Good.
I’m a little unsure about the wording of #2. Clearly in the first request they asked for authorization to wiretap Trump and were denied. That’s only happened 12 times in the history of FISA so the reason had to be really weak.
Then in Oct. a second request was approved. Logically if they re-submitted the same request, it would have been denied again. So it is reasonable to think that something was changed in the second request...what?
For instance, did the second request specifially target Trump? If they submitted affadavits that omitted material facts, that is perjury and they could be charged with felonies.
All this should be forthcoming because unlike the crap they’ve been throwing at Trump, there is paper trail.
What really intrigues me is “Why?” Why would they do this admittedly risky thing if they felt sure Hillary was going to win?
The logical answer is they knew all along she was in trouble and pulled this stunt in hopes of finding an October Surprise that would cause Trump to leave the race or lose so much momentum he would lose the election.
Probably because they weren't truly certain that Hillary was a shoo-in. Look how much trouble she had against old, socialist Bernie, and how small (and few) her campaign appearances were. Not to mention her health issues and general unlikeability.
My initial understanding is that they narrowed the wiretap. They were looking at two Russian banks and I understand that they found nothing inappropriate.
Snakes gonna bite.
Odunga's revenge. Take a shot at the whitey who had the temerity to question his pedigree.