[Mr. K]

This story smells funny all over.

Is she saying they had intel on Trump making deals with Russia, and she was trying to “protect” it?

This is what the media have been trying to find out all along- are they jumping past the PROVE IT phase and just accepting this woman’s word that there WAS KNOWN collusion?

After months of trying to prove collusion they are not jumping all over THAT aspect of her story?

I don’t believe there is any, I think this woman is making up an un-provable story that gets her in absolutely NO legal trouble, because it is all made up.

And the media are going to use her STORY as ‘proof’ it happened.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good point. Think of the context. That interview took place on March 2nd -- when the motivation was to tie Trump to the Russians. Fast-forward a few weeks, and now the motivation is to whitewash any mention of the surveillance that these dingbats insisted was going on.

There's no reason to believe anything these people say -- even if we think it works in our favor. Politics is the art of propaganda and outright bullish!t.

[pepsionice]

Past administrations go out and hire people that are not competent for the job, and in some ways...might be mentality unstable. I suspect this gal will be found to be a nutcase.

If all of this is true...a lot of people will cut off access to her, and her job potential for the future is zero.

[madison10]

Bet they were PLANTING info around Trump, or those they thought would be in a Republican administration regardless of who won, to “find” later. Heard sometime during this mess that our intelligence agencies are more than capable of doing planting such.

She has to be lying. She was trying to be smart, but said too much. Why would they be looking into anything President Trump said or did when he had not announced? They didn’t even think he would be the nominee. IF they were looking at him they had no cause and were snooping on a private citizen.