#1 is more effective if the candidate is the target and you want to get political intel against him. #2 is more effective if Russia is the target and you want to stop Russian interference.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Connect the dots/paper trail. "The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford chapter 10 "Abyss" about "black-bag jobs" explains how. Only Obama could sign off on a FBI/Comey/CIA/Brennan/NSA/Clapper "black-bag job" and bypass/authorize warrantless restrictions on spying.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Obama was smarter. Have a NSA/CIA asset meet the American offshore and it qualifies under "National Security" as a security threat. No warrants needed now and the President issues a "National Security Letter." Boom, you're in thru the backdoor and can bring in the FBI/Comey.
-
With Presidential NSL in hand FBI/Comey does what the NSA/CIA can't....wiretap and insert spies domestically then off to the FISA court to expand the surveillance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bingo!!! The FBI and the intelligence agencies treated Trump like a suspect... not because they had any evidence against him, but because they just couldn't stand him. Never Trumpers meet the Deep State.
-
How do you know they didn't have suspicions about Trump? Look at who he had around him...Manafort wasn't a boy scout that's for sure...you talk as though you were in the meeting rooms with these guys. Trumpets meet the Fake State.
-
Manafort, who worked 4 months for Trump's campaign, is only being charged with a decade old non-Russian collusion crime by Mueller and a DEEPLY CONFLICTED team of HRC mega donors. Can't wait for Horowitz report!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hillary was GUARANTEED to win. Everybody that was guaranteeing it for her can’t leave the fact alone that the American people flipped her the bird. I honestly do not believe Trump expected to win due to a rigged election. If that’s true why would he need to collude with Russia?
-
There is so much more logic on the side of the Dems colluding to fix the election than there is on the side of Trump/Russian collusion. The only sensible argument I've heard about Russian activity was to weaken/discredit her eventual presidency.
-
Considering that we ALL expected her to win, as well. Anyone who says different is either a time traveler or not being 100% truthful.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Obama was a CIA asset in Pakistan with John Brennan in the early 1980's. Only at Columbia 2 semesters (or less). Prove me wrong
-
Tweet unavailable
-
He was there same time for about 18 months. It overlaps his 'Columbia' studies only there are not records of him attending Columbia at same time
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why would CNN in the Clapper interview not come out and ask so were you also watching the Clinton campaign?
-
That’s why the “Russian interference in our elections” concern has a false ring to it. If they were really concerned they would be hyper vigilant of BOTH (or all, in primaries) sides. Especially the side who had a half-based unsecured server exposed for 4 years.
-
Exactly. When they knew her files were most likely hacked (at the very least partially intercepted), there would be no reason to not suspect she was being blackmailed by Russia. But no investigation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
FBI is willing to place informants & plants inside political campaign in order to justify expanding the surveillance through FISA in order to detect foreign interference but isn't willing to take the DNC server that actually WAS hacked by foreign agents..
- 1 more reply
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.