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
Senate Judiciary released typewritten notes of Peter Strzok re a NYT article claiming FBI was looking at conversations between Trump Campaign officials and Russian Intelligence. All false according to Strzok. Possible implications here:https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/07/20/notes-by-peter-strzok-regarding-new-york-times-article-in-feb-2017-implicates-comey-and-mccabe-in-conspiracy/ …
The timing of the release of these two documents isn't insignificant. It's not like someone was just rummaging around an old box full of records and came across them. These have been part of the FBI case file since they were created.
The fact that they were withheld as long as they were meant they did not want people "implicated" in the investigation, but who had not read them or been aware of their existence, to know the info they contained. Now that concern has passed.
As I stated in the article, the NYT story is clearly a fake plant -- but it had a purpose. I suggested what I thought it was. Leak investigations have been ongoing for years, but you would not indict until everything was done. As a prosecutor on a multi-front investigation...
You want to wait until you have everything ready to go before you transition from the investigation to the courtroom. In the courtroom you are obligated to start giving up information to the defense--like these two documents. So you don't indict until you are ready to do that.
The fact that Senate Judiciary was cleared to release these means Durham is close to acting -- he's no longer concerned about what impact public disclosure of these two documents will have on his investigation.
so much interesting stuff to deal with before Nov. 3rd
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
