Assuming this is all true… just how stupid was she?
Why the fuck would she telegraph what she is working on by going to comped govt agencies?
Did she really learn nothing?
Thus, seems like a larp.
>YOU are being TRACKED.
All phones are tracked, by Apple and Google already.
What makes you think FB or Twitter or anything else is necessary?
>How do u legally inject evidence?
I've heard this bullshit argument many times, re:Flynn etc.
Isn't that all a bit round-about?
They could also just give it to a prosecutor who presents it to the grand jury and creates an indictment.
This path only makes sense when you want it socialized heavily with the public first, and then bring charges after, to avoid it looking political.
The information is already out there.
ie, why they released the Strzok/Page texts.
It's a redpilling play more than a legal strategy.
>-things that you don't know that you don't know
Still doesn't change the issue.
Assuming you've got at least one honest prosecutor, why can't you just provide the evidence directly and go the legal route?
Why go through all the circle jerk motions of totally separate legal paths for introducing evidence?
>how do you prepare for a picnic if you don't know how fare you'll go?
Your metaphor is stupid because in this case, the person with the evidence knows the crime, or at least it would allow the prosecutor to start the investigation.
But instead, they are going to incriminate themselves in a totally separate crime just so they can reveal the evidence of the first crime?
ie, I don't know whether I'm going for a walk in the park or a trip to the antarctic, so instead I go on a drive without seatbelts hoping to get caught?
Because… reasons?
>you're still thinking of a single containable prosecution event
Because you are talking in parables instead of getting to the point.
Please explain why purposefully creating a totally separate crime to introduce evidence is superior than more directly introduced in the crime being investigated… at least the first one, then it is available for all others.
wtf?
This is after the election, after Manafort had been fired, after it was revealed he was under FBI investigation… and Kushner is entertaining appointment advice?
The whole thing feels like an attempt to entrap.
SInce Calk wasn't called as a witness, he must be dirty.
Was he the gateway for Deripaska to launder money to Manafort?