That is not correct - what RR testified was that people have commented about the FISA he signed but that the FISA he signed is different than what’s been described and commented about. I have considered MIRROR - i.e. the FISA he signed could have added, in the redacted portions, something to the effect, “it appears the prior FISAs were bogus and we’re now going to investigate”. TBD ;)
Thank you, Steven R - I knew it was something of that nature but glad to have it exact.
the FISA he signed could have added, in the redacted portions, something to the effect, “it appears the prior FISAs were bogus and we’re now going to investigate”. TBD ;)
~~~~~~~~
I agree - white hat.
hey, BTW, where’s Bags to argue WH/BH?
To be clearer, what I quoted of RR was correct. I didn’t address anything else.
You have added context and you may be correct on the speculation on the “meaning”, of his vaguely worded testimony, there, that you cite.
I think I read that the FISA he signed was “never published”. It was cited by Di Genova, I believe, where he referred to as the first FISA, which was a little confusing, since the actual “First FISA”, as we know, was rejected by the Court, but the context of the commentary was around RR. ( Whom is one Di Genova holds in no esteem.)
You may be on to something about what Rosenstein signed having included a redaction of some consequence. I certainly hope so.
How many did RR sign? I forget. I know he signed *continuations* of the 90 day fisa segments, for Surveillance on Trump and associates.