Declassified Strzok Texts: FBI Spied On Fox News, Recorded Phone Call Between Fox VP And Papadopoulos

New text messages released Thursday show FBI officials spied on a Fox News executive over the course of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation which targeted President Trump as a secret Russian agent who illegally stole the election from Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Because the Obama DOJ never received a warrant to spy on Papadpopoulos, it is likely that the FBI used a so-called National Security Letter to spy on Papadopoulos, and Fox News.
By using a NatSec Letter, a demand sent to telecommunications firms to provide communications information about a specific federal target, Obama’s DOJ and FBI were able to avoid legal requirements to receive a court-approved warrant to secretly spy on an American citizen.
The FBI surveilled and recorded a phone call between former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser @GeorgePapa19 and an unnamed vice president at Fox News, according to a text message sent to fired former FBI official @PeteStrzok just weeks before Trump was inaugurated in 2017.
Agents were targeting former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, codenamed “Crossfire Typhoon.”
The FBI used the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, as a legal pretext to investigate and spy on Papadopoulos, as well as former White House National Security Adviser @GenFlynn , former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and former Trump affiliate @carterwpage.
Although members of the corporate media repeatedly claimed that Trump’s criticism of journalists on Twitter constituted a violent attack on the First Amendment and the free press,
no corporate media outlets have criticized the Obama administration for secretly recording phone calls with a cable news network executive without even bothering to seek a warrant.”

More from Jewhadi™

More from News

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x