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.
Wrong. The President is the Boss here, and you go to the Boss when you have a problem, not another employee. Trump is not the one being investigated here, or did you miss that part, Russian role in this is being investigated, and who leaked the information in this investigation. The President has the right to see any documents or information on any investigation being done by just asking. These Agencies work for him. He is the Boss.
Try and keep up.
You're confused here. Trump is only the boss of the executive branch. He has absolutely zero power or authority over Congress. They can tell him to shove it and there is nothing he can do about it.
You obviously have no clue how our government works.
Wrong. The President is the Boss here, and you go to the Boss when you have a problem, not another employee. Trump is not the one being investigated here, or did you miss that part, Russian role in this is being investigated, and who leaked the information in this investigation. The President has the right to see any documents or information on any investigation being done by just asking. These Agencies work for him. He is the Boss.
I disagree, I think they know exactly what they are doing, - playing the clock, to get things passed because they know - they are sitting on a volcano. Timing and who will finally get burned along with the lava once it spills over the top. I would not want it to be me who finally pulls the lid off. Think about it.
Maybe so. How would I know? From where I sit, they don't seem to be accomplishing much. They have no pragmatic plan - it's nonsensical. The Bumbler-in-Chief is like the Emperor from the 'Emperor's New Clothes' fairy tale, he's a buffoon.
Assange explains certain programs and techniques used to spy on people from Vault 7. Starts at around minute 6. You may have some interruptions, just push the advancer back and forth a few seconds, it will start to play again.
I didn't take the time to read through the entire article but it's a fairly comprehensive review of the issue, including the area of key concern - IF the intelligence community "reported a whole lot of material incidentally collected about the Trump transition that was of no foreign intelligence value and then unmasked the US persons involved."
(Not clear whether "unmasking" is defined as a direct participant or more generally as a topic of conversation. I'd assume the former for it would have to be obvious that Trump is the key subject of most conversations but maybe there are specific intel guidelines that apply on a case-specific basis.)
The paper is organized into sections that examine the following questions with transcripts to follow:
1. Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?
2. Is it surprising or scandalous that Trump transition communications might be subject to incidental collection?
3. Is there anything surprising or upsetting here?
4. So why is Nunes shooting from the hip here and going public before he has any idea what he’s talking about?
5. Did Nunes publicly disclose anything classified?
One contextual comment is that there could be a LOT of relevant intercepts gathered up during the transition for:
Quote:
Now remember that the Trump Transition violated a lot of norms under which transitions don’t generally run entirely independent foreign policies before taking office. The Trump transition organized all sorts of calls with foreign leaders (legitimate targets for surveillance) without coordinating with the State Department or, presumably, the intelligence community.
I didn't take the time to read through the entire article but it's a fairly comprehensive review of the issue, including the area of key concern - IF the intelligence community "reported a whole lot of material incidentally collected about the Trump transition that was of no foreign intelligence value and then unmasked the US persons involved."
(Not clear whether "unmasking" is defined as a direct participant or more generally as a topic of conversation. I'd assume the former for it would have to be obvious that Trump is the key subject of most conversations but maybe there are specific intel guidelines that apply on a case-specific basis.)
The paper is organized into sections that examine the following questions with transcripts to follow:
1. Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?
2. Is it surprising or scandalous that Trump transition communications might be subject to incidental collection?
3. Is there anything surprising or upsetting here?
4. So why is Nunes shooting from the hip here and going public before he has any idea what he’s talking about?
5. Did Nunes publicly disclose anything classified?
One contextual comment is that there could be a LOT of relevant intercepts gathered up during the transition for:
This writer seems to think it is part of Russian connection. Nunes clarified multiple times, it is not related to existing Russia investigation. That may be the reason why Comey is not aware of it. Nunes should have communicated with his committee as well if these reports are addressed to them. He jumped the guns in that respect. Regarding Trump team violating Logan act, they didn't even charge Flynn.
Donald Trump said that President Obama wiretapped him.
That's not what Devin Nunes 'proved' at all.
He merely regurgitated what we already know-that Trump campaign officials may have incidentally been recorded speaking to Russians who were being surveilled.
This was no smoking gun, no vindication-just a diversionary tactic used by Republicans meant to try and change the subject and squash the investigation. Barack Obama had nothing to do with that. Period.
I am quite frankly apalled at the partisanship-over-loyalty-to-country we are seeing right now.
Are you people Americans or are you Russians????
As if that is only on one side of the aisle???
Nobody outside of the group having access knows what Nunes has seen, you are speculating as much as those stating that Trump has been vindicated.
This writer seems to think it is part of Russian connection. Nunes clarified multiple times, it is not related to existing Russia investigation. That may be the reason why Comey is not aware of it. Nunes should have communicated with his committee as well if these reports are addressed to them. He jumped the guns in that respect. Regarding Trump team violating Logan act, they didn't even charge Flynn.
Maybe it's getting too late for both of us - but I only see Russia in their beginning quote of Nunes saying that it's not about Russia. You seem to have gotten pretty far into the article to see where Nunes did not speak to Comey - at that point I was skimming so didn't really have a takeaway about that omission.
I did end up watching a replay of the Hannity interview. Nunes looks miserable and uncomfortable - clearly he's taken a lot of the tweet mess to heart. Too, Nunes may have legitimately been upset at a lot of what he read - which was? The foreign communities' impression of Trump and company - which probably was less than flattering but enshrined for circulation?
He continued to speak in the hypothetical about any unmasking but seems to expect to find some based upon an intel source.
For all of the talk, I'm not quite sure what the endgame is. Proof that the Obama Administration is trying to derail the Trump Administration? With widespread unmasking that cannot be justified (for there seem to be gray areas) and matched up to leaks?
But at what cost in the off chance of grabbing the golden ring? Nunes is pretty much accusing the intel community of not properly handling information. Nunes and Schiff are now at each other's throats in an increasingly nasty public fight that heated up tonight. There are calls for Nunes' resignation. How much faith would many have in the ongoing Russian investigations?
I have to give it to Nunes - just now saw a replay where he referenced his apology. He seemed sincere.
This is crazy. How much of this would be going on right now (including the Comey revelation of the existing Campaign investigations) had those tweets not happened three weeks ago?
So let me get this straight.
The DNC is PO'ed, because "The Donald" had more dirt on Hillary, than Hillary's Professional team of espionage, could get on Trump.
So let me get this straight.
The DNC is PO'ed, because "The Donald" had more dirt on Hillary, than Hillary's Professional team of espionage, could get on Trump.
Is that what this boils down to?
Are you in the right thread?
This one is about Nunes, FISA surveillance reports, and whether those reports properly masked/unmasked names.
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.
Maybe so. How would I know? From where I sit, they don't seem to be accomplishing much. They have no pragmatic plan - it's nonsensical. The Bumbler-in-Chief is like the Emperor from the 'Emperor's New Clothes' fairy tale, he's a buffoon.
