How can you be sure about events unless you were there?
We rely on the witness of other people. When CNN makes up a story, we get either one or both of the following: video evidence that it didn't happen, and/or witness testimony that it didn't happen.
You know things that haven't made the news yet?
Yes. For instance, we knew about FISA abuse 2-1/2 years before the rest of the country did.
The FBI denied wiretapping the Trump campaign at Trump Tower. They had wiretapped some members of a gambling ring.
Of course they denied it. But now the truth is coming out. Right?
Please re-read the Nypost article again. This time think about what we have learned about the FISA process. The FISA courts were created after 911 in hopes that the US intelligence services might use electronic surveillance techniques to spy on foreign operatives. Under the Fourth Amendment, the government is forbidden to spy on American citizens without a warrant so when the FBI or other intelligence agencies wire-tap phone calls, transcriptions of the phone call, the names of American citizens are redacted.
We recently learned from public testimony and declassified official documents that the Obama Administration was abusing the FISA system. James Comey and others would swear under oath that the target was one person, when in fact the target was another person instead. So, for instance, the FBI got a warrant to spy on Carter Page, but the actual target was Donald Trump. The FBI got a warrant to spy on George Papadopoulos, but the true target was Donald Trump. A warrant to spy on a Russian Gambling Ring can easily encompass a candidate for public office.
How is this done? The law allows for the "two hop rule", which essentially says that a FISA warrant that targets person 'x' is also a warrant to target his or her associates and the associates of these associates. i.e two hops. So how does this give the former FBI access to Donald Trump if his name is redacted? FBI officials and others are allowed to request that the redaction be removed, i.e. "unmasked."
Trump's Attorney General knew of a crime and chose not to pursue it? I honestly can't believe this.
Eric Holder was the Attorney General at that time.
Why would he threaten to intervene in a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of a state?
The Insurrection Act of 1807
The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:
*when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
*to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
*to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails,
or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).