I hope you are right....but...how do we get around an intepretation which says simply, “the FISA court obviously believed the Trump campaign was seriously engaged with the Russians”?
Could this not also be, theoretically, “proof” that the collaboration with the Russians is something that people were worried about?
I get it that that’s the Dem talking point. But in order to truly bury the Dems, we gotta get around. Because on the face of it, it seems plausible.
(I’m still trying to get up to speed here...so please forgive me if that comment is stupid :)).
Because there never was any reasonable suspicion of Trump collusion with Russia. They took a Hillary campaign slogan and turned it into wiretapping her presidential opponent. Illegality with a legal false front.
Remember the initial request was rejected. So there was no there, there. The second request was for a computer only...so it was said.
The thing is, Obama could have approved the original surveillance while the FISA redo was underway.
They can spin getting the info all they want.
They CAN’T spin giving it to the campaign.
That’s the smoking gun.
Maybe my comment is stupid.
If Hillary’s tweet is true, can we agree Trump was tapped ?
First, everybody and their brother is admitting there is no evidence regarding Trump-Russia collusion.
Clapper again admitted it today, that there was no evidence by the time he left, but he believes it’s true today.
Right now, without evidence, Russia is and always was a fishing trip.
Clinton meets Lynch in June and the next day the 1st FISA request made then rejected.
2nd FISA request in October and approved.
At the end of October, Hillary tweets about “computer scientists” uncover a server linking trump to russia.
Why should Hillary know about a FISA investigation ?
How does Hillary get information on a FISA request and subsequent investigation ? Who tipped her off ?
Somebody has to elaborate who the computer scientists are .
Maybe I’m missing something, here, but what outs do the RATs have ?
They can only win if they have evidence of Trump\Russia collusion.
How do they get that ?
I’m told on the second FISA request, Trump was not mentioned by neame. So, the wiretap was approved.
“I hope you are right....but...how do we get around an intepretation which says simply, “the FISA court obviously believed the Trump campaign was seriously engaged with the Russians”?”
This analyst says the “Russians hacked the election” story was fabricated to be the COVERUP for the wiretap.
http://theduran.com/trump-wiretap-true-scandal/
In the above link, he refers to his October analysis, below.
http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-planted-a-bomb-under-american-democracy/
“””I hope you are right....but...how do we get around an intepretation which says simply, “the FISA court obviously believed the Trump campaign was seriously engaged with the Russians”?”””
That one is one I can answer ....because 2 times they were turned down for the tap...the 3rd time (from what I heard and who knows what is true now a days) is because when it was requested the 3rd time...............all references to a name (Trump) were taken out at the request. No name was given.