does that mean they know something

we don't know?

This is the first time I"ve heard them admit Trump was as target.

[ancianita]

25. They're NOT admitting. They don't know, and CAN'T know the classification of the FBI's suspects.

[triron]

28. Are you sure? That's a pretty strong assertion it seems..

[ancianita]

34. The FBI owes them no info, so no, given the history of NO LEAKS, they can't know.

[triron]

26. Stzrok had to have clearly heard that. She said it twice. Yet he denied it NOT!

[ancianita]

31. Right. He didn't. He saw the interests of the House investigation, and knew that she was FISHING.

Stzrok's oath isn't to government politics. His oath is to the US Constitution.

Every other person in FBI personnel, from trash removing janitors and vacuum cleaners to Robert Mueller himself, have to take that same oath. Trust me. I've read books on FBI history.

The FBI, composed of 70% attorneys, is unlike ANY other agency of the U.S. government, and it is a challenge to all lawyers of the legislative branch.

[triron]

32. OK but he made no attempt to correct or qualify what she said. I find that revealing.

[ancianita]

36. What does it reveal? Do you realize they tried to get him to reveal more than they knew?

Did you read my previous posts?

Do you presume good faith by this House committee?

What, in the history of anything the House does, would support its good faith investigating??

Can you say, exactly, what is your point?

Do you not trust the FBI?

Or the Democratic Party's trust in the FBI?

Please explain.

[mercuryblues]

38. Comey

privately told trump he was not a target of the investigation, but refused to publically. Which contributed to his firing.

My theory behind that: The Clinton e-mail investigation result was publically announced. He felt obligated to inform congress that it was being re-opened because of that. If he had publically announced that trump was not a target, he would feel obligated to publically announce if he became a target.

Comey was fired over a year ago and Strzok was released in August 2017. A lot has changed since then. Whether Strzok knows is beside the point, as he would never verify or deny as per proper policy. So why did she say that, twice?


Whether true or not, I think this needs to be pushed by the media as true. As a member of the Judiciary committee she should know words like this have a very specific meaning. Put her in the hot seat.