I've wondered before whether FBI/CIA held the CI investigation too closely and missed stuff.pic.twitter.com/8TS23hO97w
Show this thread
-
-
When FISC's GOP tilt comes back and bites The Narrative on its ass. Also this means Contreras did NOT approve the Page FISC, as conspiracy theorists suggest.pic.twitter.com/QjJVJdYdvh
1 reply 34 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
Also note: that they got a physical search on Page is new--and if Nunes et al weren't so fucking incompetent would be more central in their conspiracy theories.
#YouGoToWarWithTheConspiracyTheoristsYouHave2 replies 20 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Nothing like hiring (at least one) guy under active FBI suspicion for spying for Russia.pic.twitter.com/LxihV7B4ai
3 replies 25 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
The bullet on page 4 associated with footnote 12 shows that the detail that best corroborates Steele's Page reporting was only used in the June 29 application.
2 replies 14 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
This seems to confirm that FBI/HPSCI still only know of the Russians Page (ultimately) admitted talking with, not the ones in Steele dossier.pic.twitter.com/KCAEf2Qby1
3 replies 14 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Going back, this says FBI's investigation, even in September 2016, followed parallel tracks. This seems to suggest 4 people were investigated, so Manafort, probably Flynn, and maybe Stone.pic.twitter.com/zZF2KTyToQ
8 replies 20 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @emptywheel
Themistocles' Wall Retweeted Mieke Ooooooooyang 🎃
@MiekeEoyang thinks footnote 7 may mean the 4 were@GenFlynn@GeorgePapa19@PaulManafort & Gates? But agree w/you footnote wording seems to indicate Gates was not an original FISA targethttps://twitter.com/miekeeoyang/status/967548202118508546 …Themistocles' Wall added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @themistocles_w @MiekeEoyang and
It's Stone, not Gates, I'm almost positive.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @themistocles_w and
I mean Stone's name doesn't come up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @MiekeEoyang @themistocles_w and
In the unredacted section, no. And Gates does in what is clearly a first reference. Meaning there's more evidence it's Stone than Gates.
0 replies
1 retweet
3 likes
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.