FoiaFan🇮🇱 Profile picture
Jul 12, 2023 3 tweets 2 min read Read on X
🚨🚨🚨 Breaking. Ray Epps says he’s (finally) going to get charged criminally for J6. Blames Fox. https://t.co/m2rACNRbeG
Image
One odd detail on Epps’s odd status. When I foia’d his FBI file last year, they acknowledged having the file, but withheld it due to his personal privacy. NOT due to any ongoing investigation. How things change.
Then, after Epps did his NYT interview and his J6 transcript was published, I foia’d his FBI file a 2nd time, noting that any privacy concern was long gone. In response, the FBI simply refused to state whether they had any files (after previously acknowledging having files).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with FoiaFan🇮🇱

FoiaFan🇮🇱 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @15poundstogo

Nov 17
1/ I promised a thread, with receipts, on why I regard the Durham report and investigation as minimalist shams. I never got to it because of (i) life, and (ii) other more pressing and timely matters. But now that Trump is staffing up, and now that there may be an opportunity to expose more of the abuses that our government has strained to cover up, this subject has become more pressing and timely. I’m still busy, but can deal with that by drafting this thread in parts over time and trying to keep it brief and focused (and full of typos).
2/ I concede that Durham’s prosecutions and report did result in revealing a lot of important evidence. But, as with Robocop’s Secret Directive Four (Google it if you don’t know), there were lines he would not cross, at least not beyond the bare minimum. One of those Durham reveals in footnote 8 of his report and the (terse) accompanying text. Specifically, Durham was delegated certain authority by the AG to “use classified information” BUT Durham “has not used this authority.” 🤯Image
3/ I don’t have a copy of AG Order 4942-2020 in which the AG delegated this (UNUSED 🤯) authority to Durham. If anyone does, please share and I will update this post. I’ll wait a while before continuing this thread in the hope someone can provide a copy of Order 4942.
In the meantime, here is a copy of the underlying order showing what authority the AG had to delegate on the use of classified information.
See here: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-a…Image
Read 11 tweets
Jun 10
The FBI foia vault today released additional evidence of .@JakeSullivan46 using personal emails for top secret matters and his failure to help prevent Ambassador Stevens’s murder in Benghazi despite actual knowledge of the danger posed to him.
vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-cli…

Image
Image
Jake may have sent but just in case. Benghazi/Stevens/Hillary. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 2
The US State Dept’s foia website posted 1249 documents on Friday. Let’s take a quick look 👀. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
One foia request (not mine) ending in 07153 yields some interesting stuff on Russia/Ukraine. Including Director of Policy planning David McKean’s wife apparently invested with Rosement (Seneca?!?), and Kathy Kavalec enjoying Atlantic Council anti-Russia emails just before the 2016 election. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…Image
Image
Image
“NIH” gets 13 hits, including these doozies on Covid origins. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…

Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
May 16
A short thread on .@jaketapper moderating the first Trump/Biden debate.
1/ Tapper is a smart, aggressive reporter. Among CNN’s top talent. But he also was one of the main participants in the collusive (really, insurrectionist) nexus between Dem operatives, the partisan IC, and the press, in trying to undo the 2016 election or, at a minimum, hobble the incoming Trump administration. Specifically, Tapper was front and center in breaking the “dossier briefing” story on January 10, 2017.Image
Image
Image
2/ It’s obvious that the intent of the IC briefing Obama, Biden and Trump on the dossier allegations, adding a two page addendum to the ICA on that topic, and then massive IC leaks to the press, was to hurt Trump. Comey acknowledged to his buddies that CNN was looking for a “news hook” to turn the shaky, discreditable dossier into a story via FBI involvement. As in “Please don’t leak this. Wink wink, nudge nudge.” Then Strzok and pals eagerly awaited the story breaking specifically on CNN, which they undeniably knew was coming, right after Comey finished his Congressional testimony. This is all established in writing.Image
Image
Image
3/ Tapper, for his part, acknowledged in emails to Ben Smith that he was angered by Smith’s reporting, because it rendered CNN’s scoop less impactful. Tapper compared this to Smith stepping on Tapper’s d*ck. Again, this is all in writing.
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
May 13
In honor of and in preparation for Cohen’s expected perjurious testimony tomorrow, here are a few background tweets.
1/
Read 9 tweets
Apr 10
Remember when the CDC said they didn’t get/keep the data allegedly supporting its ridiculous “study” stating that everyone, including the naturally immune, needed vaxing ASAP? Because the data reminded with a private contractor? Well, I got a foia response to my request for a copy of that contract. Anyone want to see it? Will try to post later today.
Okay. Here’s a link to the subject CDC contract. Thank you to .@walkafyre for posting it on line for me. A few comments. First, I have learned that the contract was modified twice prior to the “study” that was the subject of my request (see images below). These mods were not included in the foia production, so I just went back and requested those. For now, we only have a partially redacted copy of the original, unmodified contract. Even so, it’s interesting (to me) in a couple of respects, both as to what is redacted, and what is not. More comments to follow shortly below. scribd.com/document/72183…Image
As to what ISN’T redacted, there are two points of interest. First, the original contract states right in it that it relates solely to high risk patients. So why use this contractor’s data to make vax recommendations for literally everyone?!? Second, the contract appears to require the contractor to keep archives of its data available. Yet, when I filed a foia request for the data allegedly supporting the CDC’s ridiculous “study”, the response was, in substance: “sorry, Charlie, we don’t have the data.”Image
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(