I listened to Hannity last night and he was going crazy over this story. In all honesty, I really want it to be true but it seems her remarks were more ambiguous. Maybe it’s just me...
It's possible she was just trying to make herself sound super-important. She left the DOD in 10/2015, so who knows what her involvement could have been.
RE: I listened to Hannity last night and he was going crazy over this story. In all honesty, I really want it to be true but it seems her remarks were more ambiguous. Maybe it’s just me...
_______________________________________
She said:”....if they found out how we knew what we knew about their … the Trump staff dealing with Russians”
What does “how we knew what we knew” mean?
What did they discover and how did they discover it?
The second question could have several meanings:
1) Trump’s staff was being surveilled on purpose ( this is illegal ).
2) The Russians were being surveilled and Trump’s team was incidentally monitored. But the law states that the identity of Americans should be MASKED and minimized. The above statement shows the OPPOSITE was being done. Unless they can prove from the surveillance, any collusion, they have committed a felony.
The next question is this — why was there a scramble to get as much information they can ( and the context of her statement indicates that it INCLUDES information about Trump’s team )?
If the law states that you must minimize or mask the identity of American citizens, then it is hard not to conclude that this data being kept is being done so in order to possibly be used as a political weapon.
Now, let’s see how you could give a better, alternative benign explanation based on this so-called ambiguity.... I’m all ears.