Let's see, which would you prefer: 1) Having uniformed FBI Agents knock on Page and Papa's doors, making investigation public. 2) Having non-LE person FROM THE SAME PARTY do some discreet inquiries.
-
High-level diplomat w/ intel connections, Hakluyt. Appears he requested meeting w/ Papa (why?), and then Papa who's attempting to engage in treason w/ Russia just blabs to Downer about it unprompted? Maybe. I'm waiting for more details on all of this.
Maybe Papa shouldn't have blabbed? No one has presented any evidence he was coerced.
-
-
No but we now have evidence another high-level guy w/ intel connections was going around inviting Trump people to chat about Russia and Hillary's emails. So, is it impossible that Downer was doing something similar?
-
WHat do you think spooks and diplomats do? OF COURSE they were meeting with people to try and learn stuff.
-
OK, but if Downer setup a May meeting w/ Papa because a CI investigation asked him to poke around about Papa/Russia/Hillary's emails, where/how did the CI investigation start and how'd it get info on Papa/Russia?
-
There's zero evidence of any of that, and it doesn't fit the timeline in the least. Unless you have a time machine. And STILL doesn't explain why this set up didn't result in the leak that would be only obvious point of it
-
Maybe. We still haven't seen the written reports regarding who Downer actually informed and what he claimed was said by Papa. That'll be a starting point. Country deserves for all the facts to come out so we can assess for ourselves, same as for Mueller investigation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Didn’t Downer delay telling FBI until the leaks in late July? Doesn’t seem like he sought info intentionally.
-
That's what we heard, but that same NYT story said Downer's late July report is what kicked off FBI investigation. So why was Halper making contact w/ Page back in late June?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Again though, if suspicion of Page was individual and not related to the campaign, the proper thing would have been to warn the campaign about Page, which seems not to have been done. Other possibility is campaign itself was under suspicion/investigation far earlier than realized
-
LOL. And the campaign would have done precisely what they did after Trump got a warning abt Flynn: Put him in charge of entire US NatSec.
-
A warning incoming NatSec Flynn violating Logan Act by talking to the Russian ambassador as a transition official? Who Comey/FBI interviewers said they didn't believed lied? Basic point here is if you assume campaign was dirty, this stuff was justified. If not, huge problems.
-
Obama warned trump about Flynn in Nov. before the Kislyak callshttps://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/08/obama-warned-trump-michael-flynn-russia-contacts …
-
And? Obama hated Flynn and had fired him. Flynn has been charged w/ nothing but a process crime. It's treason for an incoming president to ignore a request from the outgoing one regarding his staffing choices?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The most damning thing to me is
@realDonaldTrump is adopting the legal strategy of peeps who are usually guilty of what they’re charged with, & have a bad fact/law defense When the president pounds the defense bar table the country shakesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.