I understand your point. Again I was making own point. It is admittedly an ill-placed comment. Ohr was removed. Has it been revealed why? You imply that it has. No, we don’t have official reason why as far as I k know. If it has I’d appreciate any links.
-
-
Was this publicly revealed information included in FISA app to inform the judge where the info came from & how it was coordinated among media, lobbyists, HRC/lawyers? Or was it deliberately hidden to obscure bias?
-
You misunderstand entirely. What I was saying is that FISA was under scrutiny by people before this started. Nunes largely thwarted that scrutiny at a time when it could have been changed.
-
But as to whether Steele's conflicts as a consultant were disclosed, yes, they were. And he had a better TRACK RECORD than a lot of the consultants that are used on FISA apps. That's the problem w/taking FISA info from people who don't know it. They don't know norm.
-
Perhaps they were minimally disclosed, but that doesn’t paint a complete picture re bias to a judge. Minimal info is not how ex parts procedures shld be. But you don’t have the complete unredacted app & renewals. I and many others want to see them to make our own assessment.
-
MINIMALLY DISCLOSED? There were pages and pages of footnotes. Maybe you should look at the filing before you claim that pages and pages of disclosure amount to minimal disclosure. Molly won't tell you this stuff, you know.
-
Release the unredacted application and renewals. Then people won’t need Molly or you to come to their own conclusions.
-
But they (meaning you) already don't need to do that. The pages and pages of caveats are public, something Molly won't tell you.
-
Release them. Unredacted.
- 5 more replies
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.