he is creating a proposal to work with the fbi again and again, bruce ohr is the intermediary here. the details about the state department communications showing that simpson was talking to a top state department official under obama repeatedly, victoria nuland. so this is top levels at the state department working with the clinton campaign operative on this get trump effort. it shows you the broad nature, unprecedented nature, secretive nature, corrupt nature, of the investigation targeting trump that involved the fbi, the doj, and the state department and you know, when you look at the corruption as it is described here, because it is corruption, then you have to step back and recognize none of this was told to the fisa courtson as they are authorizing spying based on this garbage, unprecedented spying warrants on president trump. sean: we also know from bruce ohr s previous notes that have been revealed that steele,
containing state department e-mails. how do you read this? it looks like there is a discrepancy here, right? abedin said earlier this summer she was under sworn deposition she thought she handed over all of the devices that had communications, but there were two laptops, one blackberry and a bunch of documents she did hand over. right. exactly. she handed over a lot of information. and if we give her the benefit of the doubt here, the most charitable explanation is she forgot or didn t realize or she wasn t thinking in terms of her husband s hardware, computer hardware as well as her known. there is an explanation that is feasible that doesn t involve huma doing anything insidious or deceptive, but even the most charitable explanation is a problem. when you work in government you have to keep track of these things, especially when it is state department communications. so, amy, look, you co-authored the book hrc. you have some insight into the huma and hillary relationship. t
grasp on this film because the film allowed them to attack an american. whereas if the real culprits, as they turned out to be, were radical islamists, then it would have been another example. this is not something, sean, i came to early on. it was only as i kept thinking why is it the director of state department communications, speaking on behalf of, quote, my building s leadership, who is driving this. it s not the white house. the white house would have been usually, narrowly political, and i frankly could be giving you a different analysis tonight. isn t the guy that made the film still in jail, interestingly enough, out of all of this? i think he might have. why would he be in jail? well, remember they put him in jail for he had a probation violation of some sort and it resulted in him being arrested and put in jail. here s my point, though. the talking points originally were right. they mentioned al-qaeda, they mentioned terror, they mentioned all the things we know now
grasp on this film because the film allowed them to attack an american. whereas if the real culprits, as they turned out to be, were radical islamists, then it would have been another example. this is not something, sean, i came to early on. it was only as i kept thinking why is it the director of state department communications, speaking on behalf of, quote, my building s leadership, who is driving this. it s not the white house. the white house would have been usually, narrowly political, and i frankly could be giving you a different analysis tonight. isn t the guy that made the film still in jail, interestingly enough, out of all of this? i think he might have. why would he be in jail? well, remember they put him in jail for he had a probation violation of some sort and it resulted in him being arrested and put in jail. here s my point, though. the talking points originally were right. they mentioned al-qaeda, they mentioned terror, they mentioned all the things we know now