,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ I’ve been thinking about this article and it’s implications.
This CIA agent went to his department head who referred it to DOJ and they investigated. All appropriate and normal.
Then...
This CIA agent went to his department head who referred it to DOJ and they investigated. All appropriate and normal.
Then...
2/ The agent supposedly got nervous that he wouldn’t be protected.
Hmm...
On his own? He got spontaneously nervous? Or did someone in DOJ tip off this whistleblower law firm? Did they reach out and “advise” this agent? Once the “whistleblower” agreed did they tip off the Dems?
Hmm...
On his own? He got spontaneously nervous? Or did someone in DOJ tip off this whistleblower law firm? Did they reach out and “advise” this agent? Once the “whistleblower” agreed did they tip off the Dems?
3/ The problem was that they were working at a disadvantage.
They only had third hand details.
That they assumed were accurate.
And the implications were damaging.
If true...
They only had third hand details.
That they assumed were accurate.
And the implications were damaging.
If true...
4/ If true...
Trump was blackmailing a foreign leader...
Trump was soliciting campaign assistance...
Trump was covering it all up by hiding the transcripts...
If true the Democrats finally had their Watergate.
Trump was blackmailing a foreign leader...
Trump was soliciting campaign assistance...
Trump was covering it all up by hiding the transcripts...
If true the Democrats finally had their Watergate.
5/ Only one problem. Nearly all of the assumptions and conclusions of the “whistleblower” proved innacurate.
On the way to rollout their impeachment Trump pulled the rug out from under them by releasing the transcript.
And oops he also somehow had a Ukraine counter teed up.
On the way to rollout their impeachment Trump pulled the rug out from under them by releasing the transcript.
And oops he also somehow had a Ukraine counter teed up.
6/ Which brings up the question, did Trump get lucky again? Or did Trump trigger this WH staffer using misleading information? Or is this WH staffer a fake leaker?
7/ Kellyanne came out aggressively against the leaker and the excuse for up classifying the transcript was a leak investigation.
But as they say it’s nearly impossible to find a leaker. And Democrats will avoid proving they were fooled. So we likely never exactly find out.
But as they say it’s nearly impossible to find a leaker. And Democrats will avoid proving they were fooled. So we likely never exactly find out.
8/ I suspect this was a sting trap. As I’ve said, the bait was too sweet. This information delivered to a CIA agent would need to be reported. That would set this person up to be perceived as an incredibly valuable Democrat asset.
The rest of the moves were predictable. /end
The rest of the moves were predictable. /end
