United We Stand - uwsboard.com

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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?

awesome guy wrote:

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

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

USN_Hokie wrote:

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

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

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

USN_Hokie wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

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

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

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

HokieFanDC wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

VisorBoy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

VisorBoy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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.

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/

133743Hokie wrote: Regardless, no one will ever be able to prove that Obama ordered it, even if he did.