United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:41 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:10 am
Posts: 333
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:44 pm
Posts: 1210
HokieFanDC wrote:
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?


Try to keep up...go slow..Try looking up Zeke Cohen
here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTJLih2g3PY

_________________
Image

COMMUNISTS NEVER WIN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8827
HokieHighlander wrote:
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieHighlander wrote:
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



Does Nunes need to recuse himself? Is it proper to brief the President if he's the one under investigation?


Do you have some information that nobody else does?

He said explicitly that this was incidental collection....and he never said or alluded to himself being one of those monitored.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieHighlander wrote:
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3253 ... disturbing

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
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?

Quote:
Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-w ... le/2618185


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8827
USN_Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieHighlander wrote:
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3253 ... disturbing

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?


two people that just need to shut up, McCain and Biden


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31251
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
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?

Quote:
Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-w ... le/2618185

Yep, that's how he covered his tracks.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
awesome guy wrote:
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?

Quote:
Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-w ... le/2618185

Yep, that's how he covered his tracks.

Yup. I'm hoping this leads right to 0.

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 5194
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
USN_Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieHighlander wrote:
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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425836-1/ ... rveillance



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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3253 ... disturbing

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.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31251
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
Image

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
awesome guy wrote:
Image

:lol:

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
This man is mental... :lol:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2914
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


:lol:
Image

How the material was collected might not even be the issue. Look through some of the other comments on the thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


:lol:
Image

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.......

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8629
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

Please let this be true.....I've been let down too much by all this stuff.

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2914
HokieFanDC wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
VisorBoy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5988
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5988
VisorBoy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Quote:
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... -says.html

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
Quote:
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.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... tion-team/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19369
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!