collusion submitted under oath before he released an indictment which would, on collusion, it s probably not going to be trump but maybe roger stone, for example. and in that indictment he s likely to set forth and lay out the factual narrative of how the collusion happened. he didn t want trump to see that and be able to tailor his answers to the indictment, so maybe that s one reason. we re all reading tea leaves. maybe that s one reason we haven t seen anything yet. that s why we have prosecutors on because they think in a way most of us do not. there is that sealed filing in the d.c. circuit that everyone is talking about, the latest one was more than 3,000 words. that s pretty big for a filing. any tea leaves reading for what that might be? the only thing that jumps off the page that we know about is that judge katsis on the d.c. circuit who was recently appointed and was part of the white house council s office under trump has recused himself
admonished the agent sbirg view hillary clinton not to go into the interview voted for bear and the same won who said trump was loath some, awful. clinton just has to win and trump should go f himself. most of those comments were before the clinton investigation was over and we re somehow supposed to believe that she did not pre-judge the outcome of that investigation before it was over, she already had hillary clinton winning. i don t know how you can win if you wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony. so i think we understand the first half of that text pretty well. she didn t want trump to win and she wanted clinton to win. now for the response. senior f.b.i. agent peter strzok wrote no, no, he is not,