USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
Attila T Hun wrote:LOL..You guys sound like the Baltimore dolt defending their position on bringing in the illegal who raped the your girl...Good job guys.
What in the wide, wide world of sports are you talking about?
USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?
recuse himself from what? the pres is not under investigation, his campaign is for stealing the election from thunder thighs..... The really really really big problem is people have said repeatedly there is no evidence that Russia affected the election and as comey said Russia had been didddling in our elections for decades. The totally hypocritical part is we blatantly mess with other countries elections but this is all about trying to force Trump out of office. We won, they lost, get over it
USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?
recuse himself from what? the pres is not under investigation, his campaign is for stealing the election from thunder thighs..... The really really really big problem is people have said repeatedly there is no evidence that Russia affected the election and as comey said Russia had been didddling in our elections for decades. The totally hypocritical part is we blatantly mess with other countries elections but this is all about trying to force Trump out of office. We won, they lost, get over it
Sounds like he's repeating Nancy Pelosi (who has no idea what Nunes is talking about.....or does she?) talking points.
USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?
recuse himself from what? the pres is not under investigation, his campaign is for stealing the election from thunder thighs..... The really really really big problem is people have said repeatedly there is no evidence that Russia affected the election and as comey said Russia had been didddling in our elections for decades. The totally hypocritical part is we blatantly mess with other countries elections but this is all about trying to force Trump out of office. We won, they lost, get over it
Sounds like he's repeating Nancy Pelosi (who has no idea what Nunes is talking about.....or does she?) talking points.
USN_Hokie wrote:I think the implications could be even deeper than Woodward suggests if unmasked, incidental information was consolidated and distributed.
Now, imagine if this "widespread sharing" was facilitated by the new rules Obama authorized in Dec / Jan allowing greater information sharing?
Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme
USN_Hokie wrote:I think the implications could be even deeper than Woodward suggests if unmasked, incidental information was consolidated and distributed.
Now, imagine if this "widespread sharing" was facilitated by the new rules Obama authorized in Dec / Jan allowing greater information sharing?
Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme
USN_Hokie wrote:Wow, just listened to the 2nd (?) Nunes interview...he hits right on the point I made earlier about the unmasking/dissemination. He's really sticking his neck out here with some of his comments.
Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?
recuse himself from what? the pres is not under investigation, his campaign is for stealing the election from thunder thighs..... The really really really big problem is people have said repeatedly there is no evidence that Russia affected the election and as comey said Russia had been didddling in our elections for decades. The totally hypocritical part is we blatantly mess with other countries elections but this is all about trying to force Trump out of office. We won, they lost, get over it
Sounds like he's repeating Nancy Pelosi (who has no idea what Nunes is talking about.....or does she?) talking points.
John McCain sounds pissed as always. I wonder if he could be implicit in this? What if there's a paper trail going back to politicians?
I would not rule out McCain, Graham, etc.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
How the material was collected might not even be the issue. Look through some of the other comments on the thread.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
How the material was collected might not even be the issue. Look through some of the other comments on the thread.
Hahaha. What a fitting gif.......
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
It's still important to understand the use of the incidental collection. If that was outside the norm, or outside what is allowed, that's a big deal.
There is zero chance that Trump's tweets weren't completely off base and made up, but that doesn't mean that the Obama admin didn't do some very bad things.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
It's still important to understand the use of the incidental collection. If that was outside the norm, or outside what is allowed, that's a big deal.
There is zero chance that Trump's tweets weren't completely off base and made up, but that doesn't mean that the Obama admin didn't do some very bad things.
Agree. But remember that the wiretapping was approved through FISA. So unless the smoking contains proof that the FBI's case to FISA was based on misinformation or lies, etc, then I don't expect much, if any, malfeasance being provable for obtaining the warrant to wiretap. This will be hard to prove, I imagine, given that almost all FISA warrants are approved.
As I said, the question is whether, after gaining the legal authority to tap some part of Trump Tower, the administration (a) purposely misused intelligence gathered or (b) collected information outside of what was permitted by the FISA ruling.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
It's still important to understand the use of the incidental collection. If that was outside the norm, or outside what is allowed, that's a big deal.
There is zero chance that Trump's tweets weren't completely off base and made up, but that doesn't mean that the Obama admin didn't do some very bad things.
Agree. But remember that the wiretapping was approved through FISA. So unless the smoking contains proof that the FBI's case to FISA was based on misinformation or lies, etc, then I don't expect much, if any, malfeasance being provable for obtaining the warrant to wiretap. This will be hard to prove, I imagine, given that almost all FISA warrants are approved.
As I said, the question is whether, after gaining the legal authority to tap some part of Trump Tower, the administration (a) purposely misused intelligence gathered or (b) collected information outside of what was permitted by the FISA ruling.
If what Nunes said yesterday is true, it was almost undoubtedly mishandled after being collected.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
Regardless, no one will ever be able to prove that Obama ordered it, even if he did. This type of stuff is done by surrogates and third parties. His hands are clean. People need to give up thinking that O is going to somehow get hund out to dry on this. Worst case Valerie Jarrett takes a bullet.
This is the part that the smoking gun will have to prove:
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
No one doubts the incidental surveillance during the FBI's investigation of the Russians. The question is whether it's proven to be the Obama administration (and specifically Obama himself) strategized to use that as a cover for something illegal or sinister.
Comey just stated under oath that they weren't under surveillance. So according to his testimony there can't be a FISA warrant. So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
It's still important to understand the use of the incidental collection. If that was outside the norm, or outside what is allowed, that's a big deal.
There is zero chance that Trump's tweets weren't completely off base and made up, but that doesn't mean that the Obama admin didn't do some very bad things.
Agree. But remember that the wiretapping was approved through FISA. So unless the smoking contains proof that the FBI's case to FISA was based on misinformation or lies, etc, then I don't expect much, if any, malfeasance being provable for obtaining the warrant to wiretap. This will be hard to prove, I imagine, given that almost all FISA warrants are approved.
As I said, the question is whether, after gaining the legal authority to tap some part of Trump Tower, the administration (a) purposely misused intelligence gathered or (b) collected information outside of what was permitted by the FISA ruling.
The full extent of the improper spying—including the improper unmasking of Americans whose identities were to be hidden in reports of foreign communications intercepts—is expected to be disclosed Friday, Nunes said.
133743Hokie wrote:
Regardless, no one will ever be able to prove that Obama ordered it, even if he did.
Thinking out loud... IF it was shown that the intelligence sharing order was only used for Trump campaign communications, that would be incredibly damning in my opinion. Probably not provable in a criminal court, but the Democrat party would implode.