Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mr Nunes seems to be surprised & unprepared for the whole scenario, personally I'm not buying it. Let's face it, he's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, shouldn't he be at least a bit familiar with the workings of the Intelligence community? Is he that clueless?
He is very familiar with how the Intel community is supposed to work.
He's exposing unlawful, unethical workings of the Intel community. He saw documents with names that were not redacted.
One does not take that to the very people who have violated the law within the community, -- would you?
That would do nothing other than to help cover up, and he would then become part of the problem.
TRUMP: I'm a 'smart person,' don't need intelligence briefings every single day
Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump brushed off concerns that he's not participating in the traditional daily intelligence and national security briefings that presidents hold every day.
"I get it when I need it," Trump told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.
"I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years," the president-elect added. "I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"
Trump emphasized that Vice President-elect Mike Pence was receiving daily briefings.
"In the meantime, my generals are great — are being briefed. And Mike Pence is being briefed, who is, by the way, one of my very good decisions," Trump said, referring to his decision to pick Pence as his VP. "They're being briefed. And I'm being briefed also."
I usually appreciate the writers at Lawfare's take on things. I wasn't disappointed by the link you shared, thanks & respect, appreciate!
What The Heck Is Devin Nunes Talking About? A Guide for the Perplexed Great headline!
As for the short answers at this point?
Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.
Answer: Almost certainly not.
Answer: Maybe.
Answer: Beats us.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Combine this from the article:
Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?
Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.
Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition. He didn’t allege that communications were intercepted legally. And he didn’t allege either that the problem—if there is a problem—lay in the masking or unmasking of U.S. persons in lawful intelligence community reporting.
Trump alleged, rather, (1) that his own wires were tapped—with two p’s, no less, (2) that a specific facility in the United States (Trump Tower) and that he personally were specifically targeted for collection, (3) that the surveillance was illegal, (4) that it took place during the campaign, and (5) that it was all ordered by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.
All of those claims appeared to be malicious lies when he made them. And nothing that Nunes is saying, even if it’s all true, supports any of them.
With Nunes' statement to Jake Tapper:
Tapper: But how is he right if he said that he was, he said Obama wire tapped him at Trump Towers?
Nunes: No, he's not right about that Jake. but as you know I told you that, I think many times.
And the only thing Nunes' new evidence questions if names of US citizens were inappropriately unmasked. Just because they were unmasked does not mean it was done illegally. Since Nunes does not know much about his new evidence, the question of the names being unmasked can't be answered.
Looks like Trump has good time management skills. Pence is receiving briefings. If anything comes up that he needs to know, he asked to be informed of it.
He is very familiar with how the Intel community is supposed to work.
He's exposing unlawful, unethical workings of the Intel community. He saw documents with names that were not redacted.
One does not take that to the very people who have violated the law within the community, -- would you?
That would do nothing other than to help cover up, and he would then become part of the problem.
Reason seems to be escaping the left.
Based on the fact that he went straight to the person who is under investigation with his new evidence, I'm not sure he knows how the Constitution works. He is part of the Legislative Branch and does not report to the president. His committee does not report to president. He reports to the people, as does his committee, which presents it's results to the people, not the president.
Who violated the law within the community? The other members of his committee?
Nunes said his decision to go the president was a judgement call and sometimes you make the wrong call and at the end of the day you have live by your decision. It's sounding like he's regretting it.
Last edited by Redd Jedd; 03-24-2017 at 06:47 AM..
...
Mr Nunes seems to be surprised & unprepared for the whole scenario, personally, I'm not buying it. Let's face it, he's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, shouldn't he be at least a bit familiar with the workings of the Intelligence community? Is he that clueless?
He appears to be.
Nunse and most the other Republicans on the committee act as if getting to the bottom of the Russian involvement in the election is the last things on their minds.
I'm not kidding.
At Monday's hearing, Republicans yammered on endlessly about unmasking, and "felonious" leaks, and who could be arrested, and what a dreadful impact it would have on national security.
Instead of trying to find out what was going on with the Russians and our elections in order to keep it from happening again, they were warning people to shut up about it.
Combine this from the article:
Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?
Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.
Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition. He didn’t allege that communications were intercepted legally. And he didn’t allege either that the problem—if there is a problem—lay in the masking or unmasking of U.S. persons in lawful intelligence community reporting.
Trump alleged, rather, (1) that his own wires were tapped—with two p’s, no less, (2) that a specific facility in the United States (Trump Tower) and that he personally were specifically targeted for collection, (3) that the surveillance was illegal, (4) that it took place during the campaign, and (5) that it was all ordered by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.
All of those claims appeared to be malicious lies when he made them. And nothing that Nunes is saying, even if it’s all true, supports any of them.
With Nunes' statement to Jake Tapper:
Tapper: But how is he right if he said that he was, he said Obama wire tapped him at Trump Towers?
Nunes: No, he's not right about that Jake. but as you know I told you that, I think many times.
And the only thing Nunes' new evidence questions if names of US citizens were inappropriately unmasked. Just because they were unmasked does not mean it was done illegally. Since Nunes does not know much about his new evidence, the question of the names being unmasked can't be answered.
Yup. & the upshot of all of this, at this point, is we still don't know what the heck he (Mr Nunes) was/is talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
And your point is...?
Looks like Trump has good time management skills. Pence is receiving briefings. If anything comes up that he needs to know, he asked to be informed of it.
The point is he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about & he doesn't know what the heck he's doing. Does he want to be briefed? Does he not want to be briefed?
He needs to up his game, folks are catching on to him.
Based on the fact that he went straight to the person who is under investigation with his new evidence, I'm not sure he knows how the Constitution works. He is part of the Legislative Branch and does not report to the president. His committee does not report to president. He reports to the people, as does his the committee, which presents it's results to the people, not the president.
Who violated the law within the community? The other members of his committee?
Nunes said his decision to go the president was a judgement call and sometimes you make the wrong call and at the end of the day you have live by your decision. It's sounding like he's regretting it.
And the only thing Nunes' new evidence questions if names of US citizens were inappropriately unmasked. Just because they were unmasked does not mean it was done illegally. Since Nunes does not know much about his new evidence, the question of the names being unmasked can't be answered.
To address specifically the portions above:
As it often happens in politics, once the tip of the iceberg is exposed, a lot more comes to light. So it seems with the infamous tweet. A lot is being discovered the deeper people dig. Maybe many wish the digging would stop.
Nunes SAW the documents he references. He saw that names were not redacted. If they were picked up 'incidentally' as has been claimed by some, then unmasking was indeed illegal.
If these names were actual targets, that's a different matter. Question then would be WHO were the targets and was Trump among them. As a U.S. citizen, Trump being targeted requires certain other procedures to be in place before that targeting is legal. Were these procedures followed?
Lots of questions that ought to concern all of us, regardless of party affiliation or bias.
Nunse and most the other Republicans on the committee act as if getting to the bottom of the Russian involvement in the election is the last things on their minds.
I'm not kidding.
At Monday's hearing, Republicans yammered on endlessly about unmasking, and "felonious" leaks, and who could be arrested, and what a dreadful impact it would have on national security.
Instead of trying to find out what was going on with the Russians and our elections in order to keep it from happening again, they were warning people to shut up about it.
It was damn strange.
I know you think keeping the Russian-elections issue in the forefront is really, really important.
More important than abuse of our Constitution by some in the intel community -- violating the law and unmasking and leaking secure information...
...especially since it's been proven that any attempts to influence our elections had no effect on the results whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
