2 ms·

Also an administration that has been wiretapped (maybe illegally? Let’s see what Durham finds), leaked against, and the recipient of other unprecedented behavio

Also an administration that has been wiretapped (maybe illegally? Let’s see what Durham finds), leaked against, and the recipient of other unprecedented behavior (such as anonymous Nytimes op-eds). Does everybody here know the #2 at the FBI counter intel was texting his lover and asking if there’s anybody in the White House who could spy for them?[1] They’d be foolish if they don’t try and dramatically shake things up. If I were them I wouldn’t trust any previous admin holdovers. 1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/trending/strzok-page-texts-suggest-effort-to-recruit-white-house-staffers-to-spy-on-trump-team/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/trending/strzok-pag...

ForHackernews 7y ago
Neither Strzok nor Page was "the #2 at the FBI". Strzok was the second in command of the counter-intelligence division, but that's just one division of the FBI. Since when are unfriendly op-eds in the NYT "unprecedented"? Look, I'm sure the Trump administration has plenty of legitimate reasons to be paranoid about people trying to undermine them, but it's pretty hard for me to accept that driving out all your competent opsec people is going to reduce the amount of leaks and compromises.
werm82 7y ago
>the #2 at the FBI He was the #2 in the FBI Counterintelligence Division, which isn't exactly second in command of the entire bureau. Also, the article you linked said that the texts "may show potential attempts by the FBI to conduct surveillance of President-elect Trump's transition team". And that is according to one senator from Iowa. That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened. Edited for formatting.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  > That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened. It's been 2 long years, and hopefully (finally) the public will get some transparency regarding the genesis of the 4 FISAs signed to spy on the campaign. Of course, to learn anything substantial about the IG report you basically have to surgically removal oneself from the MSM spin machines.
shantly 7y ago
All the "the deep state and media are out to get him!" stuff might be easier to swallow if not for all the very public, very visible, very much self-inflicted mismanagement, and the not-even-trying-to-hide-it conflicts of interest and corruption.

ForHackernews 7y ago

Neither Strzok nor Page was "the #2 at the FBI". Strzok was the second in command of the counter-intelligence division, but that's just one division of the FBI. Since when are unfriendly op-eds in the NYT "unprecedented"? Look, I'm sure the Trump administration has plenty of legitimate reasons to be paranoid about people trying to undermine them, but it's pretty hard for me to accept that driving out all your competent opsec people is going to reduce the amount of leaks and compromises.

werm82 7y ago

>the #2 at the FBI He was the #2 in the FBI Counterintelligence Division, which isn't exactly second in command of the entire bureau. Also, the article you linked said that the texts "may show potential attempts by the FBI to conduct surveillance of President-elect Trump's transition team". And that is according to one senator from Iowa. That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened. Edited for formatting.

dev_dull 7y ago
> That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened. It's been 2 long years, and hopefully (finally) the public will get some transparency regarding the genesis of the 4 FISAs signed to spy on the campaign. Of course, to learn anything substantial about the IG report you basically have to surgically removal oneself from the MSM spin machines.

shantly 7y ago

All the "the deep state and media are out to get him!" stuff might be easier to swallow if not for all the very public, very visible, very much self-inflicted mismanagement, and the not-even-trying-to-hide-it conflicts of interest and corruption.