The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 22, 2017, 05:34:50 pm
-
Nunes: Intel community surveiled Trump transition officials
By Morgan Chalfant - 03/22/17 01:30 PM EDT
The U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Wednesday.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325218-nunes-intelligence-community-collected-information-on-trump-transition
-
Nunes: Intel community surveiled Trump transition officials
By Morgan Chalfant - 03/22/17 01:30 PM EDT
The U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Wednesday.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325218-nunes-intelligence-community-collected-information-on-trump-transition
Didn't all the Trump haters tell us this was a made up non story that Trump just made up without any evidence?
-
So the London news blows this off the cycle. BUT, it ain't going away.
-
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated that Trump's communications may have been swept up.
Nunes said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was legally collected.
What does this even mean? Isn't "incidental" data supposed to be deep sixed? Was a FISA warrant obtained.?
-
Nunes: Intel community surveiled Trump transition officials
By Morgan Chalfant - 03/22/17 01:30 PM EDT
The U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Wednesday.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325218-nunes-intelligence-community-collected-information-on-trump-transition
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Things that make ya say hmmmmmmmm
-
What does this even mean? Isn't "incidental" data supposed to be deep sixed? Was a FISA warrant obtained.?
It means Trump was sorta right.....
Rush discussing this now
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Things that make ya say hmmmmmmmm
:shrug:
More sources.
Is this part of the FBI investigation that Comey admitted to yesterday?
-
It means the Obama administration was "wiretapping" members of the incoming Trump team. It is naive to believe Trump wouldn't be accidentally targeted.
The question is : Why? What was the point? It's possible that the PTB were trying to figure out how this "clown" got to be President.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366
Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration
-
:shrug:
More sources.
Is this part of the FBI investigation that Comey admitted to yesterday?
No...nothing to do with Russia....this is BIG!
-
It means the Obama administration was "wiretapping" members of the incoming Trump team. It is naive to believe Trump wouldn't be accidentally targeted.
The question is : Why? What was the point? It's possible that the PTB were trying to figure out how this "clown" got to be President.
@Restored
IMO they were trying to find something to use against him. Something to kill his campaign and allow Hillary to walk into the White House.
-
:shrug:
More sources.
Is this part of the FBI investigation that Comey admitted to yesterday?
What did I tell everybody?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,254840.msg1266487.html#msg1266487
-
@Restored
IMO they were trying to find something to use against him. Something to kill his campaign and allow Hillary to walk into the White House.
You don't say? I would have guessed it was more along the lines of finding out his favorite steak recipe, but yeah, figuring out what his campaign was doing could be used to help Hillary win, but you would have to be an absolute cynic to believe the Obama White house would do anything so conniving and underhanded. (and illegal)
Shades of Watergate!
-
It means Trump was sorta right.....
Rush discussing this now
Ya think?
How can Comey continue in his position? He's running a rogue operation by his own admission, He deems the intel too sensitive to share with Congress? That is not his call.
-
SOURCE: ZERO HEDGE
URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/nunes-trump-transition-members-and-possibly-trump-himself-were-under-surveillance-du (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/nunes-trump-transition-members-and-possibly-trump-himself-were-under-surveillance-du)
It appears Trump may have been right, again.
Two days after FBI director Comey shot down Trump's allegation that Trump was being wiretapped by president Obama before the election, it appears that president Trump may have been on to something because moments ago, the House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team, possibly including Trump himself, and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.
As AP adds, Nunes said that President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection."
Nunes told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence collections were done legally, although in light of the dramatic change in the plotline it may be prudent to reserve judgment on how "incidental" it was.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
"Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports."
The information was "legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it," Nunes said, though he provided little detail on the source.
Eric BollingVerified account
@ericbolling
Follow
More
BREAKING!!! Rep Devin Nunes (Intel Cmte Chmn):
There was "Incidental collection" of @realDonaldTrump thru IC surveillance <- BOMBSHELL
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated that Trump's communications may have been swept up.
The House Intel Chair said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was legally collected. Nunes said that the intelligence has nothing to do with Russia and that the collection occurred after the presidential election.
Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and will inform the White House later today. Nunes' statement comes after he and other congressional leaders pushed back on Trump's claims that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower ahead of the election.
Nunes said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the information incidentally collected originated in Trump Tower.
The revelation comes in the wake of the committee's explosive hearing on Monday, at which FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the bureau has been investigating Russia’s election hacking since July, which includes probing possible coordination between members of Trump’s presidential campaign and Moscow.
The meeting represented the panel’s first open hearing on its investigation into Russia’s election meddling and also featured testimony from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring mostly occurred in November, December and January. He added that he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify those source
Politico adds that Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned, which he said came from "sources."
David Corn ✔ @DavidCornDC
Nunes says he is "bothered" by this. Won't say whether or not intel community spied on Trump et. al. But says he is "concerned."
1:19 PM - 22 Mar 2017
113 113 Retweets 208 208 likes
While there are no further details, we look forward to how the media narrative will change as a result of today's latest dramatic development.
-
The main question is who gave this order to Comey????
-
The main question is who gave this order to Comey????
It's a pretty short chain of command. James Comey-> Loretta Lynch -> Barack Odumbo.
-
The main question is who gave this order to Comey????
That would be Loretta Lynch and if I were Comey I would be running, not walking to cut me an immunity deal.
New Boss (Trump) is NOT going to let this slide. @LonestarDream
-
Ya think?
How can Comey continue in his position? He's running a rogue operation by his own admission, He deems the intel too sensitive to share with Congress? That is not his call.
Wire tapping is not surveillance , @don-o . And murder is not homicide, except the subject ends up dead in an illicit way in both cases...
-
That would be Loretta Lynch and if I were Comey I would be running, not walking to cut me an immunity deal.
New Boss (Trump) is NOT going to let this slide. @LonestarDream
I sure hope not. What process does Trump have to follow to fire homey Comey?
-
It means the Obama administration was "wiretapping" members of the incoming Trump team. It is naive to believe Trump wouldn't be accidentally targeted.
Nunes doesn't actually say that. Here's what he did say:
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
"Collecting information" can mean a lot of things. It could include wiretapping, but it's not necessarily wiretapping, or limited to wiretapping.
For example, on a different thread, AP reported it had received intelligence information on Paul Manaforte, including evidence related to Russians paying him millions for services rendered, by means of international wire transfers.
-
Wire tapping is not surveillance , @don-o . And murder is not homicide, except the subject ends up dead in an illicit way in both cases...
I consider "wiretap" to be an old school term that came naturally to Trump. Intercepting electronic non-wire comm is the same, in principle.
-
Nunes doesn't actually say that. Here's what he did say:
"Collecting information" can mean a lot of things. It could include wiretapping, but it's not necessarily wiretapping, or limited to wiretapping.
For example, on a different thread, AP reported it had received intelligence information on Paul Manaforte, including evidence related to Russians paying him millions for services rendered, by means of international wire transfers.
Exactly. "Collecting information" can mean a lot of things. I can "collect information" on you folks by clicking on your usernames.
It means nothing.
If improper stuff went on, then fire. If officials broke the law, then prosecute.
But this is still "sources" and nothing substantial that I can see.
-
Didn't all the Trump haters tell us this was a made up non story that Trump just made up without any evidence?
In a word - no.
-
An administration full of Russian operatives should expect this sort of thing.
This administration isn't going to survive this and you were all warned for months.
-
In a word - no.
I recall otherwise. The words "Self inflicted wound" cropped up a lot. (Referring to Trump.)
-
An administration full of Russian operatives should expect this sort of thing.
This administration isn't going to survive this and you were all warned for months.
And how is the weather on your planet?
-
Bu
I recall otherwise. The words "Self inflicted wound" cropped up a lot. (Referring to Trump.)
Except I'm far from his biggest fan and didn't vote for a presidential candidate this cycle. That said, I never doubted the previous admin was looking for dirt. They never expected the election to go against them and get caught, though.
-
An administration full of Russian operatives should expect this sort of thing.
This administration isn't going to survive this and you were all warned for months.
@Cripplecreek
You've warned for months that the Trump administration was corrupted by Russian operatives? Seriously deranged man.
And lets say you successfully bring down the Trump administration down, that would make who President? Paul Ryan?
-
I consider "wiretap" to be an old school term that came naturally to Trump. Intercepting electronic non-wire comm is the same, in principle.
Amazing people are still doing the distinction without a difference thing.
-
@Cripplecreek
You've warned for months that the Trump administration was corrupted by Russian operatives? Seriously deranged man.
While I was not one of those doing it, the Trump team's Russian connections were extensively mentioned and warned about here at TBR. You can look it up.
And lets say you successfully bring down the Trump administration down, that would make who President? Paul Ryan?
The Constitution would have it that Mr. Pence or his successor at VP would become president, unless he were (Agnew-like) to be drummed out of office and not replaced before a Trump impeachment. The Speaker of the House is, I believe, the successor to the Vice President.
-
Amazing people are still doing the distinction without a difference thing.
What's more amazing is that you don't see the difference between "wiretapping," and other means of surveillance.
-
While I was not one of those doing it, the Trump team's Russian connections were extensively mentioned and warned about here at TBR. You can look it up.
Every liberal news source and allegation against him was certainly mentioned for several months, and though I can't speak specifically to noticing that allegations of Russian connections were among the accusations, I have little doubt that they probably were.
But all of it was just noise, so far as I was concerned. Still is.
-
What's more amazing is that you don't see the difference between "wiretapping," and other means of surveillance.
In terms of outcome and implications the difference is unworthy of notice.
-
What's more amazing is that you don't see the difference between "wiretapping," and other means of surveillance.
@r9etb
Cmon man you're better then that. It doesn't matter how the information was obtained. The sheer fact they were monitoring a Presidential candidate in the months leading up to an election is a massive issue. The specific mode/method of surveillance is inconsequential.
-
In terms of outcome and implications the difference is unworthy of notice.
Only if you're trying to defend an apparently spurious claim of "wiretapping."
-
From the very first time I saw this dude on TV I assumed he was a dem. There must be quite some dossier on him.
-
What's more amazing is that you don't see the difference between "wiretapping," and other means of surveillance.
I await your enlightenment.
-
Amazing people are still doing the distinction without a difference thing.
Parsing words is just another way the statist left twists the news to suit their political agenda.
-
That would be Loretta Lynch and if I were Comey I would be running, not walking to cut me an immunity deal.
New Boss (Trump) is NOT going to let this slide. @LonestarDream
Nor should he. Heads should (figuratively, of course) roll over this.
-
While I was not one of those doing it, the Trump team's Russian connections were extensively mentioned and warned about here at TBR. You can look it up.
The Constitution would have it that Mr. Pence or his successor at VP would become president, unless he were (Agnew-like) to be drummed out of office before a Trump impeachment. The Speaker of the House is, I believe, the successor to the Vice President.
You've got more patience with these people than I do. They reflexively adopt childish leftist tactis of claiming they "din no nuffin" Some of my earliest posts here during the primaries were about all the Russian ties.
Then they go to the straw men arguments. I never said anything about me taking down Trump and I at least know what the line of presidential succession is as I pointed out in this thread earlier today.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255054.msg1267758.html#msg1267758
Pointless line of attack.
Get rid of Trump and they still have Pence. Get rid of Pence and they have to deal with Ryan. Get rid of Ryan and they have Orrin Hatch. Get rid of Hatch and they'll be dealing with Tillerson.
Stating a simple fact that Trump's administration will go down is not a statement of support. Its a simple statement of fact
-
@r9etb
Cmon man you're better then that. It doesn't matter how the information was obtained. The sheer fact they were monitoring a Presidential candidate in the months leading up to an election is a massive issue. The specific mode/method of surveillance is inconsequential.
If you're gonna scold me, at least get your facts straight.
1. The story reports that the information was apparently collected on the members of Trump's transition team, and as such it would have been after, not "leading up to" the election.
2. "Collecting information" could be as simple as taking note of who went in and out of Trump Towers -- not a "massive issue," and certainly not "wiretapping." "Collection" might include data collected through regular, legal search warrants, such as would have been required to obtain information on Russian wire transfers into Paul Manaforte's bank account.
3. The data collected is characterized as "incidental," suggesting that the primary targets of whatever intelligence gathering were not Trump's people, but rather different people who were under investigation, and who ended up contacting members of Trump's team.
-
What's more amazing is that you don't see the difference between "wiretapping," and other means of surveillance.
We can all assume Trump chose the term *wiretapping* because like all of us we are familiar with that term..technically it was the wrong choice.
-
I await your enlightenment.
Stop with the word games. Just watching a guy enter Trump Towers is a form of information collection.
-
Nunes just stated these were legal surveillance through Fisa warrants...also said the FBI is not cooperating re this.
-
We can all assume Trump chose the term *wiretapping* because like all of us we are familiar with that term..technically it was the wrong choice.
I don't assume that at all. Trump is the President and presumably has means of obtaining detailed information. (Heck, Then again, I think he's pulling this stuff out of ... er, thin air.)
As to the wrong terminology excuse, the pseudo-facts trotted out by Trump's team to back up Trump's claim (e.g., the Brits did it for Obama) support the idea that he used that term on purpose.
-
@r9etb
Cmon man you're better then that. It doesn't matter how the information was obtained. The sheer fact they were monitoring a Presidential candidate in the months leading up to an election is a massive issue. The specific mode/method of surveillance is inconsequential.
I'm just trying to imagine the reaction if this was an outgoing Republican admin doing this to an incoming Dem prez.
-
I recall otherwise. The words "Self inflicted wound" cropped up a lot. (Referring to Trump.)
@DiogenesLamp
Guilty as Charged, but the Jury's still out.
-
I can't believe this is a breaking story when most of us paying attention see that Obama was spying on Trump and that the Rats are the ones up to their eyeballs in taking Soviet money for favors.
-
Only if you're trying to defend an apparently spurious claim of "wiretapping."
You are stuck on a word, and not a meaning. You are arguing a technicality, not a concept.
Trump was spied upon. That is the salient aspect of this issue. Concern over the precise methods of spying used is a point that invokes the "hobgoblin of little minds" of which Emerson spoke.
-
Ben ShapiroVerified account @benshapiro 52m52 minutes ago
1. Nunes said Trump monitored via intelligence collected on foreigners. Legally.
2. Leaks are illegal.
3. Trump said Obama wiretapped him.
-
Nunes just stated these were legal surveillance through Fisa warrants...also said the FBI is not cooperating re this.
Well, well. Last time I checked, a warrant was not required to stand on the street and note who is going into a building.
-
If you're gonna scold me, at least get your facts straight.
1. The story reports that the information was apparently collected on the members of Trump's transition team, and as such it would have been after, not "leading up to" the election.
That is only what has been owned up to so far. I shall not be surprised if we find this initial offing to be the tip of the larger iceberg.
-
Didn't all the Trump haters tell us this was a made up non story that Trump just made up without any evidence?
Hmmm....I doubted the Donald. I was wrong and apologize.
-
Ben ShapiroVerified account @benshapiro 52m52 minutes ago
1. Nunes said Trump monitored via intelligence collected on foreigners. Legally.
2. Leaks are illegal.
3. Trump said Obama wiretapped him.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/paa-dispelling-myths.html
3. MYTH: The Protect America Act allows the government to target Americans in the United States under the guise of surveilling a person located overseas – a practice known as "reverse targeting."
FACT: "Reverse targeting" was, and remains, prohibited by law.
FACT: The provisions of FISA that protect against this practice remain unchanged by the Protect America Act. The law excludes from the category of "electronic surveillance," and thus from the FISA warrant requirement, only surveillance directed at individuals reasonably believed to be in foreign countries.
FACT: "Reverse targeting" constitutes electronic surveillance and thus generally requires a court order under FISA. Nothing in the Protect America Act changes this.
FACT: "Reverse targeting" makes little sense as a matter of intelligence tradecraft. If the government believes a person in the United States is a terrorist, it is more useful to obtain a court order to collect all of the person's communications than to conduct surveillance on that person by listening only to a fragment of the person's calls to individuals overseas.
-
If you're gonna scold me, at least get your facts straight.
1. The story reports that the information was apparently collected on the members of Trump's transition team, and as such it would have been after, not "leading up to" the election.
2. "Collecting information" could be as simple as taking note of who went in and out of Trump Towers -- not a "massive issue," and certainly not "wiretapping." "Collection" might include data collected through regular, legal search warrants, such as would have been required to obtain information on Russian wire transfers into Paul Manaforte's bank account.
3. The data collected is characterized as "incidental," suggesting that the primary targets of whatever intelligence gathering were not Trump's people, but rather different people who were under investigation, and who ended up contacting members of Trump's team.
@r9etb
I've seen reports that they started surveillance in July.
Doesn't matter if its before or after. This is a serious issue and will undermine our entire form of government regardless of whether you like the chump in charge or not. That you would discount it and quibble over semantics is quite telling.
-
You've got more patience with these people than I do. They reflexively adopt childish leftist tactis of claiming they "din no nuffin" Some of my earliest posts here during the primaries were about all the Russian ties.
Then they go to the straw men arguments. I never said anything about me taking down Trump and I at least know what the line of presidential succession is as I pointed out in this thread earlier today.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255054.msg1267758.html#msg1267758
Stating a simple fact that Trump's administration will go down is not a statement of support. Its a simple statement of fact
@Cripplecreek
yep it'll go down in 3 years and about 9 months. Or maybe 7 years and 9 months. But it will end
-
It means Trump was sorta right.....
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected. There were no deliberate wiretaps/electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. If he or his people had not communicated to Russian sources, there would be NO incidental information collected. We know for sure his son-in-law communicated with them since he met in Trump Tower with the Russian Ambassador. The NSA, Justice Dept., FBI have already gone on public record at that committee meeting, that there was no direct surveillance done on anyone in Trump Tower, no warrant issued to do that.
Trump will spin this present info. from the Republican Chairman of that Committee, saying he was right and his supporters will believe it.
-
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected. There were no deliberate wiretaps/electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. If he or his people had not communicated to Russian sources, there would be NO incidental information collected. We know for sure his son-in-law communicated with them since he met in Trump Tower with the Russian Ambassador. The NSA, Justice Dept., FBI have already gone on public record at that committee meeting, that there was no direct surveillance done on anyone in Trump Tower, no warrant issued to do that.
Trump will spin this present info. from the Republican Chairman of that Committee, saying he was right and his supporters will believe it.
Is it illegal to talk to Russians?
-
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected. There were no deliberate wiretaps/electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. If he or his people had not communicated to Russian sources, there would be NO incidental information collected. We know for sure his son-in-law communicated with them since he met in Trump Tower with the Russian Ambassador. The NSA, Justice Dept., FBI have already gone on public record at that committee meeting, that there was no direct surveillance done on anyone in Trump Tower, no warrant issued to do that.
Trump will spin this present info. from the Republican Chairman of that Committee, saying he was right and his supporters will believe it.
@Victoria33
So will his hardcore supporters. They're already off on tangents of assumptions.
Republicans and conservatives have become creatures of pure emotion. It isn't about facts or truth anymore; it's about proving a personality right.
-
@r9etb
I've seen reports that they started surveillance in July.
Doesn't matter if its before or after. This is a serious issue and will undermine our entire form of government regardless of whether you like the chump in charge or not. That you would discount it and quibble over semantics is quite telling.
I prefer to talk about factual facts, not facts that seem to kind of look like what you already hoped might be the case. I like to be precise in the details, because that helps me to understand what is being said, done, and/or lied about.
What you dismiss as "semantics" is important -- or would be, if you really wanted to understand what's true.
-
It means Trump was sorta right.....
It means more than sorta @mystery-ak
House Intelligence Chairman: Trump Transition Members Were Monitored By Intel Community Under Obama
TownHall, Mar 22, 2017, Katie Pavlich
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes revealed a number of American citizens who worked on the Trump transition team were monitored, surveilled and unmasked by the intelligence community during the previous Obama administration.
Although the monitoring was legal, it was certainly inappropriate. Information collected on these individuals was then widely disseminated, despite being irrelevant to ongoing investigations into Russia.
Nunes revelation comes three weeks after President Trump claimed President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. There hasn't been any evidence of wiretapping, but the White House argues Trump was referring to overall surveillance of his campaign, not specifically wiretapping.
Nunes will brief President Trump about his findings this afternoon.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/22/house-intelligence-chairman-trump-transition-members-were-inappropriately-monitored-n2302550
-
If he or his people had not communicated to Russian sources, there would be NO incidental information collected.
I was told that such crucial distinctions are meaningless -- mere "semantics." You will be assimilated.
-
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected.
Read this @Victoria33 -- you don't seem to recognize that disseminating the information collected .... is illegal.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/22/house-intelligence-chairman-trump-transition-members-were-inappropriately-monitored-n2302550
-
I think they already admitted to wiretapping the Russians in Trump Tower.
-
Bookmark.
-
I think they already admitted to wiretapping the Russians in Trump Tower.
Which isn't quite the same thing as wiretapping Trump in Trump Tower.
The fact that Trump and his Russian tenants appear to have been jolly friends is interesting information, though.
-
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected. There were no deliberate wiretaps/electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. If he or his people had not communicated to Russian sources, there would be NO incidental information collected. We know for sure his son-in-law communicated with them since he met in Trump Tower with the Russian Ambassador. The NSA, Justice Dept., FBI have already gone on public record at that committee meeting, that there was no direct surveillance done on anyone in Trump Tower, no warrant issued to do that.
Trump will spin this present info. from the Republican Chairman of that Committee, saying he was right and his supporters will believe it.
Read up on "reverse targeting" *(illegal) in my 54 above. Incidental is supposed to be destroyed. Obama set the table for this by a large increase in the number of agencies who get a look at data that has been collected. Basically assured that some leakers could be counted on.
-
I can't believe this is a breaking story when most of us paying attention see that Obama was spying on Trump and that the Rats are the ones up to their eyeballs in taking Soviet money for favors.
Its pretty clear some folks have an emotional stake in being 'right' about Trump to the point that their comments are beginning to border on ludicrous.
Earlier last year those people were pretty much on the Trump side. Not so anymore.
-
Still no evidence from what I can see. A Congressman asserting stuff, but no evidence.
-
I was told that such crucial distinctions are meaningless -- mere "semantics."
@r9etb
That is why posting facts here gets you no where with some Trump people - their cortex doesn't have a high level of function when Trump is the subject.
-
Still no evidence from what I can see. A Congressman asserting stuff, but no evidence.
A congressman who's the chairman of the House intelligence committee.
-
Read up on "reverse targeting" *(illegal) in my 54 above. Incidental is supposed to be destroyed.
This is not necessarily a case of reverse targeting, though. In the link you provided, "reverse targeting" is a method of trying to get around domestic wiretap rules by pretending to target a person overseas.
However, if a legal warrant for a wiretap has been issued for one person, and that person happens to contact, or is contacted by, an outside person, that is not a case of "reverse targeting" on the outside person.
As for the incidental information collected, "When a FISA wiretap or search reveals evidence of a crime, the FBI is obligated under both Executive Order 123337 and the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to take reasonable steps to pass such evidence to the law enforcement community for use in investigating and/or prosecuting that case as a criminal matter." https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/miscellaneous/ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct.pdf (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/miscellaneous/ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct.pdf)
Which could in fact explain the "widely disseminated" part of Nunes' comment.
-
Still no evidence from what I can see. A Congressman asserting stuff, but no evidence.
Yep, a Congressman who just so happens to be the chair of the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE...., the committee tasked with INVESTIGATING this issue of Russian Collusion, alleged wiretaps and leaks.
Are you telling us that he's making stories up and not getting his information from sources he finds reliable? Hard to believe.
-
@mystery-ak
No, it means the NSA was collecting Russian phone calls/other ways of Russian communicating in this country and anyone who spoke to them/communicated by other means, would get incidentally collected.
Give me a break. There is no incidentally. If Trump was to admit to criminality on those calls he wouldn't be given a pass, he would be arrested. Beyond all that spin you gave the practice is illegal and Obama and his people were fully aware of it.
-
It means the Obama administration was "wiretapping" members of the incoming Trump team. It is naive to believe Trump wouldn't be accidentally targeted.
The question is : Why? What was the point? It's possible that the PTB were trying to figure out how this "clown" got to be President.
Why make a snotty remark when we're talking about Obama breaking the law and maybe Trump was right.
-
Basically assured that some leakers could be counted on.
@don-o
@r9etb
Leaking of incidental information is not having a warrant for direct surveillance of Trump Tower. Leaking is a different subject. There would be nothing to leak if contact with Russians didn't happen.
-
Still no evidence from what I can see. A Congressman asserting stuff, but no evidence.
Still no evidence that Trump did jack shit, yet Leftists like you will keep carrying the water for the Obama regime in a pathetic attempt to take the President down.
-
I can't believe this is a breaking story when most of us paying attention see that Obama was spying on Trump and that the Rats are the ones up to their eyeballs in taking Soviet money for favors.
Well, GCHQ was also under suspicion as well. So this means that the GCHQ pathway may not have been exploited in this instance.
The damage to US national security and our allies has no bounds under Obama.
-
I consider "wiretap" to be an old school term that came naturally to Trump. Intercepting electronic non-wire comm is the same, in principle.
I think you're right about that.
-
@don-o
Leaking of incidental information is not having a warrant for direct surveillance of Trump Tower. Leaking is a different subject. There would be nothing to leak if contact with Russians didn't happen.
Can you show me where it is illegal for a private citizen to contact Russia? Can you show me evidence that Trump contacted Russia illegally?
To save you some time Googling, the answer to both of those questions is no.
-
Still no evidence that Trump did jack shit, yet Leftists like you will keep carrying the water for the Obama regime in a pathetic attempt to take the President down.
The truth is out there. It will emerge. So far it's looking better for Trump.
-
Can you show me where it is illegal for a private citizen to contact Russia? Can you show me evidence that Trump contacted Russia illegally?
To save you some time Googling, the answer to both of those questions is no.
@Frank Cannon
It is not illegal to talk to Russians, however the NSA is going to collect that since they monitor Russian communications. If you don't want to be "collected", don't talk to Russians.
-
@Frank Cannon
It is not illegal to talk to Russians, however the NSA is going to collect that since they monitor Russian communications. If you don't want to be "collected", don't talk to Russians.
That's a pretty pathetic answer.
-
@Restored
IMO they were trying to find something to use against him. Something to kill his campaign and allow Hillary to walk into the White House.
That is not only a distinct possibility but I would bet on it. Obama is pure evil and he hasn't given up.
-
@don-o
@r9etb
Leaking of incidental information is not having a warrant for direct surveillance of Trump Tower. Leaking is a different subject. There would be nothing to leak if contact with Russians didn't happen.
Sorta reminds me of that old adage, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't fear being searched."
-
The truth is out there. It will emerge. So far it's looking better for Trump.
Oh my goodness! You mean to tell me that "Damn Fool" is winning again?
|
|
|
|
V
-
Leaking of incidental information is not having a warrant for direct surveillance of Trump Tower. Leaking is a different subject. There would be nothing to leak if contact with Russians didn't happen.
Please read this article in full @Victoria33 the link is included. Russia, apparently, had nothing to do with the surveillance.
Trump feels 'somewhat' vindicated after Nunes intel briefing
AP, Mar 22, 2017, JULIE PACE and DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Communications of Donald Trump's transition officials - possibly including the incoming president himself - may have been scooped up in legal surveillance but then improperly distributed throughout the intelligence community, the chairman of the House intelligence committee said Wednesday.
In an extraordinary set of statements to reporters, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes said the intercepted communications do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia or any criminal warrants.
Nunes, who served on Trump's transition team, said he believes the intelligence collections were done legally but that identities of Trump officials and the content of their communications may have been inappropriately disseminated in intelligence reports.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-22-15-59-08
-
In a word - no.
That is indeed a word, but it is the wrong word.
-
Can you show me where it is illegal for a private citizen to contact Russia? Can you show me evidence that Trump contacted Russia illegally?
To save you some time Googling, the answer to both of those questions is no.
Yes, but you're having to work extraordinarily hard to miss a couple of pretty basic points.
First, if @Victoria33's "incidental information" scenario is correct, then the Russians in question were already under surveillance. The "incidental information" would have arisen if and when these Russians were in contact with Trump's team, no matter who called whom.
Law enforcement involvement for such incidental information only comes into play if the contacts between Russians and Trump's team included some sort of illegal activity. They could have talked about the weather, in which case no problem; or they could have talked about a bribe -- in which case, as I noted above, the FBI is obligated by law to pass on the information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
-
@Frank Cannon
It is not illegal to talk to Russians, however the NSA is going to collect that since they monitor Russian communications. If you don't want to be "collected", don't talk to Russians.
"If you have nothing to hide, don't fear a search."
-
@r9etb
Cmon man you're better then that. It doesn't matter how the information was obtained. The sheer fact they were monitoring a Presidential candidate in the months leading up to an election is a massive issue. The specific mode/method of surveillance is inconsequential.
I agree and people who don't are just trying to deflect from what happened.
-
Nor should he. Heads should (figuratively, of course) roll over this.
I can't wait for Comey to turn on other people to try and save his own skin. It should be fun.
-
Read up on "reverse targeting" *(illegal) in my 54 above. Incidental is supposed to be destroyed. Obama set the table for this by a large increase in the number of agencies who get a look at data that has been collected. Basically assured that some leakers could be counted on.
Obama is not gone. He is still seriously funded by Soros (whose plane did he take to Hawaii). He is still working hard to restore the power that he so unexpectedly lost.
I would not put anything past him.
-
@Frank Cannon
It is not illegal to talk to Russians, however the NSA is going to collect that since they monitor Russian communications. If you don't want to be "collected", don't talk to Russians.
But of course. One of our most cherished principles...guilty until proved innocent.
-
Its pretty clear some folks have an emotional stake in being 'right' about Trump to the point that their comments are beginning to border on ludicrous.
Earlier last year those people were pretty much on the Trump side. Not so anymore.
I know. It even affects their mental states to the point that they make personal enemies out of former friends. I know this to my sorrow. Well, it was sorrow. I don't give a slit anymore.
-
@don-o
@r9etb
Leaking of incidental information is not having a warrant for direct surveillance of Trump Tower. Leaking is a different subject. There would be nothing to leak if contact with Russians didn't happen.
Given it was the opposition's candidate for president who was the "incidental" subject leaked upon (via all of the tools at the disposal of the Obama administration) don't you think there is even a teensy weensie chance that an intent to "leak" might've had something to do with the "collecting" in the first place?
My cerebral cortex may not be high powered, but it can put two and two together.
-
I agree and people who don't are just trying to deflect from what happened.
If you want to talk about "what happened," it's probably best to read what Nunes actually said:
He said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports and indicated that Trump's communications may have been swept up as well.
The intelligence collected has nothing to do with Russia or the investigation into Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, according to Nunes.
"I want to be clear — none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team,” Nunes said.
The congressman said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was all collected legally.
So.... what is it, exactly, that we're supposed to be "deflecting from?"
If there's "wide dissemination" it suggests that perhaps there's an investigation into criminal activities that has nothing to do with the Russians.
-
@Frank Cannon
It is not illegal to talk to Russians, however the NSA is going to collect that since they monitor Russian communications. If you don't want to be "collected", don't talk to Russians.
Bullshit. Russia isn't on the terrorist watch list. As a matter of fact either is Israel, Britain or some US states where Obama and his goons were randomly spying on Americans just for shits and giggles. All this is fine with you though because after all you hate Trump and your irrational rage shouldn't be tethered by constitutional rights or not having the Federal Govt' spying on Americans for no GD good reason.
-
But of course. One of our most cherished principles...guilty until proved innocent.
Only to the knuckle dragging NeverTrumps. On the other hand these same people who are all for wire taps to "protect the country" are against the wall being built and Donny's EO on foreign nationals coming from terrorist states because its mean.
-
Bullshit. Russia isn't on the terrorist watch list. As a matter of fact either is Israel, Britain or some US states where Obama and his goons were randomly spying on Americans just for shits and giggles. All this is fine with you though because after all you hate Trump and your irrational rage shouldn't be tethered by constitutional rights or not having the Federal Govt' spying on Americans for no GD good reason.
Just to remind you: in the OP, Nunes said flat-out that the information in question had nothing to do with Russia or the Russia/campaign investigation. "I want to be clear — none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team,” Nunes said.
It's a shame to waste such excellent hyperbole on a mistaken assumption, Frank. Perhaps you should check your facts or read the story before you spin yourself into an early grave.
-
Bullshit. Russia isn't on the terrorist watch list. As a matter of fact either is Israel, Britain or some US states where Obama and his goons were randomly spying on Americans just for shits and giggles. All this is fine with you though because after all you hate Trump and your irrational rage shouldn't be tethered by constitutional rights or not having the Federal Govt' spying on Americans for no GD good reason.
Thank you @Frank Cannon. :thumbsup2:
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/325298-schiff-i-have-grave-concerns-over-nunes-surveillance-claims
Schiff: I have 'grave concerns' over Nunes' surveillance claims
By Nikita Vladimirov - 03/22/17 05:08 PM EDT
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday he has "grave concerns" over Chairman Devin Nunes' (R-Calif.) handling of the Trump Tower wiretapping investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Nunes for his surprise announcement earlier in the day that he had seen intelligence intercepts that showed authorities had incidentally gather information on members of the Trump transition team during investigations that the chairman said were not related to Russia.
more at link
-
House Intel Dem: GOP chairman's revelations 'trumped up'
By Max Greenwood - 03/22/17 05:15 PM EDT
A Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday pushed back on revelations from the panel's Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), saying his claims of incidental U.S. surveillance of members of President Trump's transition team were "trumped up."
"If, in fact, this took place, it was incidental and it was done through what is legally allowed by the CIA when they are surveilling foreign persons," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said during an appearance on MSNBC.
"This could be a lot of theater – it looks very trumped up to me – but we'll have to wait and see," she added.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/325295-house-intel-dem-nunes-surveillance-revelations-seem-trumped-up
-
Well, this whole "wiretapping" ( I'm talking generic sense ) thing is getting to be a PARTISAN thing.
The Dems want this to look like a legitimate operation against foreign influence.
The Republicans ( those who support Trump at least ) want to make it look like HE was deliberately targeted in order to form the "Trump Colluded with Russia to win the elections" narrative.
Nunes and Schiff are simply participants in this struggle.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/325298-schiff-i-have-grave-concerns-over-nunes-surveillance-claims
Schiff: I have 'grave concerns' over Nunes' surveillance claims
By Nikita Vladimirov - 03/22/17 05:08 PM EDT
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday he has "grave concerns" over Chairman Devin Nunes' (R-Calif.) handling of the Trump Tower wiretapping investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Nunes for his surprise announcement earlier in the day that he had seen intelligence intercepts that showed authorities had incidentally gather information on members of the Trump transition team during investigations that the chairman said were not related to Russia.
more at link
Quite frankly Adam Schiff could get run over by a bus and I would laugh. He is a proven liar, is a sycophantic Obama apologist and an all around worthless sack of shit.....
“Doesn’t the incoming Trump press secretary [Sean Spicer] have a point here on the response by the Obama Administration?” Karl asked. “We did have that hack by the Chinese — the OPM attack — this was 22 million federal employees affected.
“The Obama Administration did nothing that we know of publicly. Why did they do nothing about that huge hack done by China and this — just on the way out the door — make this big statement about the Russia hack?”
Schiff contends China’s hack was not sanctioned because “all nation’s gather foreign intelligence information,” so, ostensibly: Deal with it.
“You’re not going to prevent foreign nations from stealing data that they think is in their interest,” Schiff told Karl. “The best you can do is defend against it.”
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=61948
-
The Republicans ( those who support Trump at least ) want to make it look like HE was deliberately targeted in order to form the "Trump Colluded with Russia to win the elections" narrative.
Nunes went out of his way to say that Trump was not deliberately targeted in the reports he's talking about here.
-
House Intel Dem: GOP chairman's revelations 'trumped up'
By Max Greenwood - 03/22/17 05:15 PM EDT
A Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday pushed back on revelations from the panel's Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), saying his claims of incidental U.S. surveillance of members of President Trump's transition team were "trumped up."
"If, in fact, this took place, it was incidental and it was done through what is legally allowed by the CIA when they are surveilling foreign persons," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said during an appearance on MSNBC.
"This could be a lot of theater – it looks very trumped up to me – but we'll have to wait and see," she added.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/325295-house-intel-dem-nunes-surveillance-revelations-seem-trumped-up
"Incidental" is the word of the day.
It was just 'incidental' that information was covertly collected on a private US citizen (who happened to be running for president) and distributed among intelligence agencies (per a brand new rule that allowed such a distribution), to be illegally leaked to the press, who 'incidentally' used the info to buttress a charge which 'incidentally' supported the core strategy against candidate mentioned above.
-
"Incidental" is the word of the day.
It was just a 'incidental' that information was covertly collected on a private US citizen (who happened to be running for president) and distributed among intelligence agencies (per a brand new rule that allowed such a distribution), to be illegally leaked to the press, who 'incidentally' used the info to buttress a charge which 'incidentally' supported the core strategy against candidate mentioned above.
"Incidental" has a particular meaning, as used in this context. You're not using the word according to that meaning.
-
"Incidental" has a particular meaning, as used in this context. You're not using the word according to that meaning.
Its called sarcasm.
-
I watched Schiff's short presser on Fox just now.....My sense is he is nervous, afraid of what has been found. Nunes has not shared the info with him or anyone on the committee and is now calling for a special prosecutor since the investigation on the committee is tainted now that Nunes took this info to the WH first.
They are scared...
-
Its called sarcasm.
Oh, is that what it was?
It sure looked an awful lot like an attempt at a really lame excuse.
-
I watched Schiff's short presser on Fox just now.....My sense is he is nervous, afraid of what has been found. Nunes has not shared the info with him or anyone on the committee and is now calling for a special prosecutor since the investigation on the committee is tainted now that Nunes took this info to the WH first.
They are scared...
I got the sense @mystery-ak that Schiff has been withholding information ... and is surprised that Nunes has it. He's probably afraid that Nunes has it all---and that cannot be good for the Democrats, especially those in the Obama Administration.
-
Oh, is that what it was?
It sure looked an awful lot like an attempt at a really lame excuse.
It wasn't so much of an excuse as it is a summary of what the democrats want everyone to believe happened.
You buy it, I don't. We will see who ends up being right.
-
Its called sarcasm.
When you are asking your mom what the big words mean, sarcasm usually goes over the readers head.
-
https://news.grabien.com/story-nunes-fbi-not-cooperating-our-investigation-trump-camp-surve
Nunes: FBI Is Not Cooperating with Our Investigation into Trump Camp Surveillance
‘So far the FBI has not told us whether or not they’re going to respond to our March 15th letter which is now a couple weeks old’
-
Surveiling the transition team but not Trump? I don't believe it for one second. It looks like Comey has perjured himself, too.
-
I watched Schiff's short presser on Fox just now.....My sense is he is nervous, afraid of what has been found. Nunes has not shared the info with him or anyone on the committee and is now calling for a special prosecutor since the investigation on the committee is tainted now that Nunes took this info to the WH first.
They are scared...
I sincerely hope so.
-
Stop with the word games. Just watching a guy enter Trump Towers is a form of information collection.
@don-o is NOT playing word games. What is scaring me is that you think that reverse targeting to include emails, fax and yes, VOICE communications is ok .
Everyone on this thread is subject to this. We all could be targeted next. That the physical collection was by satellite, or more likely, a fiber switch at the phone company is immaterial.
-
Surveiling the transition team but not Trump? I don't believe it for one second. It looks like Comey has perjured himself, too.
He definitely did .
-
@don-o is NOT playing word games. What is scaring me is that you think that reverse targeting to include emails, fax and yes, VOICE communications is ok .
What's scaring me is that you think Nunes is talking about "reverse targeting" when he clearly is not. "Incidental information" has a specific meaning, and it's not equal to "reverse targeting."
Words have meaning. It's important to use them precisely and correctly.
-
He definitely did .
A headline from TheHill.com does not constitute perjury. Besides which, Nunes states quite clearly that this information has nothing to do with the topic on which Comey was testifying yesterday.
-
What's scaring me is that you think Nunes is talking about "reverse targeting" when he clearly is not. "Incidental information" has a specific meaning, and it's not equal to "reverse targeting."
Words have meaning. It's important to use them precisely and correctly.
You once warned me that my lack of incredulity concerning Trump, as you saw it, would eventually help result in a police state.
Yet here you are, when confronted with what obviously are blatant police state tactics, splitting hairs. Incredible.
-
You once warned me that my lack of incredulity concerning Trump, as you saw it, would eventually help result in a police state.
Yet here you are, when confronted with what obviously are blatant police state tactics, choose to split hairs. Incredible.
Hilarious. Top notch!
-
This is all about Flynn. And Turkey. Flynn was fired by Obama for giving classified information to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So of course he is the perfit fit for the tRump administration. When he got too hot to handle he had to go.
Never mind that Levin was o in love with Flynn. The man was so dirty.
Given that Nunez was on the transition so no doubt he was caught up in the surveillance and is running to divert attention from himself.
Yesterday during a presser he insisted he never heard of Roger Stone. Oh really???????????? Stone had been the topic of conversation during the closed door hearings so maybe Nunez was suffering from too much sweet tea and had to go potty.
-
A headline from TheHill.com does not constitute perjury. Besides which, Nunes states quite clearly that this information has nothing to do with the topic on which Comey was testifying yesterday.
This is all about Flynn and Turkey.
-
A headline from TheHill.com does not constitute perjury. Besides which, Nunes states quite clearly that this information has nothing to do with the topic on which Comey was testifying yesterday.
No. It is a yet more extensive level of corruption. If it is not related to Russia, then what was the pretext/probable cause to be collecting anything at all?
-
I know. It even affects their mental states to the point that they make personal enemies out of former friends. I know this to my sorrow. Well, it was sorrow. I don't give a slit anymore.
Their Trump Prize, much like the Chris Rock 'OJ Prize' will soon arrive in their mailbox.
-
This is all about Flynn. And Turkey. Flynn was fired by Obama for giving classified information to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So of course he is the perfit fit for the tRump administration. When he got too hot to handle he had to go.
Never mind that Levin was o in love with Flynn. The man was so dirty.
Given that Nunez was on the transition so no doubt he was caught up in the surveillance and is running to divert attention from himself.
Yesterday during a presser he insisted he never heard of Roger Stone. Oh really???????????? Stone had been the topic of conversation during the closed door hearings so maybe Nunez was suffering from too much sweet tea and had to go potty.
Nunes. Portuguese.
-
I know. It even affects their mental states to the point that they make personal enemies out of former friends. I know this to my sorrow. Well, it was sorrow. I don't give a slit anymore.
It has been a weird year or two. I can't remember anything quite like it in all my decades of watching politics.
-
That is indeed a word, but it is the wrong word.
Not really, since I'm one of the detractors and the word 'all' was used in the original post. Also, I doubt I'm alone.
-
Nunes. Portuguese.
It's all Brazilian to her.
-
"If you have nothing to hide, don't fear a search."
I'm fine with that so long as the search complies with the 4th Amendment and the collected information isn't illegally leaked for political purposes.
-
House Intel Dem: GOP chairman's revelations 'trumped up'
"If, in fact, this took place, it was incidental and it was done through what is legally allowed by the CIA when they are surveilling foreign persons," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said during an appearance on MSNBC.
Doesn't matter if the incidental information came from surveillance of Russians or some other foreign entity, by the CIA or the NSA, or FBI. All three agencies, the CIA, NSA, and FBI stated there was NO warrant to "bug" "wiretap", "listen in", go through a mole hole, to listen to Trump in Trump Tower. If he or his people made contact with whomever the CIA, NSA, and FBI were monitoring, then they were picked up and it appears it was/maybe/or not, during the transition period.
Trump's accusation is he was wire-tapped (meaning intentionally bugged in some way - surveillance set up on purpose). All three agencies said he was not. I heard them in that committee and each said the president cannot request surveillance on anyone so Trump saying Obama did it, is typical lying Trump. End of story. Trump, however, will be saying this the rest of his life.
-
It's all Brazilian to her.
You're on a roll.
-
Doesn't matter if the incidental information came from surveillance of Russians or some other foreign entity, by the CIA or the NSA, or FBI. All three agencies, the CIA, NSA, and FBI stated there was NO warrant to "bug" "wiretap", "listen in", go through a mole hole, to listen to Trump in Trump Tower. If he or his people made contact with whomever the CIA, NSA, and FBI were monitoring, then they were picked up and it appears it was/maybe/or not, during the transition period.
Trump's accusation is he was wire-tapped (meaning intentionally bugged in some way - surveillance set up on purpose). All three agencies said he was not. I heard them in that committee and each said the president cannot request surveillance on anyone so Trump saying Obama did it, is typical lying Trump. End of story. Trump, however, will be saying this the rest of his life.
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama was behind it. He may not have officially ordered it, but his fellow leftists know exactly what he wants them to do. They don't even have to ask. They just do it.
-
Can we get the list updated, for yet another #nevertrump failure ?
-
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama was behind it. He may not have officially ordered it, but his fellow leftists know exactly what he wants them to do. They don't even have to ask. They just do it.
Absolutely @XenaLee and there is also little doubt he would ever be prosecuted for it, regardless of the evidence.
-
Absolutely @XenaLee and there is also little doubt he would ever be prosecuted for it, regardless of the evidence.
Of course not. He's got that "Magic D" goin on. And you know how special they all are.
-
Can we get the list updated, for yet another #nevertrump failure ?
@truth_seeker
As I told your fellow traveler @DiogenesLamp earlier, Jury's still out on what all this means, it will all shake out soon enough and I'll be one of the first to admit my error.
-
@truth_seeker
As I told your fellow traveler @DiogenesLamp earlier, Jury's still out on what all this means, it will all shake out soon enough and I'll be one of the first to admit my error.
Jury is not out for me. Yet again a left-democrat-biased-media "gotcha", turns to Reagan's side; with #nevertrump siding with aforementioned plays.
Sad for a supposedly Republican-conservative site to have so many cheering for the demise of the President in my view. And I will keep on saying it.
-
Doesn't matter if the incidental information came from surveillance of Russians or some other foreign entity, by the CIA or the NSA, or FBI. All three agencies, the CIA, NSA, and FBI stated there was NO warrant to "bug" "wiretap", "listen in", go through a mole hole, to listen to Trump in Trump Tower. If he or his people made contact with whomever the CIA, NSA, and FBI were monitoring, then they were picked up and it appears it was/maybe/or not, during the transition period.
Part of the problem you seem to miss is that the disclosure this afternoon @Victoria33 says the surveillance isn't always part of "making contact with whomever the CIA, NSA, and FBI were monitoring" --- which means the surveillance was specifically of the Trump transition team.
Keep this in mind as the investigation moves forward.
-
Jury is not out for me. Yet again a left-democrat-biased-media "gotcha", turns to Reagan's side; with #nevertrump siding with aforementioned plays.
Sad for a supposedly Republican-conservative site to have so many cheering for the demise of the President in my view. And I will keep on saying it.
As is your prerogative @truth_seeker but you are painting with a pretty broad brush there, very few people here are advocating for the outright failure of the Trump Administration sure there are still those that CAN'T trust him for their own reasons BUT they show respect to others (mostly) and particularly this Forum.
If your opinion was not valued here by others and the owners they would have canned your a$$ a long time ago.
-
Jury is not out for me. Yet again a left-democrat-biased-media "gotcha", turns to Reagan's side; with #nevertrump siding with aforementioned plays.
Sad for a supposedly Republican-conservative site to have so many cheering for the demise of the President in my view. And I will keep on saying it.
Amazing, isn't it? You are preaching to the choir, my friend.
-
Manafort continued on with the DT team altho he was 'officially gone'.
Fact is that DT and Manafort go back to the 1980s.............
-
....and I'll be one of the first to admit my error.
Why change now?
-
Amazing, isn't it? You are preaching to the choir, my friend.
And they don't even know what they want to happen. They are just in a dangerous game of playing with themselves.
-
Why change now?
@Frank Cannon you have always overestimated my disdain for president Trump, I don't want him to fail, I want him to retire.
-
@Frank Cannon you have always overestimated my disdain for president Trump, I don't want him to fail, I want him to retire.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything. Did someone say I said something? What did they hear? Whatever they said they are outright lies.
BTW, who is saying this stuff? You can tell me.
-
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything. Did someone say I said something? What did they hear? Whatever they said they are outright lies.
BTW, who is saying this stuff? You can tell me.
LOL
-
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama was behind it. He may not have officially ordered it, but his fellow leftists know exactly what he wants them to do. They don't even have to ask. They just do it.
There's something vulcanish about Obama and not in a good way. Maybe he has them in a mind meld.
-
Can we get the list updated, for yet another #nevertrump failure ?
Failure will fit in a tweet. Why not thumb that in like the guy who failed to clean house in the agencies and let his AG be hobbled by promises of recusal without a backup. Now he can't clean house at the DOJ or the other agencies because of an "ongoing investigation".
Six dimensional chess, indeed. **nononono*
In the meantime, the optics suck, equities took a dump, and there isn't any wall, ban, and obammy care is still the law of the land. Just Yuuuge. :thud:
-
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything. Did someone say I said something? What did they hear? Whatever they said they are outright lies.
BTW, who is saying this stuff? You can tell me.
You're not authorized @Frank Cannon only subscribers of 'Ted Cruz's Insider Scoop' newsletter can be validated for such disclosure.
-
Not really, since I'm one of the detractors and the word 'all' was used in the original post. Also, I doubt I'm alone.
You're going to have to explain. It's all been so long ago.
-
Nunes went out of his way to say that Trump was not deliberately targeted in the reports he's talking about here.
Well, if they weren't targeting the Russians, and they weren't targeting Trump, why were they listening in? Who were they targeting?
-
"Incidental" is the word of the day.
It was just 'incidental' that information was covertly collected on a private US citizen (who happened to be running for president) and distributed among intelligence agencies (per a brand new rule that allowed such a distribution), to be illegally leaked to the press, who 'incidentally' used the info to buttress a charge which 'incidentally' supported the core strategy against candidate mentioned above.
Yep. Pure coinkydink. **nononono*
-
You're not authorized @Frank Cannon only subscribers of 'Ted Cruz's Insider Scoop' newsletter can be validated for such disclosure.
That's BS, anybody who can afford to buy a knock-off Secret Decoder Ring from Crackerjack can get in.
:2popcorn:
-
There's something vulcanish about Obama and not in a good way. Maybe he has them in a mind meld.
They're leftists. And like the Borg.... they all "think" alike.
-
They're leftists. And like the Borg.... they all "think" alike.
Just saw that nasty little twerp Schiff claim that Nunes is acting as a 'surrogate' to Trump.
Does anyone know if that cord that was attached permanently to Schiff with the other end in Obama's hand ... has that ever been cut or did it just move down the street to the new 'white house.'
-
If your opinion was not valued here by others and the owners they would have canned your a$$ a long time ago.
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
-
What's scaring me is that you think Nunes is talking about "reverse targeting" when he clearly is not. "Incidental information" has a specific meaning, and it's not equal to "reverse targeting."
It isn't when you are dealing with an ethical and moral administration. Snake Obama and his Chicago Mafia mentality do not rate such purity of motives.
Chicago Mafia Obama has no scruples about misusing the powers of law enforcement. I have no doubt he wouldn't hesitate an instant to engage in criminal behavior.
He will do "reverse targeting" and call it "incidental collection." He will just "incidental collect" information on everyone surrounding his target.
Words have meaning. It's important to use them precisely and correctly.
Words have no particular meaning when greasy con-men like Obama use them to get around the law.
-
I have no idea if I am valued...
They told me to try Dollar Tree.
-
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
Did somebody get deleted for posting an opinion?
-
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
@truth_seeker
I've seen banishment/timeouts, particularly during the election, as you know it got quite heated here on multiple nights.
But a minuscule compared to TOS, ever considered how long some of our members would last over there for just expressing their opinion, me included?
-
@truth_seeker
I've seen banishment/timeouts, particularly during the election, as you know it got quite heated here on multiple nights.
But a minuscule compared to TOS, ever considered how long some of our members would last over there for just expressing their opinion, me included?
I was spoken to sharply but I deserved it.
-
@truth_seeker
I've seen banishment/timeouts, particularly during the election, as you know it got quite heated here on multiple nights.
But a minuscule compared to TOS, ever considered how long some of our members would last over there for just expressing their opinion, me included?
I didn't give the place (TOS) the satisfaction of kicking me out. i was already looking for someplace new when I got an invite to come here. I just left. The biggie here is to attack the arguments and not the poster.
-
It means Trump was sorta right.....
Rush discussing this now
Or it means someone's floating a story that no one can confirm or deny to make Trump sorta of right... Who really knows...
-
I was spoken to sharply but I deserved it.
@Emjay A lot of us felt the heat from myst, in our passion we forget sometimes we are merely guests here.
-
I didn't give the place (TOS) the satisfaction of kicking me out. i was already looking for someplace new when I got an invite to come here. I just left. The biggie here is to attack the arguments and not the poster.
Same here.
-
I didn't give the place (TOS) the satisfaction of kicking me out. i was already looking for someplace new when I got an invite to come here. I just left. The biggie here is to attack the arguments and not the poster.
A lot of lifelines went out in those days. "The Lounge" was the "FR Refugee Thread." There are some folks who never forgave that.
-
A lot of lifelines went out in those days. "The Lounge" was the "FR Refugee Thread." There are some folks who never forgave that.
I think it was @pookie18 that brought me over with the Toones, still the best.
-
A lot of lifelines went out in those days. "The Lounge" was the "FR Refugee Thread." There are some folks who never forgave that.
Maybe, but I was in early and saw a lot of survivors come in, lots of familiar faces, too, and we'd all felt run out of there (or been banned) for the same basic reasons: For pointing out foibles and inconsistencies which persist even now where we saw them. Many of us had been there 15+ years and were spitting mad at the whole deal, but it was an eye opener, too--and that of itself is never comfortable.
-
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
Bullshit. I posted some opinions here and I got Zotted. I haven't been able to post anything here in almost 3 years.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Long_bca687_522152.gif)
-
Bullshit. I posted some opinions here and I got Zotted. I haven't been able to post anything here in almost 3 years.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Long_bca687_522152.gif)
I still think you're married to someone high up here or blackmailing them @Frank Cannon
-
I still think you're married to someone high up here or blackmailing them @Frank Cannon
I would give you an indignant wise assed response to that, but like I said in a previous post I am banned from posting here.
-
Maybe, but I was in early and saw a lot of survivors come in, lots of familiar faces, too, and we'd all felt run out of there (or been banned) for the same basic reasons: For pointing out foibles and inconsistencies which persist even now where we saw them. Many of us had been there 15+ years and were spitting mad at the whole deal, but it was an eye opener, too--and that of itself is never comfortable.
Check my signup date over at TOS some time. Heh.
-
I would give you an indignant wise assed response to that, but like I said in a previous post I am banned from posting here.
I gotta find an exorcist! Your thoughts keep radiating into my head!
-
You once warned me that my lack of incredulity concerning Trump, as you saw it, would eventually help result in a police state.
Yet here you are, when confronted with what obviously are blatant police state tactics, splitting hairs. Incredible.
All I'm suggesting is that you and others may wish to consider and discuss the article that was actually posted, rather than shouting about what you wish the article said.
It makes you look less.... Trumpy.
-
I gotta find an exorcist! Your thoughts keep radiating into my head!
It's that cat of his.....
-
All I'm suggesting is that you and others may wish to consider and discuss the article that was actually posted, rather than shouting about what you wish the article said.
It makes you look less.... Trumpy.
Wait, wait...there was an article?
-
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama was behind it. He may not have officially ordered it, but his fellow leftists know exactly what he wants them to do. They don't even have to ask. They just do it.
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
-
:silly:
Wait, wait...there was an article?
-
@Frank Cannon you have always overestimated my disdain for president Trump, I don't want him to fail, I want him to retire.
Yes, that's very realistic.
-
I gotta find an exorcist! Your thoughts keep radiating into my head!
Won't work. You need this....
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/mt/food/tinfoilthumb330.jpg)
-
Check my signup date over at TOS some time. Heh.
I was a 'latecomer' 4/1999, you were there a year (to the day) before me.
-
I didn't give the place (TOS) the satisfaction of kicking me out. i was already looking for someplace new when I got an invite to come here. I just left. The biggie here is to attack the arguments and not the poster.
I'm sorta thinking we ended up with the "cream of the crop" of stubborn opinionated people, including myself.
Not saying that it's a bad thing, quite the contrary. :)
If you can't tolerate dissent, you are a special snowflake that needs "safe spaces."
-
I'm sorta thinking we ended up with the "cream of the crop" of stubborn opinionated people, including myself.
Not saying that it's a bad thing, quite the contrary. :)
If you can't tolerate dissent, you are a special snowflake that needs "safe spaces."
No doubt, but not just stubborn, often well reasoned arguments (which is why we tend to be stubborn).
-
I was a 'latecomer' 4/1999, you were there a year (to the day) before me.
I know...I had already checked. :laugh: I pretty much stopped posting 16 years (to the day) after.
-
Or it means someone's floating a story that no one can confirm or deny to make Trump sorta of right... Who really knows...
That of course is very different from Liberal Broadcasting monopolies from New York known as the "media" constantly repeating the statement that Trump's claims are "unsubstantiated" and "no evidence", blah blah blah.
A point that I have constantly tried to get across to people is that this "politics" game does not revolve around actual truth, but it does revolve around what is perceived as the truth.
The Liberal Democrat media from New York (89% vote for Obama) has a trillion dollar broadcast infrastructure to carry their message. We have tweets, blogs and moxy.
Why do we just meekly accept the "reality" they keep trying to force on the narrative?
-
Maybe, but I was in early and saw a lot of survivors come in, lots of familiar faces, too, and we'd all felt run out of there (or been banned) for the same basic reasons: For pointing out foibles and inconsistencies which persist even now where we saw them. Many of us had been there 15+ years and were spitting mad at the whole deal, but it was an eye opener, too--and that of itself is never comfortable.
One of the things that I lost was the illusion that conservatives are more sensible and rational than liberals. I found out that many of us can be just as emotional and irrational as the left.
It was a bummer.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Why do we just meekly accept the "reality" they keep trying to force on the narrative?
People are too busy or lazy to check beyond the headlines.
-
No doubt, but not just stubborn, often well reasoned arguments (which is why we tend to be stubborn).
And that is exactly right. Nothing more powerful at making a person stubborn than the realization that their argument is sound, at least from their own world view perspective.
-
Check my signup date over at TOS some time. Heh.
Hah! I signed up the same day Jim Robinson did. But he kicked me out anyway.
-
CIA Whistleblower leaks 47 hard drives & 600 million documents, shows Obama spied on Trump, 156 judges, and SCOTUS.
The full letter is here:
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/170321-Final%20Whistleblower%20Letter.pdf
-
I'm sorta thinking we ended up with the "cream of the crop" of stubborn opinionated people, including myself.
Not really. I'm the only cream I see around here. Everyone else is powdered milk.
@corbe @Wingnut
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hjk12V93HkE/Ta7yWqLfcEI/AAAAAAAACZM/uBJ6TIeXm7E/s1600/instant+powdered+milk.jpg)
-
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
Hey, it's not like TOS, where if you didn't carry the water, you were shown the door. Or ganged up on by those who the day before you could carry on a conversation with.
Every site will have its problems...This place compared to TOS wins, hands down.
-
Hey, it's not like TOS, where if you didn't carry the water, you were shown the door. Or ganged up on by those who the day before you could carry on a conversation with.
Every site will have its problems...This place compared to TOS wins, hands down.
It really does. You would not believe the horrible, disgusting abuse I got over there for supporting Ted Cruz and not the vaunted leader.
-
It really does. You would not believe the horrible, disgusting abuse I got over there for supporting Ted Cruz and not the vaunted leader.
I'll just say this. That site reminded me that ordinarily rational people will form a mob as fast as any other group. It got pretty nasty and nothing was being done to stop that. When the mods showed serious favoritism despite egregious policy violations, it was time to go. Once the feeding frenzy starts, it's a good time to be out of the pool.
-
Hah! I signed up the same day Jim Robinson did. But he kicked me out anyway.
You beat me by about 2 months... Dang, that's more than 19 years ago...
-
Won't work. You need this....
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/mt/food/tinfoilthumb330.jpg)
I thought I burned that picture...
-
One of the things that I lost was the illusion that conservatives are more sensible and rational than liberals. I found out that many of us can be just as emotional and irrational as the left.
It was a bummer.
Yes it was a bummer. I came to realize what a minority I really was and that many "conservatives" just want a different flavor of big government that does what they want and are not all that interested in getting government off everyone's backs and back into the constraints of the constitution. As a result I'm partyless for the first time in my adult life.
-
I think it was @pookie18 that brought me over with the Toones, still the best.
Yep, me too.
-
Hah! I signed up the same day Jim Robinson did. But he kicked me out anyway.
Last year, as the Great Migration unfolded, the Refugee Thread was seeing a huge number of folks from the classes of 97, 98 and 99 coming in. From all appearances, TOS was actually singling out "old-timers" for extinction. People who had been regular posters for 18 years were being unceremoniously sacked. Many were Trump supporters, but had made the mistake of suggesting Ted Cruz was a good man. A number became Never Trump people because of it.
Some, despite being very intelligent and well spoken, kept crawling back to JR on bended knee when they'd get banned, forever losing the respect of many former (and present) FReepers. I used to respect Nathan Bedford. He's there to this day.
-
I have no idea if I am valued, but the owner claims nobody gets the zot here, for posting an opinion.
You do that a lot - thinly veiled criticisms without supporting information on threads that have no relation to your criticisms. It gets old. Either put up or shut up, IMHO. You're here; you're not "banned", and yet you complain. :shrug:
And, by the way, I read your comments because they are frequently well-said and well-thought out opinions and information. Every now and then you seem to veer off, but for the most part I find what you have to say worth reading. Except for the above.
-
Same here.
@DB
@Smokin Joe
Here, too. And boy, did it feel good to email Robinson and tell him precisely what I thought about him and his website.
-
Hah! I signed up the same day Jim Robinson did. But he kicked me out anyway.
@Emjay, why did he boot you?
-
I'm sorta thinking we ended up with the "cream of the crop" of stubborn opinionated people, including myself.
Not saying that it's a bad thing, quite the contrary. :)
If you can't tolerate dissent, you are a special snowflake that needs "safe spaces."
I was Class of 1999 over there -- under another name. I quit when I got sent to the kiddie table of having all my posts reviewed, apparently for saying something along the lines of "I really wish Trump would stop doing "x" because the Democrats are going to use that against him." It'd be a cold day in Hell before I'd ask to be reinstated, and impliedly monitored to ensure ideological compliance.
-
Last year, as the Great Migration unfolded, the Refugee Thread was seeing a huge number of folks from the classes of 97, 98 and 99 coming in. From all appearances, TOS was actually singling out "old-timers" for extinction. People who had been regular posters for 18 years were being unceremoniously sacked. Many were Trump supporters, but had made the mistake of suggesting Ted Cruz was a good man. A number became Never Trump people because of it.
Some, despite being very intelligent and well spoken, kept crawling back to JR on bended knee when they'd get banned, forever losing the respect of many former (and present) FReepers. I used to respect Nathan Bedford. He's there to this day.
@Cyber Liberty
Totally agree with you on that. I have no respect at all for those types. I feel the same about a prolific poster over there who signed up here when he was going through the worst of the treatment he received at the hands of the Trump jackals. But he remained where he was and started to post pro-Trump articles to get in the good graces of those who were treating him like garbage.
-
Started lurking on TOS in 2002, signed up in 2004, had a lot of fun over there until 'Free Speech' became an optional procedure subject to BAN. Still lurke on brief occasions but won't sign in, Ditto EIB and Trumpbart.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Totally agree with you on that. I have no respect at all for those types. I feel the same about a prolific poster over there who signed up here when he was going through the worst of the treatment he received at the hands of the Trump jackals. But he remained where he was and started to post pro-Trump articles to get in the good graces of those who were treating him like garbage.
@CatherineofAragon 2DV?
Always loved that guy, fought like a true warrior in the early days, now, not so much.
-
@CatherineofAragon 2DV?
Always loved that guy, fought like a true warrior in the early days, now, not so much.
@corbe
I get that he's housebound and that posting lots of articles to TOS gives him something to do. But he could do that here just as well.
He used to privately send me articles about Cruz, which I really appreciated. When he started pushing Trump articles into my mailbox, I told him he could stop.
-
I'll just say this. That site reminded me that ordinarily rational people will form a mob as fast as any other group. It got pretty nasty and nothing was being done to stop that. When the mods showed serious favoritism despite egregious policy violations, it was time to go. Once the feeding frenzy starts, it's a good time to be out of the pool.
JR did nothing to calm the savages either, I think he figured it was time for another purge, despite claims to the contrary.
-
JR did nothing to calm the savages either, I think he figured it was time for another purge, despite claims to the contrary.
I pinged JR twice to posts where I was on the receiving end of some particularly profane abuse from a Trump shill, who stopped posting shortly after Trump won the nomination, and heard nothing back.
I figured these were his new rules so out I went. Visit there from time to time still, I figure I'm not missing anything.
-
Last year, as the Great Migration unfolded, the Refugee Thread was seeing a huge number of folks from the classes of 97, 98 and 99 coming in. From all appearances, TOS was actually singling out "old-timers" for extinction. People who had been regular posters for 18 years were being unceremoniously sacked. Many were Trump supporters, but had made the mistake of suggesting Ted Cruz was a good man.
In my case, it was reposting a 2011 thread response where JR called Trump a charlatan. Go figure.
-
In my case, it was reposting a 2011 thread response where JR called Trump a charlatan. Go figure.
Several people were tossed for doing that.
-
In my case, it was reposting a 2011 thread response where JR called Trump a charlatan. Go figure.
@edpc it I'm not mistaken that was my very first post here at TBR.
-
It was, lurked here for years followed @pookie18 to myst's house.
Quote from: Hurricane Andrew on July 21, 2016, 11:38:18 AM
Freepers 2008 - We won't support McCain just because he's the nominee.
Freepers 2012 - We won't support Romney just because he's the nominee.
Freepers 2016 - We must support Trump because he's the nominee.
At least the GOPe, as much as I despise them, are consistent.
To: Cheetahcat
Well, I’ll make an observation. Trump is NO conservative. He’s a self-dealing charlatan and he’s got a lot of fall-for-anything chump types fooled.
Mark Levin is my friend and a friend of FR and a friend of Liberty. I’ll thank you not to trash him on this website.
109 posted on 4/18/2011 5:56:22 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing
-
What's scaring me is that you think Nunes is talking about "reverse targeting" when he clearly is not. "Incidental information" has a specific meaning, and it's not equal to "reverse targeting."
Words have meaning. It's important to use them precisely and correctly.
Yes it does. Incidental means I was collecting the data for purpose A and then misusing for purpose B.
I dont expect you to understand/agree but others will see this as the formation of a GENERAL WARRANT.
-
Yes it does. Incidental means I was collecting the data for purpose A and then misusing for purpose B.
I dont expect you to understand/agree but others will see this as the formation of a GENERAL WARRANT.
You're quite wrong.
"Incidental" in this context refers to information gathered on Person B, as a result of that person being in contact with Person A, for whom the warrant was issued.
For example, suppose the FBI has a warrant to monitor Al Capone, and Bugsy Malone calls Mr. Capone to plan a bank robbery (or Capone calls Malone -- in the sense of "incidental information," there's no difference).
The warrant is for Capone; and the information concerning Malone is "incidental" to that warrant; however, it is also evidence of criminal intent by Mr. Malone and as such, by law, the FBI must report that incidental information.
-
you are wrong and dont see it. The stated purpose of the collect is misleading- it is about the actual usage. Keep apologizing for Obama/Hillary/McCain etc.
You're quite wrong.
"Incidental" in this context refers to information gathered on Person B, as a result of that person being in contact with Person A, for whom the warrant was issued.
For example, suppose the FBI has a warrant to monitor Al Capone, and Bugsy Malone calls Mr. Capone to plan a bank robbery (or Capone calls Malone -- in the sense of "incidental information," there's no difference).
The warrant is for Capone; and the information concerning Malone is "incidental" to that warrant; however, it is also evidence of criminal intent by Mr. Malone and as such, by law, the FBI must report that incidental information.
-
you are wrong and dont see it. The stated purpose of the collect is misleading- it is about the actual usage. Keep apologizing for Obama/Hillary/McCain etc.
Remarkable.
Here's the deal: I've explained to you what "incidental information" means. You don't get to just make up alternate definitions to suit your preconceptions.
-
@corbe
I get that he's housebound and that posting lots of articles to TOS gives him something to do. But he could do that here just as well.
@CatherineofAragon
You and I have talked about him. He couldn't do here what he does there because he hasn't known and identified with @mystery-ak. He has been with Jim for many years. His disability is severe and so is Jim's. He took Jim's keeping him off for awhile and bringing him back and changing the types of articles he posts about politics now - no more criticism of Trump articles. He is just not independent enough to change forums and that isn't going to change. I tried to get him to do it. He lives about ten minutes from my house and has my information if he needs physical help or shopping help. He does have a wife so he is not alone, thank God.
-
@Emjay, why did he boot you?
Because I criticized Trump and wanted Ted Cruz to be the candidate. I may have been a little harsh in the Trump criticism thing. But Jim R. lost my respect when he allowed other posters to viciously attack people for their opinions.
In the early days of FR ... back when it was called the White Water Forum and for many years after it became Free Republic, it was a wonderful place with a lot of really knowledgeable posters. I left myself after the 2012 primary ... not formally, I just stopped going there but I went back during this past primary only to be kicked out.
-
@CatherineofAragon 2DV?
Always loved that guy, fought like a true warrior in the early days, now, not so much.
2nd Division Vet? For a long time before the zotting began, he was the only one to post anything resembling anti-Trump articles. I wondered why Jim tolerated him ... suspected big monthly donor or something. I think he's still there.
I will say that FR is the best forum ever in the user-friendly sense.
-
Has there ever been an administration so littered with people who worked for foreign governments against American interests. Manafort did not just fall from the tree, he has been working for DT since the 80s.
None of these people ever bothered to register as agents for foreign interests.
DT did a lot of screeching about lobbyists...........then he filled his transition team with lobbyists.
Yet there are those that would stand up and say.......I believe Donald Trump.
-
Have to wonder what in the world would make anyone suggest that FR is user friendly.
LOLOL................Emjay...........seek help.
-
2nd Division Vet? For a long time before the zotting began, he was the only one to post anything resembling anti-Trump articles. I wondered why Jim tolerated him ... suspected big monthly donor or something. I think he's still there.
I will say that FR is the best forum ever in the user-friendly sense.
@Emjay
2DV is still there I sent him a lifeline during the primary as I'm sure many here did. Though I have sworn off the IGNORE feature, the software here is much more robust than TOS, IMHO
-
Have to wonder what in the world would make anyone suggest that FR is user friendly.
LOLOL................Emjay...........seek help.
Two things: I stand by my statement that FR is the best forum ever in a user-friendly sense. (That is not a criticism of TBR ... you are both pretty)
Second: Why are you posting to me?
-
@Emjay
2DV is still there I sent him a lifeline during the primary as I'm sure many here did. Though I have sworn off the IGNORE feature, the software here is much more robust than TOS, IMHO
I probably have too many people on ignore. Sometimes all I get are blank pages. But the most irritating posters are usually the most prolific. In other words, they WON"T SHUT UP.
-
I probably have too many people on ignore. Sometimes all I get are blank pages. But the most irritating posters are usually the most prolific. In other words, they WON"T SHUT UP.
Yes, @Emjay Blank Pages are a sure sign you're probably doing it wrong lol
-
Nunez now for his rush to inform DT of the so called intelligence information he received.
It's always good to lock the barn door after the horse escapes.
Kind of like the police informing the drug dealer that a raid is about to commence.
-
Two things: I stand by my statement that FR is the best forum ever in a user-friendly sense. (That is not a criticism of TBR ... you are both pretty)
Second: Why are you posting to me?
Fell free to add me to your list of blockees.
-
Because I criticized Trump and wanted Ted Cruz to be the candidate. I may have been a little harsh in the Trump criticism thing. But Jim R. lost my respect when he allowed other posters to viciously attack people for their opinions.
In the early days of FR ... back when it was called the White Water Forum and for many years after it became Free Republic, it was a wonderful place with a lot of really knowledgeable posters. I left myself after the 2012 primary ... not formally, I just stopped going there but I went back during this past primary only to be kicked out.
I left in 2014 after I got the "soft zot" because I called Michelle Obama a "Wookie." I private emailed him demanding reinstatement, which he did (he told me it was "raciss"), but I had come to the conclusion the Moderators were an out-of-control bunch of jerks who had it in for me after years of BS and I left, quietly. I still have post privileges, and I've done so on very rare occasions (like the other day).
-
@Emjay @Rivergirl I can't believe you guys would put each other on Ignore because you disagree about the relative ease of use of TBR and TOS. :shrug:
-
I left in 2014 after I got the "soft zot" because I called Michelle Obama a "Wookie." I private emailed him demanding reinstatement, which he did (he told me it was "raciss"), but I had come to the conclusion the Moderators were an out-of-control bunch of jerks who had it in for me after years of BS and I left, quietly. I still have post privileges, and I've done so on very rare occasions (like the other day).
By the way, can anybody educate me as to what TOS stands for? I always reger to JimRob's site as FR for short. Thanks.
-
@Emjay @Rivergirl I can't believe you guys would put each other on Ignore because you disagree about the relative ease of use of TBR and TOS. :shrug:
Yes, really. What's up with that? **nononono*
-
I do Love them both, @Emjay and @Rivergirl even though, at times, they remind me of my X Wife's (who I adore also).
-
@SirLinksALot
TOS=The Other Site (FR)
-
By the way, can anybody educate me as to what TOS stands for? I always reger to JimRob's site as FR for short. Thanks.
The Other Site, or That Other Site. I think of it as the former, some may think of it as the latter.
-
I do Love them both, @Emjay and @Rivergirl even though, at times, they remind me of my X Wife's (who I adore also).
Whew! You had me going - I read that as "my ex's wife". Made my head spin.
-
Whew! You had me going - I read that as "my ex's wife". Made my head spin.
You've been listening to @Frank Cannon again, haven't ya?
-
@CatherineofAragon
You and I have talked about him. He couldn't do here what he does there because he hasn't known and identified with @mystery-ak. He has been with Jim for many years. His disability is severe and so is Jim's. He took Jim's keeping him off for awhile and bringing him back and changing the types of articles he posts about politics now - no more criticism of Trump articles. He is just not independent enough to change forums and that isn't going to change. I tried to get him to do it. He lives about ten minutes from my house and has my information if he needs physical help or shopping help. He does have a wife so he is not alone, thank God.
@Victoria33
I know, and I understand all of your points. But I just can't get my mind around showing your belly to people who treat you like utter garbage...and he was treated terribly. There's just something in me that makes my skin crawl when I see it happen.
-
@Emjay @Rivergirl I can't believe you guys would put each other on Ignore because you disagree about the relative ease of use of TBR and TOS. :shrug:
I have NEVER put anyone on IGNORE and never will. This is not middle school. At least IMHO
-
@Victoria33
I know, and I understand all of your points. But I just can't get my mind around showing your belly to people who treat you like utter garbage...and he was treated terribly. There's just something in me that makes my skin crawl when I see it happen.
2DV isn't the only one like that.
-
The Other Site, or That Other Site. I think of it as the former, some may think of it as the latter.
My Pastor refers to Hell as "The Other Side" *****rollingeyes*****
-
Whew! You had me going - I read that as "my ex's wife". Made my head spin.
Don't believe any of his spin. My unnamed sources tell me that he is into some fun kinky stuff.
-
Because I criticized Trump and wanted Ted Cruz to be the candidate. I may have been a little harsh in the Trump criticism thing. But Jim R. lost my respect when he allowed other posters to viciously attack people for their opinions.
In the early days of FR ... back when it was called the White Water Forum and for many years after it became Free Republic, it was a wonderful place with a lot of really knowledgeable posters. I left myself after the 2012 primary ... not formally, I just stopped going there but I went back during this past primary only to be kicked out.
@Emjay
When I joined in 2011, after lurking for three years, I felt like I was joining the most august political forum on the net. It might have been that, once, but it's an internet joke now.
I started getting on Jim's bad side when i called out that fake poster, BlackFemaleArmyCaptain, for saying she loved Bill Clinton. Robinson actually came to her defense, told her that her posts were great, and locked me out of my account for a while. Not long after, he accused me of being pro-illegal immigration for not supporting Trump. I told him he damn well knew better, and asked him why he was trying to claim such a thing. After that, he started stalking me on threads, challenging me. I wasn't going to back down, so when he started going from thread to thread demanding a Trump loyalty oath, I knew my time was limited, so I left.
-
@Emjay @Rivergirl I can't believe you guys would put each other on Ignore because you disagree about the relative ease of use of TBR and TOS. :shrug:
I have not put Rivergirl on ignore. This is a personal issue between us that has nothing whatever to do with the relative ease of using TBR, TOS.
-
I have NEVER put anyone on IGNORE and never will. This is not middle school. At least IMHO
I HAVE put everyone on IGNORE. That's how I win every argument here.
-
:threadjack: :taz:
-
2nd Division Vet? For a long time before the zotting began, he was the only one to post anything resembling anti-Trump articles. I wondered why Jim tolerated him ... suspected big monthly donor or something. I think he's still there.
I will say that FR is the best forum ever in the user-friendly sense.
@Emjay
Yep, Jim tolerated him for longer than most others. Then he stepped back and let the pack take over.
I used to think that about TOS, too, but I came here and found I like it much better. My husband said he couldn't understand how I ever posted on such an antiquated format, lol.
-
I have not put Rivergirl on ignore. This is a personal issue between us that has nothing whatever to do with the relative ease of using TBR, TOS.
Thank goodness (I think)! Didn't know about a personal issue, that's why they're called "personal issues." I hate to see people, both of whom I like, get that angry with each other. :shrug:
My apologies if I intruded....
-
I HAVE put everyone on IGNORE. That's how I win every argument here.
Wise thinking just don't start arguing with yourself, then you'll be in real trouble.
-
2DV isn't the only one like that.
@Cyber Liberty
That's the truth.
-
@Emjay
Yep, Jim tolerated him for longer than most others. Then he stepped back and let the pack take over.
I used to think that about TOS, too, but I came here and found I like it much better. My husband said he couldn't understand how I ever posted on such an antiquated format, lol.
Hah! Are we sure the horse is dead? I found an ally on another forum who was frustrated by the difficulty in seeing replies to his posts. He said : "
Too bad we don't have a direct reply system like TOS. But everything else here beats the TOS hands down."
-
Hah! Are we sure the horse is dead?
There's an Emoji for that: 11513
-
Thank goodness (I think)! Didn't know about a personal issue, that's why they're called "personal issues." I hate to see people, both of whom I like, get that angry with each other. :shrug:
My apologies if I intruded....
You did not intrude. She chose to post to me here. She was a friend who could not tolerate the fact that I accepted that Trump is president and plan to support him in that role whenever I can.
-
I HAVE put everyone on IGNORE. That's how I win every argument here.
All those Blank Pages you see @Frank Cannon are people asking what the hell is he talking about.
-
2nd Division Vet? For a long time before the zotting began, he was the only one to post anything resembling anti-Trump articles. I wondered why Jim tolerated him ... suspected big monthly donor or something.
He was anything but a big donor. I used to get back channel pleas from him for financial support because of a laundry list of personal woes. I know others got the same private mails from him as well for whatever reason.
-
You did not intrude. She chose to post to me here. She was a friend who could not tolerate the fact that I accepted that Trump is president and plan to support him in that role whenever I can.
Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I always thought eventually the two sides of the Trump War would find common ground. There really is a lot of it.
-
All those Blank Pages you see @Frank Cannon are people asking what the hell is he talking about.
I would respond to that with something pithy, but as I said yesterday I was banned from this site 2 years ago and I also have you on ignore.
-
I would respond to that with something pithy, but as I said yesterday I was banned from this site 2 years ago and I also have you on ignore.
000hehehehe
-
I would respond to that with something pithy, but as I said yesterday I was banned from this site 2 years ago and I also have you on ignore.
I couldn't possibly be on Ignore @Frank Cannon no one ever quotes my intelligent* posts and you rip me a new one almost every week.
*shut up
-
Remarkable.
Here's the deal: I've explained to you what "incidental information" means. You don't get to just make up alternate definitions to suit your preconceptions.
Regardless, the key point is the distribution of whatever was collected. Recall that one of Obama's parting gifts was a large expansion of the agencies who get to routinely look at raw data.
Perhaps that expansion had good intent and envisioned a good result. But, it surely can be seized on by those with nefarious intent, as has obviously transpired.
Hello Ben Rhodes.
@r9etb
@LonestarDream
-
There's an Emoji for that: 11513
@Cyber Liberty
@Emjay
Everything's covered! :laugh:
-
Here's the deal: I've explained to you what "incidental information" means. You don't get to just make up alternate definitions to suit your preconceptions.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but other people don't have to accept your definition of it in the first place, either. Just sayin'.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@Emjay
Everything's covered! :laugh:
Did you notice there's a new Emoji above the posting box? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Regardless, the key point is the distribution of whatever was collected. Recall that one of Obama's parting gifts was a large expansion of the agencies who get to routinely look at raw data.
Perhaps that expansion had good intent and envisioned a good result. But, it surely can be seized on by those with nefarious intent, as has obviously transpired.
From the article: "Nunes later told reporters at the White House that he believes the details should "bother" the president and his team because some of the collection seemed 'inappropriate.'" I don't know what that means, exactly, since Nunes said that "he believes the information was all collected legally." Is he talking about the nature of the information, or about the manner in which it was collected?
Hello Ben Rhodes.
Pathetic. Unfortunately, I've learned to expect no better from you, don.
-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but other people don't have to accept your definition of it in the first place, either. Just sayin'.
Except that it's not "my" definition. It's how the term is used in practice.
-
Except that it's not "my" definition. It's how the term is used in practice.
And naturally your word is to be taken in such matters. Got it.
-
And naturally your word is to be taken in such matters. Got it.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Go look the damned term up for yourself.
-
Oh, for heaven's sake. Go look the damned term up for yourself.
I might. Never had reason to, until now. It just struck me your response was a bit condescending, but I don't know the history between you and the other guy, so maybe he needed it? :shrug:
-
Oh, for heaven's sake. Go look the damned term up for yourself.
OK, I looked it up. It appears you got the better of that argument. Sorry.
-
I might. Never had reason to, until now. It just struck me your response was a bit condescending, but I don't know the history between you and the other guy, so maybe he needed it? :shrug:
One of my small pleasures is winding up a Sophist and watching him go on and on.
@LonestarDream
-
OK, I looked it up. It appears you got the better of that argument. Sorry.
Oh, wow. Thank you. :seeya:
-
From the article: "Nunes later told reporters at the White House that he believes the details should "bother" the president and his team because some of the collection seemed 'inappropriate.'" I don't know what that means, exactly, since Nunes said that "he believes the information was all collected legally." Is he talking about the nature of the information, or about the manner in which it was collected?
Pathetic. Unfortunately, I've learned to expect no better from you, don.
But you never fail to deliver exactly what I expect from you. Major on the minors.
-
But you never fail to deliver exactly what I expect from you. Major on the minors.
sigh. Coming from an accomplished Humpty-Dumpty like yourself, I take that as a victory.
-
I wish these personal back and forths would stop. They really contribute nothing to the issues being discussed .... and yeah, I know I'm guilty also.
-
I wish these personal back and forths would stop. They really contribute nothing to the issues being discussed .... and yeah, I know I'm guilty also.
Your wish will never be granted...lol. But nice thought there! :laugh:
-
I wish these personal back and forths would stop. They really contribute nothing to the issues being discussed .... and yeah, I know I'm guilty also.
MTBRGA.
-
I wish these personal back and forths would stop. They really contribute nothing to the issues being discussed .... and yeah, I know I'm guilty also.
What fun would that be? (Yes, I know..."In so stating, what am I doing...") :hijack:
-
MTBRGA.
Mountain Bike Reviews Great Again?
-
Don't believe any of his spin. My unnamed sources tell me that he is into some fun kinky stuff.
As long as someone is having some fun. :smokin:
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Thanks for the new emoji. My rectus muscles are well exercised reading the posts from the pouty leftists here.
-
I wish these personal back and forths would stop. They really contribute nothing to the issues being discussed .... and yeah, I know I'm guilty also.
Speak for yourself. Some of these attacks are more fun than a cat fight at a bar on a Friday night.
-
@Emjay and I are kinda sensitive to Family feuds, JS
-
@Emjay and I are kinda sensitive to Family feuds, JS
What the hell do you have against Richard Dawson?
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/68757778.jpg)
-
His bestest was this @Frank Cannon , after this it was all downhill.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg/180px-Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg)
-
What the hell do you have against Richard Dawson?
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/68757778.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b6/db/d1/b6dbd146ba9725d1bc1e965037448e99.jpg)
-
His bestest was this @Frank Cannon , after this it was all downhill.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg/180px-Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg)
Yeah that was a good show until that last season when Klink finally clued into what Hogan and Newkirk were up to and had Schultz blind fold and shoot them both dead. The rest of that season was kinda meh.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b6/db/d1/b6dbd146ba9725d1bc1e965037448e99.jpg)
The other accepted answers in that survey.......
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD1gFNzcu3WC9eINcBLvpfAU7kgM1N5flXUMxQRH6zsD3rPEn6aw)
-
His bestest was this @Frank Cannon , after this it was all downhill.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg/180px-Richard_Dawson_and_Ulla_Stromstedt_in_Hogan%27s_Heroes_-_1968.jpg)
I have to disagree, he made a great quizmaster. Gene Rayburn really gave him a break doing that.
-
Yeah that was a good show until that last season when Klink finally clued into what Hogan and Newkirk were up to and had Schultz blind fold and shoot them both dead. The rest of that season was kinda meh.
Bob Crane.....Life imitates Art.
-
Bob Crane.....Life imitates Art.
True imitation would be if Schultzie beat him to death with a camera tripod....
-
True imitation would be if Schultzie beat him to death with a camera tripod....
I believe Crane was killed in a rented Chrysler Cordoba with the Corinthian leather option....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qGTCcYPXy6g/0.jpg)
-
It was stolen from this guy.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fp3-jh5rkcY/hqdefault.jpg)
-
I believe Crane was killed in a rented Chrysler Cordoba with the Corinthian leather option....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qGTCcYPXy6g/0.jpg)
And all these years I thought it was in the Conservatory with a lead pipe by Col. Mustard. Huh. :shrug:
-
It was stolen from this guy.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fp3-jh5rkcY/hqdefault.jpg)
Who swears he was forced to mispronounce the name of the car.
-
@Frank Cannon I don't mean to hijack this thread but have you figured out how to add yourself to your buddy list, I haven't figured it out yet?
-
@Frank Cannon I don't mean to hijack this thread but have you figured out how to add yourself to your buddy list, I haven't figured it out yet?
I don't use the buddy list because there is no one worthy of that honor......including myself. I have very high standards.
-
@Frank Cannon I don't mean to hijack this thread but have you figured out how to add yourself to your buddy list, I haven't figured it out yet?
Wouldn't that be like fapping? As when one "Likes" their own Bookface post?
-
I don't use the buddy list because there is no one worthy of that honor......including myself. I have very high standards.
He just doesn't use them very often....
****drummer
-
He just doesn't use them very often....
****drummer
As his avatar indicates everything is high when you've fallen down and can't get up. He's been that way since the election.
@Frank Cannon
-
You can't fall down if you're already lying on the floor.
Friend of mine used to tell me that, back before he croaked.
-
You can't fall down if you're already lying on the floor.
Friend of mine used to tell me that, back before he croaked.
Well you can fall lower than the floor if you die.....approximately 6 feet.
-
Well you can fall lower than the floor if you die.....approximately 6 feet.
Does it count as a fall if somebody else digs the hole for you, even if they used a backhoe?
-
Indeed it has transpired.
Regardless, the key point is the distribution of whatever was collected. Recall that one of Obama's parting gifts was a large expansion of the agencies who get to routinely look at raw data.
Perhaps that expansion had good intent and envisioned a good result. But, it surely can be seized on by those with nefarious intent, as has obviously transpired.
Hello Ben Rhodes.
@r9etb
@LonestarDream
-
Yes it was a bummer. I came to realize what a minority I really was and that many "conservatives" just want a different flavor of big government that does what they want and are not all that interested in getting government off everyone's backs and back into the constraints of the constitution. As a result I'm partyless for the first time in my adult life.
I really liked the Constitution Party platform, and voted that way, so I check 'other' or write that in when someone asks--if I choose to give an answer at all. I consider it a loose association, though, for the moment.
-
JR did nothing to calm the savages either, I think he figured it was time for another purge, despite claims to the contrary.
Every election year there has been one for a while now. Controversy is good for web hits, but there is a limit. When the witch hunts started, it was time to quietly leave town. Science is sorcery to the primitives, and could get a person burned at the stake for pointing out the obvious.
-
I left in 2014 after I got the "soft zot" because I called Michelle Obama a "Wookie." I private emailed him demanding reinstatement, which he did (he told me it was "raciss"), but I had come to the conclusion the Moderators were an out-of-control bunch of jerks who had it in for me after years of BS and I left, quietly. I still have post privileges, and I've done so on very rare occasions (like the other day).
I thought there were people there calling the former FLOTUS a 'wookie' from the day that bunch stepped into the limelight. I was surprised anyone suddenly had a problem with that. Raysis? Only if you don't like Wookies!
-
@Emjay @Rivergirl I can't believe you guys would put each other on Ignore because you disagree about the relative ease of use of TBR and TOS. :shrug:
I think it's funny, considering TOS doesn't have an ignore feature. :silly:
-
I thought there were people there calling the former FLOTUS a 'wookie' from the day that bunch stepped into the limelight. I was surprised anyone suddenly had a problem with that. Raysis? Only if you don't like Wookies!
That was the day I decided the Mods were a bunch of Bleeps, and Jimbo was encouraging it. Eff 'em.
-
That was the day I decided the Mods were a bunch of Bleeps, and Jimbo was encouraging it. Eff 'em.
Well, before I left I noticed new names calling out old hands, and then not getting gigged by the mods. Not only were they violating posting "rules" with personal attacks, there was a thread over there where the "Trump Family" got together and plotted how to 'take out' posters by stalking and gang-spamming them. Wow. When I pointed that out, no one seemed to take notice.
When you are standing next to the police, pointing at the armed robber, trying to call their attention to it, and they look the other way, you know you are in the wrong neighborhood.
-
Did you notice there's a new Emoji above the posting box? *****rollingeyes*****
@Cyber Liberty
I love that one!
-
@Cyber Liberty
I love that one!
Thank @bigheadfred !
-
After the afrobutt thing I thought we needed one. But that one had me doing the whole head and eye roll thing.
-
@bigheadfred You're steering the ship....
-
After the afrobutt thing I thought we needed one. But that one had me doing the whole head and eye roll thing.
@bigheadfred
You did good. I've already used that little guy.
-
Has there ever been an administration so littered with people who worked for foreign governments against American interests. Manafort did not just fall from the tree, he has been working for DT since the 80s.
None of these people ever bothered to register as agents for foreign interests.
DT did a lot of screeching about lobbyists...........then he filled his transition team with lobbyists.
Yet there are those that would stand up and say.......I believe Donald Trump.
Point well taken. It is the election all over again, oddly enough, only the "Who are you going to believe?" question boils down to a choice between the Democrats/MSM and a candidate who lied and slandered his way to the nomination, and has yet to fulfill promises (it is not done until it is done). This will persist until one or the other establishes credibility, and right now I have the odds even on that, with probability of success low on both sides.
-
Wouldn't that be like fapping? As when one "Likes" their own Bookface post?
I always do that ... it's the only way I can get likes.
-
I think it's funny, considering TOS doesn't have an ignore feature. :silly:
TOS has an ignore feature. I ignore it entirely.
-
TOS has an ignore feature. I ignore it entirely.
:bigsilly:
-
TOS has an ignore feature. I ignore it entirely.
:sword: Touche! :silly:
-
Remarkable.
Here's the deal: I've explained to you what "incidental information" means. You don't get to just make up alternate definitions to suit your preconceptions.
The point attempting to be made here is that this is exactly what Obama and company may have done with this "incidental" claim. They may have deliberately targeted Trump and Co, while claiming that they only acquired the info from "incidental" contacts.
You know, making up an alternate definition of the word "incidental" to suit their political needs.
-
The point attempting to be made here is that this is exactly what Obama and company may have done with this "incidental" claim. They may have deliberately targeted Trump and Co, while claiming that they only acquired the info from "incidental" contacts.
You know, making up an alternate definition of the word "incidental" to suit their political needs.
Is this something like plausible deniability?
-
2nd Division Vet? For a long time before the zotting began, he was the only one to post anything resembling anti-Trump articles. I wondered why Jim tolerated him ... suspected big monthly donor or something. I think he's still there.
I will say that FR is the best forum ever in the user-friendly sense.
2nd Division Vet is still there and posts a LOT of articles. He is either a heavy donor, or he is just regarded as an asset for all the controversy he generates.
-
Is this something like plausible deniability?
Yup.
-
2nd Division Vet is still there and posts a LOT of articles. He is either a heavy donor, or he is just regarded as an asset for all the controversy he generates.
Unlike here, where both sides are posted and discussed, he (2DV), doesn't post stuff against the established protocol, anymore I always liked him, a fellow Texan, if I'm not mistaken.
@DiogenesLamp
-
2nd Division Vet is still there and posts a LOT of articles. He is either a heavy donor, or he is just regarded as an asset for all the controversy he generates.
@DiogenesLamp
He exists on military disability.
-
@DiogenesLamp
He exists on military disability.
Right. I don't think he is a big donor. I remember a thread or two about him lamenting his (apparent) poverty.
-
Getting back to the point of this thread....
Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says
Republican congressional investigators expect a potential “smoking gun” establishing that the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and possibly the president-elect himself, will be produced to the House Intelligence Committee this week, a source told Fox News.
Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications, purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News. The intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretappedhim in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.
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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showing-obama-administration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html
-
At the end of the day does anything change?
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb27/spyversusspy/images/5/50/Wiki-background)
-
Many words are dead metaphors, and “wiretapped” may be one, whether it’s in quotes or not. Who cares if there were “wires” that were “tapped”? It’s like looking for eaves when someone is said to be eavesdropping. I think the stress on the word “wiretapped” is part of an effort to say that some other party was targeted — some foreign official was listened in on — and that caused the overhearing of some Trump-associated persons. There was a wiretap, but the wires tapped (metaphorically) were not a Trump associate’s.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/260682/#respond
-
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/260682/#respond
So what is the hot new term? Deep state interpenetration?
-
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/260682/#respond
Wiretap means to surveil electronic communications. It is just an older term from when it was a more mechanical process to achieve. So in short the meaning is the same but the technology has changed. So I'm agreeing with you.
-
Being how I am inclined to follow that the spooks go by the "guilty until proven innocent" theory I could easily think that the "other than Trump-associated persons" were the incidentals here.
Meaning they were listening to Trump associates and the other parties were incidental, but they spin it the other way.
Gotta fit the narrative and all.
-
Isn't it interesting that there were no people from the Hillary campaign who were incidentally caught up in this type of surveillance activity and, if there were, NONE of their names were unmasked?
Just asking? Seems strange to me that th1se kind of thing only happens to republicans given that it is "incidental"!
-
Isn't it interesting that there were no people from the Hillary campaign who were incidentally caught up in this type of surveillance activity and, if there were, NONE of their names were unmasked?
Just asking? Seems strange to me that th1se kind of thing only happens to republicans given that it is "incidental"!
What would be the point? EVERYONE KNOWS they are all criminals.
-
Isn't it interesting that there were no people from the Hillary campaign who were incidentally caught up in this type of surveillance activity and, if there were, NONE of their names were unmasked?
Just asking? Seems strange to me that th1se kind of thing only happens to republicans given that it is "incidental"!
Wait... You expected the Democrats to investigate ANY of the criminal activities associated with their own people? :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Did Obama Surveil Trump? Sure Looks That Way
(http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EDIT2-nunes-032317-AP.jpg)
Nunes, speaking Wednesday and citing only "sources," was careful to note that the surveillance of Trump aides appeared to be both legal and "incidental" — that is, not part of a directed spying operation on Trump.
Of course, that appears to be literally true. But it's also irrelevant. Democrats and the media keep mentioning the word "incidental" as if it exonerates what now appears to be a domestic spying operation against Trump directed from the Obama White House.
"Incidental" doesn't mean unintentional. Take as an example the leaks of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's conversations in late December with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Those talks have been treated as sinister, with the Washington Post even suggesting that they were a violation of the Logan Act, a possible serious crime.
But U.S. intelligence gatherers could quite easily get an "incidental" trove of material on Flynn, simply by getting a surveillance warrant on someone they knew he was likely to talk to. Presto! The information on Flynn talking to the target becomes "incidental," rather than targeted. Still, the intent was clear.
The fact is, as Nunes revealed, this appears to be a pattern of surveillance put in place by the Obama administration and possibly officials in the FBI, CIA or National Security Agency to elude any appearance of a domestic spying operation on a political foe, which would be a serious crime.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-obama-surveil-trump-sure-looks-that-way/
-
Wait... You expected the Democrats to investigate ANY of the criminal activities associated with their own people? :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
@Smokin Joe
Actually my comment was targeting the supposed "incidental" aspect of all this! As in if it truly were "incidental" would it be only republicans caught up in it? There isn't a damned thing "incidental" about any of it!
-
@Smokin Joe
Actually my comment was targeting the supposed "incidental" aspect of all this! As in if it truly were "incidental" would it be only republicans caught up in it? There isn't a damned thing "incidental" about any of it!
It's entirely possible that Democrats were caught up in the "incidental" part of it, as the term is used.
The problem is not the collection of the information -- that happens all the time. The problem is that the identities of Trump's team were apparently not properly "masked" as required by law. The identities of Democrats caught in the same web may or may not have been "masked," we don't know.
But if there was in fact a systematic failure to "mask" specific people -- members of Trump's team -- then that's a serious problem. Of course, we already know that the Obama administration had a record of such things -- the IRS scandal being another glaring example.
-
@Smokin Joe
Actually my comment was targeting the supposed "incidental" aspect of all this! As in if it truly were "incidental" would it be only republicans caught up in it? There isn't a damned thing "incidental" about any of it!
We had an expression when we were kids..."accidentally on purpose". No, this wasn't some serendipitous discovery, but a targeted information gathering operation aimed specifically at Trump's people. Interesting how the debate has shifted, though, because if anything had been found that was actionable, that would be all over the front pages.
-
We had an expression when we were kids..."accidentally on purpose". No, this wasn't some serendipitous discovery, but a targeted information gathering operation aimed specifically at Trump's people. Interesting how the debate has shifted, though, because if anything had been found that was actionable, that would be all over the front pages.
@Smokin Joe
I think you mean to say "actionable against a Republican". Democraps are immune!
-
@Smokin Joe
Actually my comment was targeting the supposed "incidental" aspect of all this! As in if it truly were "incidental" would it be only republicans caught up in it? There isn't a damned thing "incidental" about any of it!
Yeah, it's kind of odd random chance always seems to favor the Rats these days.
Used to be, when votes were recounted in elections, half the time the Dem gained, the other half the Rep gained, but now the Dems gain every time the votes are counted. They'll recount the same election over and over until the Rat gets enough to win. How come they're so confident they'll come out ahead?
Something very fishy about that.
-
@Smokin Joe
I think you mean to say "actionable against a Republican". Democraps are immune!
Everyboduy knows it's because the Dems are always innocent of wrong doing. Just ask 'em, they'll tell you!
-
Yeah, it's kind of odd random chance always seems to favor the Rats these days.
Used to be, when votes were recounted in elections, half the time the Dem gained, the other half the Rep gained, but now the Dems gain every time the votes are counted. They'll recount the same election over and over until the Rat gets enough to win. How come they're so confident they'll come out ahead?
Something very fishy about that.
The ACORNs (still) do not fall far from the trees. Or something esoteric like that...lol.
-
We had an expression when we were kids..."accidentally on purpose". No, this wasn't some serendipitous discovery, but a targeted information gathering operation aimed specifically at Trump's people. Interesting how the debate has shifted, though, because if anything had been found that was actionable, that would be all over the front pages.
Again, I think we need to draw the distinction between the incidental collection, and what happened next. If Nunes is to be believed, the collection itself is legal. Which among other things means that Trump's people really were in contact with people who were under surveillance. Though it's highly unlikely that they were not the only ones.
It's what may have happened next that's the real problem: the intel people failed to "mask" at least some of those they should have. That's bad enough. But if they selectively failed to mask, then that's a much bigger deal.
-
Yeah, it's kind of odd random chance always seems to favor the Rats these days.
Used to be, when votes were recounted in elections, half the time the Dem gained, the other half the Rep gained, but now the Dems gain every time the votes are counted. They'll recount the same election over and over until the Rat gets enough to win. How come they're so confident they'll come out ahead?
Something very fishy about that.
@Cyber Liberty
I have been preaching for years that the entrenched unelected GS bureaucracy in Washington is the biggest threat we face! It is not elected democrats alone!
-
Everyboduy knows it's because the Dems are always innocent of wrong doing. Just ask 'em, they'll tell you!
It is the dindu party. dindu nuffin.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I have been preaching for years that the entrenched unelected GS bureaucracy in Washington is the biggest threat we face! It is not elected democrats alone!
QFT!
Failure to sufficiently clean house will be the demise of this administration, as the staffers and entrenched bureaucrats (some with the equivalent of legislative authority) continue to quietly call the shots and make the trains run on time.
-
Everyboduy knows it's because the Dems are always innocent of wrong doing. Just ask 'em, they'll tell you!
And their propaganda arm - the MSM - will back them on it 100%! As will the unelected and unfireable GS bureaucrats in Washington!
-
Again, I think we need to draw the distinction between the incidental collection, and what happened next. If Nunes is to be believed, the collection itself is legal. Which among other things means that Trump's people really were in contact with people who were under surveillance. Though it's highly unlikely that they were not the only ones.
It's what may have happened next that's the real problem: the intel people failed to "mask" at least some of those they should have. That's bad enough. But if they selectively failed to mask, then that's a much bigger deal.
But if they selectively failed to mask, then that's a much bigger deal.
Takes it completely out of the incidental realm and puts it into the intentional. And right back to what I said about the Trump people being the target(s) all along.
-
But if they selectively failed to mask, then that's a much bigger deal.
Takes it completely out of the incidental realm and puts it into the intentional. And right back to what I said about the Trump people being the target(s) all along.
It will be a lot more difficult to prove if someone accidentally on purpose unmasked some people. We're looking at a double-bank side pocket shot here.
-
But if they selectively failed to mask, then that's a much bigger deal.
Takes it completely out of the incidental realm and puts it into the intentional. And right back to what I said about the Trump people being the target(s) all along.
Again, that goes against what Nunes said about the incidental collection itself, which he said appeared to be legal. Which means that Trump's people really were in contact with people under surveillance.
I think the more likely scenario is that somebody with a political bent saw certain names of people who should have been masked and said, "well, isn't that interesting?" And it quickly metastasized into something politically actionable by the Obama team.
And that could end up having interesting repercussions.
-
So Nunes is repeating that his new info
1. Was collected legally
and
2. Is not related to Russia.
For discussion and speculation:
1. Was this a surveillance on a foreign power other than Russia?
2. Is there a second and wider criminal investigation directly looking at Trumpworld?
The "does not involve Russia" piece is a puzzle. Of course, we may get a leak at any moment.
I lean to #1, maybe Israel, based on another of Obama's parting gifts, that being the stab in the back at the UN.
-
Again, that goes against what Nunes said about the incidental collection itself, which he said appeared to be legal. Which means that Trump's people really were in contact with people under surveillance.
I think the more likely scenario is that somebody with a political bent saw certain names of people who should have been masked and said, "well, isn't that interesting?" And it quickly metastasized into something politically actionable by the Obama team.
And that could end up having interesting repercussions.
IF there were anyone around interested in acting upon it that is!
-
1. Was this a surveillance on a foreign power other than Russia?
2. Is there a second and wider criminal investigation directly looking at Trumpworld?
The "does not involve Russia" piece is a puzzle. Of course, we may get a leak at any moment.
I lean to #1, maybe Israel, based on another of Obama's parting gifts, that being the stab in the back at the UN.
1. Yes, apparently so, since it was covered under FISA. I'd speculate (based on a few other things I've read) that Turkey is the other power, and that makes sense for a variety of reasons.
2. It's possible that there's an investigation looking at Trumpworld, but this doesn't appear to be it. I think there's some merit to the idea that "failure to mask" was politically motivated, and the information was used for Obamaworld's political ends.
-
IF there were anyone around interested in acting upon it that is!
I think it's abundantly clear that Obama's minions were interested in creating political havoc for Trump, and this sort of thing would have fit in nicely.
-
I think it's abundantly clear that Obama's minions were interested in creating political havoc for Trump, and this sort of thing would have fit in nicely.
And they SHOULD go to prison for it but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that result!
-
And they SHOULD go to prison for it but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that result!
Actually, I think people probably will go to prison for this -- it goes to the very heart of legitimate concerns from across the political spectrum about the potential for misusing FISA. It's not the sort of violation that one wants to be seen papering over.
Of course, it will probably not be the truly responsible somebodies.
The response of the Democrats on this has been instructive -- I really begin to think there's something unpleasant they would like us to not know about.
-
Yeah, it's kind of odd random chance always seems to favor the Rats these days.
Used to be, when votes were recounted in elections, half the time the Dem gained, the other half the Rep gained, but now the Dems gain every time the votes are counted. They'll recount the same election over and over until the Rat gets enough to win. How come they're so confident they'll come out ahead?
Something very fishy about that.
Because they're better at the game! They take it very seriously and play for keeps. As opposed to us...
-
Because they're better at the game! They take it very seriously and play for keeps. As opposed to us...
And they had 40 years + to build their empire!
-
And they had 40 years + to build their empire!
Well, we could have been doing the same damn thing at the same time. We could have, at the very least, been effectively and seriously fighting them all that time.
-
Because they're better at the game! They take it very seriously and play for keeps. As opposed to us...
I think there's a real distinction -- we respect the rules and play the game to win according to the rules. The left operates according to "the ends justify the means." They'll use the rules if it suits them, and otherwise rely on the rules mainly to hold us in place.
-
There's "better at the game" and "better at cheating the game."
-
I think there's a real distinction -- we respect the rules and play the game to win according to the rules. The left operates according to "the ends justify the means." They'll use the rules if it suits them, and otherwise rely on the rules mainly to hold us in place.
I agree with that as far as it goes, but the other part of the equation is that we are just not as dedicated to seeing to it that our vision is brought about as are leftists. It's both a strength and weakness of conservatives.
-
Well, we could have been doing the same damn thing at the same time. We could have, at the very least, been effectively and seriously fighting them all that time.
Here's another difference between "us" and "them." At the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, activists on the left tend to live for and through their political issues. There is no separation for them between politics and real life. Conservatives tend to be people for whom politics is secondary to going to work, being with family, and all those other normal things.
The reason why the left wins, is because they go to all the meetings, get appointed to the committees, set the meeting agendas, and so on. Normal people may show up for the meetings, but they almost never control them.
And, finally, because it's their life, activists on the left never rest after a defeat; they just keep plugging away; whereas normal people treat any victory as final and move on to the next issue. And defeat usually stays that way, for the same reason.
-
I agree with that as far as it goes, but the other part of the equation is that we are just not as dedicated to seeing to it that our vision is brought about as are leftists. It's both a strength and weakness of conservatives.
We agree.
-
Until I start seeing headlines like "798 intelligence community employees receive lengthy prison terms for multiple law-breaking" I will never begin to trust them or believe them.
-
Until I start seeing headlines like "798 intelligence community employees receive lengthy prison terms for multiple law-breaking" I will never begin to trust them or believe them.
:amen: Fred! Right there as well! :beer:
-
And they had 40 years + to build their empire!
And the garbage hauler's local to dispose of the evidence...
-
Well, we could have been doing the same damn thing at the same time. We could have, at the very least, been effectively and seriously fighting them all that time.
For decades it has been being branded as the crackpot at the meeting, a voice crying out in a wilderness of people who stand in the sunshine and just won't be bothered with the black sky and lightning coming in over the ridge. Now that the storm is breaking, the herd is close to stampede, when it could have avoided the whole situation. Problem is, that wild-eyed stampede has as much chance of going off a cliff as finding a safe pasture.
-
For decades it has been being branded as the crackpot at the meeting, a voice crying out in a wilderness of people who stand in the sunshine and just won't be bothered with the black sky and lightning coming in over the ridge. Now that the storm is breaking, the herd is close to stampede, when it could have avoided the whole situation. Problem is, that wild-eyed stampede has as much chance of going off a cliff as finding a safe pasture.
Yeah, I know, hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
-
Yeah, I know, hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
No one is afraid of hindsight. Foresight, no matter how gently phrased, scares the living scat out of them and they either avoid you or go into denial.
-
WikiwakiLeaks released thousands of pages of Hillary's emails. Encouraged by you know who.
To pretend now that it never happened is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest.
-
I've come to expect ludicrous and intellectually dishonest from the Rats. I also expect the MSM to call it golden and the Low-Info people to lap it up.