Share this page!

Peter Strzok Profile picture
Twitter logo
Aug 12 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
scienter (noun)
sci • en • ter | \sī- 'en- ter\
1: knowledge of the nature of one's act or omission or of the nature of something in one's possession that is often a necessary element of an offense
also: intent to engage in particular especially criminal conduct
2: a mental state in fraud that is characterized by an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Peter Strzok

Peter Strzok Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @petestrzok

Peter Strzok Profile picture
Aug 10
I used both consent and search warrants dozens of times over the course of my career to recover classified govt info - but never a subpoena. Let’s talk subpoenas and why they’re not used to recover classified material from those not authorized to have it.

🧵

/1
I’m talking here about information produced by the USG containing national defense information and appropriately classified in accordance with EO 13526. Not someone’s after-the-fact book, or classified information in a news article.

archives.gov/isoo/policy-do…

2/
Someone not authorized to possess it, in this thread, refers to former President Trump. Presidents to not “get” security clearances. They gain access to classified info by virtue of their election, and are the USG’s ultimate classification (and declassification) authority.

3/ Lookit the North Korean missile launch
Read 12 tweets
Peter Strzok Profile picture
Aug 6
No, Senator, I disagree. It was not a hoax.

As long as the question is asked, that answer needs to be said clearly and precisely by those in a position to know.
It was not a hoax

It was not a hoax

persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax
Read 5 tweets
Peter Strzok Profile picture
Jul 16
Take a moment to think about the staggering counterintelligence issues in the crazy Dec 18, 2020 WH meeting. A thread.

In the Oval Office, people advocated Trump illegitimately hold on to power, including using the military to seize voting machines.

That group included: (/1)
Mike Flynn, who who was paid by an organ of Russian state media to travel to Moscow to attend a dinner where he was seated next to Putin.

Flynn later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador about election interference. (/2)
Patrick Byrne, one of several men once in an intimate relationship with convicted Russian agent Marina Butina.

Byrne gave money to Butina after her return to Russia, where she ran for the Duma, hounded Navalny, and supported the invasion of Ukraine. (/3)

businessinsider.com/pro-trump-form…
Read 6 tweets
Peter Strzok Profile picture
Jul 11
"After the judge concluded, Bannon lawyer David Schoen said in the courtroom, 'What is the point of going to trial here if there are no defenses?'

Nichols agreed, suggesting Bannon’s team consider that."

Damn

nbcnews.com/politics/justi…
Between Navarro, Clark, and now Bannon, the collision of whining white male Trump cosplay law with the actual criminal justice system has been something to behold.
Exhibit two, also from today

“Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled Monday that Graham will be required to testify on Aug. 2 after Graham said he would fight a subpoena to testify, citing executive privilege.”

wsbtv.com/news/local/atl…
Read 5 tweets
Peter Strzok Profile picture
May 13
Good question. Normally the executive branch doesn’t serve subpoenas on itself (the FBI’s routine process is simply to ask exec agencies for relevant information), but Presidential records are different. 1/
The legal reasons are at 36 CFR 1270 (thanks @thomasafine for the citation), which automatically restricts presidential records for five years, with several exceptions. 2/

The incumbent President could ask (1270.44(a)(2)), though that would bring the appearance of political motivations into play.

There is a straightforward provision for subpoenaing records via subpoena for criminal investigations at 1270.44(a)(1). 3/
Read 6 tweets
Peter Strzok Profile picture
Apr 26
@emptywheel Since a lot of people are getting excited and pointing at tHeIR TiMeLinEs, I'm not sure who needs to hear this, but since Marcy both cares and follows this sort of information, here it is. A thread of minutiae:

The Sept 7 referral Ratcliffe declassified is known as a CIOL. 1/
@emptywheel The CIA routinely sends CIOLs to the FBI. Delivery is often delayed. Maybe higher levels want to review before sending. Maybe legal needs more time. Maybe the courier is slow.

CIOLs were usually delivered days, if not weeks or even months, after the date printed on the CIOL. 2/
@emptywheel In fact, sometimes CIOLs were never delivered at all. It’s part of the reason we'd try to block stamp or write the date on the CIOL when we received it.

In the case of this CIOL, I don’t remember reading it. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I just have no recollection of it. 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(