1/ This one paragraph from Strzok book sums up his failures.
Strzok was completely fixated on finding the person who had made the offer of assistance to the campaign (UNSUB–unknown subject). It was his "unwavering lodestar".
The problem is, how can an UNSUB be an "unwavering..
Strzok was completely fixated on finding the person who had made the offer of assistance to the campaign (UNSUB–unknown subject). It was his "unwavering lodestar".
The problem is, how can an UNSUB be an "unwavering..
2/ lodestar" before you even know whether the UNSUB exists?
The evidence that there might not be an UNSUB is right there in Strzok's book. *Either directly or indirectly* the Russians *appeared* to have communicated.
Not exactly conclusive evidence that such a person exists.
The evidence that there might not be an UNSUB is right there in Strzok's book. *Either directly or indirectly* the Russians *appeared* to have communicated.
Not exactly conclusive evidence that such a person exists.
3/ Strzok saying it "appeared" fits with the language we saw in Mueller and Horowitz, that there was a "suggestion of a suggestion".
The appearance of a suggestion of suggestion is the opposite of an unwavering lodestar.
Why did Strzok go full conspiracy?
The appearance of a suggestion of suggestion is the opposite of an unwavering lodestar.
Why did Strzok go full conspiracy?
4/ My guess is it was recklessness–a combination of preexisting bias and trying to impress Lisa.
If Strzok was a coup plot mastermind, he wouldn't keep making dumb errors like giving the game away by making contradictory statements (as he also did by blaming a Trump speech).
If Strzok was a coup plot mastermind, he wouldn't keep making dumb errors like giving the game away by making contradictory statements (as he also did by blaming a Trump speech).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
