You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I'm puzzled by the argument that the use of an informant taints an investigation. Informants are a ridiculously common part of law enforcement investigations, often at a very early stage.
The FBI's domestic operations guide authorizes agents to use informants (which they call a "CHS") even when they're conducting assessments, which don't require the factual predicate of a formal investigation.pic.twitter.com/N7GyCLHkSZ
There are *lots* of reasons to be skeptical about how the government uses informants. One ATF informant testified that, to get targets for a sting, he basically went up to people on the street and asked if they wanted to do drug robberies. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/20/atf-stash-house-stings-racial-profiling/12800195/ …pic.twitter.com/lPWqKdzyNA
There were guys in Atlanta who were paying other people for information so they could proffer it to the feds to get a sentence reduction. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/jailhouse-informants-for-sale/1762013/ …pic.twitter.com/IY9MwoA4Ty
And then there are the informants themselves. Like this guy -> http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20130531dea-reactivates-controversial-informant.html …pic.twitter.com/MK5gJmjk82
Courts have more or less said none of this is a valid basis to get a case thrown out. (It can definitely be a basis to challenge the informant's testimony.)
There's also not a clear line - at least not in the law - that separates what techniques are OK in investigations of politicians compared to, say, drug dealers. And you see informants in those cases, too. Uranium One thing? Informant. Sen. Menendez? Informant.pic.twitter.com/LRSBr8WL0a
But if using an informant *does* taint an investigation - to the point, as Giuliani suggested, that it might have to be shut down - then that would implicate a lot of federal cases. (And state and local ones.) Unless people are just talking about one particular case.
Update: An all-day avalanche of Twitter replies has told me a lot about partisanship, but hasn't made the legal argument any clearer.
most of my thoughts about the responses to the investigation begin with "I'm puzzled by the argument..."
Really, Because it's simple: In this administration they don't qualify as informants and the info is tainted if they aren't tortured for it.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
