I went to have a few adult beverages with several of my law enforcement friends, two of which are attorneys.
WE watched that woman's interview several times and we noted some things as investigators do when preparing for a case.
1- Farkas spoke in the first person and as one who had first hand knowledge and was herself involved in the things she reveled.
2- Faraks was precise and deliberate in her speaking. She was telling the truth in a friendly atmosphere where she felt safe to release it.
3- Faraks was precise in her explanation of unmaksing and leaking of information and legitimized it.
4- Faraks was precise in her explanation of "how they were able to know what they knew". She has direct knowledge of OTHER ACTORS and the hierarchy of the collusion.
Within just a few minuets after we started listing, observing what we could discern from her language, body posture, and her general wording she was confident that what she had done was justified despite its illegality. The attorneys were screaming about placing her under oath and deposing her... RIGHT NOW!
We learned that there is a large group of people involved.
That they new it was espionage and violated laws.
They wanted it leaked far and wide to damage Trump..
That she was not legally able to have ANY OF THE INFORMATION SHE HAD because she held no security clearance and that she had left government service and was working for the Hillary Clinton Campaign..
By her own admission, she was trafficking in Top Secret Information, Trafficking in PRIVATE conversations of US Citizens illegally obtained, without a warrant for the subjects unmasked.
Who was feeding her the information and why was she providing it for her "Friends on the hill"? This means Clinton knew, Huma knew, as did Obama... (Don't think for a minuet that Obama wasn't involved.. He had to authorize it)
This interview should send her and a few dozen others right to prison..