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.
How many times does it have to be stated that the names of US citizens do not need to be masked if knowing their identities is important to understanding the context of the communication? This also goes to "incidental collection". They do not need to stop collection once a US citizen is introduced if it is mportant to understanding the context of the communication.
Also from the article link you posted:
But if the NSA or another agency with which NSA is sharing the information, like the FBI, wants to identify the person, it can do so if it believes it's necessary in the course of investigations or have probable cause to indicate there may be criminal conduct involved.
To reemphasize your point - terminology IS important. No one knows what Nunes saw, although it sounds like names were within the conversations - he appears to be characterizing any visible name as "unmasked?" He almost certainly will question intel judgment. Then weren't there two levels of collections under the FISA, with differing standards? (That's a rhetorical question - if I'm not going to backtrack no need for anyone else.)
Regardless, no one in Nunes' position should make the kind of charges he's making in the WAY he did with this profound lack of clarity.
Manafort has just requested to be interviewed by the committee voluntarily, Nunes just said in press conference a few minutes ago.
Nunes also just said he's getting Comey and Rogers in next week for a closed interview in order to obtain information that they could not reveal in the public setting.
Nunes said the NSA is expected to submit documents today and also in the coming days concerning the recent information Nunes has seen.
Wonder how this plays into things. Letter was sent the day after the first hearings. It says whistleblower Montgomery has been trying to get his findings investigated for the last two years, and when they weren't brought up in the hearings, it was decided that if this isn't addressed in the next hearings, his findings might be made public.
Manafort has just requested to be interviewed by the committee voluntarily, Nunes just said in press conference a few minutes ago.
Nunes also just said he's getting Comey and Rogers in next week for a closed interview in order to obtain information that they could not reveal in the public setting.
Nunes said the NSA is expected to submit documents today and also in the coming days concerning the recent information Nunes has seen.
Manafort volunteers to be interviewed? Well, now.
Nunes needs to recuse himself. He is no longer credible enough to head this investigation up.
Nunes said the information was so troubling that he felt a need to tell the President because 'if it was me I'd want to know why this was part of the surveillance'.
Nunes has doubts over whether there was a legit reason for the surveillance.
nunes is a republican. His first loyalty is to his party and his friends, not to some position he holds.
Yup. This is from page 57 of this now 84 page thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Agree, at this point, competently moving forward seems to be not only challenging, but 'tarnished' by partisanship (i.e. some folks seem to be putting Party before Country).
At this point, it would be helpful, from my perspective, for the investigations, while overlapping, to have 3 essential investigatory questions, with various inquiries stemming from each question.
The first investigative question is whether, or to what extent, Russian actions/behaviors interfered with 2016 US Presidential election. This is a non-partisan question however is not framed as such.
A second investigative question could seek to answer questions re: the leaks of surveillance data. This too is a non-partisan concern, bipartisan inquiries into these would benefit the Country.
A third investigative question could seek to answer questions re: whether or not the Trump machine, while in campaign mode, engaged in inappropriate, untoward or harmful dealings with Russian operatives before the election. This last series of questions is perhaps the most partisan of the three although it is surely worth noting Russian operatives are seeking to forward the best interests of Russia & not what is in the best interests of the American people & the United States of America.
Stating the perhaps obvious, the American people need to be made aware of the conclusions of any/all investigations & recommendations/corrective actions suggested by the findings. We may have to be patient while waiting for the results of these investigations, that's part of the process.
Nunes needs to recuse himself. He is no longer credible enough to head this investigation up.
Looking forward to those NSA documents.
deleted.
Last edited by ritholtz; 03-24-2017 at 09:27 AM..
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.
It's ridiculous.
