while Sessions is busy recusing himsel;f for nothing and we wait for our new recess appontments March 19 let me posit the scenario of crimes by the FBI so it might speeds thing along for who ever in the hell is running our justice department.
\Not only did Comey cover crimes for hillary by not indicting her for the obvious hundreds of crime but at the very time he was tryning to and actually did buggt the Republican candidate for president in the weeks before hillary’s ignominios defeat. Further, the FBI used a false and bogus pretext to obfuscate the crime of illegal wire tap bylaughable pretext of a Fisa “warrant”based on total lies!!
while illegal tapping the communications at RTrumpo,Tower just prior to the election , the FBI was feeding hillary at the DNC like a pet monkey. There is an absolute smoking gun.
On October 31( just8 days before the election” hillary tweeted this.( she loved tweets too) “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” What a belly laugh joe!! How did she get that ? Devine osmosis? No sir— She got it from the FBI! Read what Jake Sullivan said about the wire tapand Hillary’s good guess at the Fica pretext. https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/793250312119263233?lang=en
Kevin Jackson has written an outstanding treatise on Hillary’s mainline to the bogus FBI investigation right here.
http://theblacksphere.net/2017/03/hillary-tweets-tipped-off-trump-wiretap-tweeted-about-it-one-week-prior-to-election/
This was ABUSE OF POWER AND CORRUPTION LIKE THIS COUNTRY HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
Add to the timeline October 28-Comey made reopening of email investigation public. Related to FISA and PIAPS tweet?
Who knows? Just adding to the mix.
Hillary may or may not have been tipped off by the fbi in late october of 2016 about the trump tower server traffic.
the trump tower server traffic in question back then seems to have been limited to dns protocol packet information. this does not carry any actual raw customer server-client data. it is more similar to metadata— it is a network analog to file metadata. you cannot learn any raw customer server-client raw data contents by looking at dns traffic.
because it is not raw data, dns traffic does not seem to be covered by any confidentiality restrictions. if it is covered by restrictions, perhaps it is not covered strongly enough.
people who do not understand internet protocols can blow things out of proportion by misreading and misunderstanding the difference between client-server raw data packets and monitoring of those packets on one hand, and dns traffic on the other hand. conflating the two would be confusing to anyone who is not at least very familiar with network protocol design and operation.
in particular it could be very confusing to someone with limited technical background. someone such as... say... a fisa judge. or a political party hack, especially one who has risen above his or her level of ability. if a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the packet stream occurred at the technical level, then all kinds of bad things could happen, because everyone relies on geeks to keep computers and networks running smoothly. one mistaken geek or one biased geek might be all that it would take in order to get a fisa order written. the fisa court process is not an adversarial process. find an expert, give him or her the information, let him or her make a recommendation in front of a fisa court judge, and in most cases, “away we go.”
in this specific case, there seems to have been a long time monitoring of ordinarily very humdrum and boring dns traffic by typically bored computer scientists, mostly perhaps trying to ensure that no bottlenecks are developing and no malware (eg denial of service attacks) are occurring. someone asks someone else if there seems to be anything unusual at trump tower, and an answer comes back yes, but perhaps it is due in part to misunderstandings and in part due to subconscious political bias and not rigorously vetted. the accusations in their raw confidential but unclassified form gain a momentum of their own as they bounce around the deep political state that is the 2016 obama administration. it seems at least theoretically possible that at this stage that either the computer scientists themselves or low level political operatives take it upon themselves to share the confidential but unclassified analysis with the hillary campaign. the analysis goes to hillary directly. presto, hillary’s campaign manager writes a memo for release to the public based on a relatively lightly vetted raw analysis of questionable veracity.
in the manner described above, hillary could have learned about the analysis without any contact between hillary and the fbi. the fbi, fisa, and hillary received the same flawed technical analysis, and the rest is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)— including the october 31, 2016 hillary memo and and the fisa request, presented to fisa without an adversarial hearing and without sufficient vetting to prevent a wild goose chase wiretap.
just saying it could have happened this way, not that it did happen this way— there does not seem to be enough information either way to know for certain. what does seem apparent is that there is not enough information in the public domain to make a conclusion based on information that is in the public so far about whether there was ever sufficient technical justification presented to the fisa court for a wiretap on trump tower, or any part of it. this is separate from another concern over whether the wiretap, once approved, was sufficiently limited in execution such that it operated entirely within the confines of the fisa court order, or was it expanded to a fishing expedition of the type originally sought in the first fisa court request.