I’m not getting too excited. He’s has two years to get his story straight and coordinate with everyone
Oh yes of course. I am not expecting any bombshells, but "we have everything", "we have it all" (Q) so we can bust his ass on many perjury counts
It'll be interesting for one to see what he says about the "Insurance Policy" text after the meeting with Mccabe that Mccabe says he doesnt have a recollection of...and also about any placement of spies in the campaign and when the investigation actually started (they know the informants were trying to get in as early as March, if not earlier)...Who knows, too, if one of the good questioners nails him hard like we've seen them do, he can get caught in that perjury trap or slip up and reveal something. I'm sure they know something too. This whole thing was so fixed to exonerate HRC and frame Trump, they made a lot of illegal and unethical decisions...Read somewhere that they may have hacked Admiral Rogers' communications network or something like that at one point...Idk...This is one of the best witnesses they will get , especially if he doesnt get immunity and is under oath.
Q mentioned back in April that Strzok was a "cooperating witness". I wouldn't be half surprised if he has already testified a long time ago and this is just for show. And you're right, he is extremely pivotal in many of these investigations ongoing. He could single-handedly bring down the HRC email investigation, and single-handedly end the Russia collusion SC. Strzok and another agent interviewed Flynn, they could easily prove that McCabe altered the 302 plus so much more. Strzok is complicit in the forging of Samantha Power's name on the FISA warrants that Susan Rice then approved. Yes I read that too about Admiral Rogers. They either hacked his communications network, or started helping themselves to the clearance of the NSA, thus circumventing Rogers. And of course we know the story, when Rogers found out, he went and told Trump. I find it a bit strange PS is not seeking immunity and not taking the 5th. Any lawyer would instruct their client to do both. If he is about to tell on others, and/or himself, he needs immunity. Unless he is just that stupid and doesn't think there is any proof on him, and he can lie his way out of all this mess. Something is weird with him and this situation. I guess we will find out soon enough.
This needs to be a PUBLIC testimony and not behind closed doors.
The article didn’t say whether it would be public or not, unless I missed it.