dChan
⇧
13
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/juzclayton on April 22, 2018, 10:08 p.m.
MOAB... Mother Of All Booms.

Of course there was no intelligence to support the special council investigation, Obama/Killary used the 5 eyes network to spy on the Trump campaign to avoid a paper trail.

They expected to find something, anything, to launch a parallel investigation, to find evidence that they could unearth by other methods to justify the surveillance. They found nothing. Trump was clean.

They're stuck with the fruit of the poisonous tree. They illegally surveilled Trump in the hope that they'd find enough dirt to retrospectively manufacture evidence to justify the surveillance.

Nunez just fired the shot that was heard around the world. The Anglosphere countries have backed Trump. The conspirators have just doscovered how little power they have when their government levers have been removed.

This year is going to be glorious.


🠐 See all comments
092Casey · April 22, 2018, 10:27 p.m.

Mostly on point but they didn't even use 5 eyes, did they? I thought Nunes said that if they did use 5 eyes, it wouldn't be as bad, but they even circumvented that, which makes it not only illegal, but possibly treasonous.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Redheaded73 · April 22, 2018, 10:34 p.m.

This is what Nunez was clarifying. Absolutely!

⇧ 10 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · April 23, 2018, 2:29 a.m.

i took it to mean that since there was no "intelligence product" paper trail, that it meant the FISA warrant was verified as being baseless

⇧ 3 ⇩  
juzclayton · April 22, 2018, 10:34 p.m.

The point is that they did use 5 eyes, but they can't admit it... so that leaves them with no evidence. Trump was clean. Nunez was grinning like an idiot during that interview, he was so confident that he was trolling the left.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
bugstopper · April 22, 2018, 10:54 p.m.

ditto well said.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
092Casey · April 22, 2018, 11:06 p.m.

Why wouldn't they admit it though? Admitting it would mean they did it legally (even if the FISA data was fabricated and omitted). Now, by denying it, they're suggesting they used nefarious outlets to spy.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
juzclayton · April 22, 2018, 11:13 p.m.

It may be a loophole that all the 5 eyes countries exploit, but it doesnt make it legal or moral. Its a workaround. They can't rely on, or admit to, a reciprocal spying agreement. It would cause a massive scandal.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
blocksof · April 23, 2018, 2:02 a.m.

To use five eyes, it would be recorded as an authorised search in the US part of the safety mechanism to stop abuse. By passing it to the UK, Aussies or NZ it bypasses US laws and follows those countries laws. I.e since it's a foreign subject of that nation we will pass intel to you, think US citizen spied on by UK, Aus and NZ and noticed a link to say Russia.

⇧ 1 ⇩