2. 'In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.'
3. 'the Department of Justice (including the FBI)'
What have we been missing?
Everyone is assuming that these texts will come from Wray (FBI). And they might.
But where else in DOJ might they come from? Does anyone else in DOJ likely have ALL the texts?
Almost as if Baker either didn't know about the Yahoo hack (impossible), or wasn't concerned about it. And that IS possible, if?
If Yahoo was never hacked. Which is EXACTLY what independent experts said when the claims first arose.
3. “It doesn’t fit the normal intent or objectives of nation-state attacks. It’s not really espionage, it’s not retaliation, sabotage or for financial gain,” said Konstantinos Karagiannis, chief technology officer of Security Consulting at BT Americas.
@AaronBlake 1. Since you are happy to lie to and mislead your readers, here's the time line you should have included, you #FakeNews fraud.
@AaronBlake 2. April 10, 2017: Peter Strzok contacts Lisa Page to discuss a 'media leak strategy.' Specifically, the text says: “I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.'
@AaronBlake 3. April 11 – Washington Post publishes this article on Carter Page, setting off a flurry of articles suggesting connections between President Trump and Russia.
That's the leak. Funny how you never once mentioned this article, isn't it, Aaron? 🤔
1. More troubling revelations about Obama's broken FBI.
BTW - if there's evidence of anti-Trump animus by the reporters in the #WaPo piece - Nakashima, Entous & Barrett - for example, in emails, SMS etc with Strzok/Page, they may be unable to argue they are 'journalists'.
2. Everyone assumes that these creeps can claim reporter privilege simply because they work at #WaPo.
But that's not how it works. The courts decide if someone is a journalist, or not.
The relevant case is Von Bulow v Von Bulow (1987).
3. 'We hold that the individual claiming the privilege must demonstrate, through competent evidence, the intent to use material — sought, gathered or received — to disseminate information to the public and that such intent existed at the inception of the newsgathering process.'