There is no unmasking between Dec 29 Kislyak call and Jan 5. And McCabe testified they had transcript around Jan 3.
-
-
-
Yes he was unmasked but the FBI initially received the call in question via another means.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think he is talking about the idea that the kislyak call was gathered by foriegn intelligence agencies and there is no form for that call.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think he means for the kislyak call specifically since the fbi seemed to already have it. I believe they suspect from foreign intel. But perhaps its both, foreign intel and unmasking. Since they had the same people doing multiple unmaskings, it could be lots of communications.
-
Exactly. It is both
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The left can justify anything, as long as it suits them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Except he was “unmasked” before the phone call. So… Was he *really* unmasked? Or was it just another piece of the lie to make it look like he was incidentally exposed. It’s all BS
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Bongino's theory is a little different, though...that Flynn's name orig revealed by Lynch, under instructions directly from O. So, they already knew by the time phone calls happened on Grenell's list.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.