Rep. Nunes: Trump communications may have been 'monitored'

[Younigue]

"incidental collection of information" is "surveillance". the obama had the Power and would Benefit form the release of information to serve his desire and political end. The collusion you speak of would most certainly be among the obama WH to cherry pick the "surveillance" and illegally distribute it so it would show up as a "anonymous" source. Lie detector time..there are felons in the obama cabal. And what did obama know and when did he know it?? Maybe he's ground zero for it.

Here Are The Top 15 'Obamagate' Wiretap Victims

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/here-are-top-15-obamagate-wiretap-victims

Ground zero for what? He didn't make the Kumquat Twat and his slew of munchkins do anything. The FISA wasn't ordered for Trump and co. but it's looking more and more like whoever it was issued for Trump and co.were in contact with them. Are you truly not comprehending this? How is your need to hate on Obama more important or equally important to you than the likelihood of collusion with Russia and Trump and his Ass-Wipers?

 

[Jhhnn]

We allow the NSA to do pretty much as they damned well please wrt communications where at least one end is outside the US. Mere fact. That explains all the alleged instances down to Rosen. At least the author was honest enough to link this-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...html?hpid=z2&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b429a260d58b

It;'s not like Kim just spontaneously dumped the info in his lap. They actively conspired to release classified info.

Attkinson's claim is unverifiable bullshit.

 

[mxnerd]

Comey has said that any wiretapping of a U.S. citizen would require a "rigorous, rigorous process that involves all three branches of government" and has been in place since the 1970s. He said that "no president could" unilaterally order that kind of wiretapping.

Yet Trump & his supporters just won't give up accusing Obama.

 

[baydude]

Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says it appears surveillance was related to a FISA order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/844625711323402241

The minimum authorization for a FISA warrant is not the POTUS or VP, it's the AG. The call for blood, death on the streets makes sense now.


Fitton: Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Records on Infamous Tarmac Meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-info-on-clinton-lynch-plane-meeting-n2299270
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eting-between-loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton/

Loretta Lynch: We Need More Marching, Blood, Death On Streets
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/loretta-lynch-we-need-more-marching-blood-death-streets

 

[HomerJS]

Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says it appears surveillance was related to a FISA order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/844625711323402241

The minimum authorization for a FISA warrant is not the POTUS or VP, it's the AG. The call for blood, death on the streets makes sense now.


Fitton: Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Records on Infamous Tarmac Meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-info-on-clinton-lynch-plane-meeting-n2299270
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eting-between-loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton/

Loretta Lynch: We Need More Marching, Blood, Death On Streets
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/loretta-lynch-we-need-more-marching-blood-death-streets

Hey liar. If you bothered to listen to the video clip LL said no such thing. The only thing remotely possibly true JW going on a fishing trip.

Try something better then Breitbart and Fox. Don't you know Fox claimed the Brits spied on Trump.

Dummy.

 

[ivwshane]

Quick! Deflect! Deflect!

Deflector shields on maximum captain!

Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says it appears surveillance was related to a FISA order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/844625711323402241

The minimum authorization for a FISA warrant is not the POTUS or VP, it's the AG. The call for blood, death on the streets makes sense now.


Fitton: Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Records on Infamous Tarmac Meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-info-on-clinton-lynch-plane-meeting-n2299270
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eting-between-loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton/

Loretta Lynch: We Need More Marching, Blood, Death On Streets
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/loretta-lynch-we-need-more-marching-blood-death-streets

 

[Victorian Gray]

Your poor liver.

The brain cells seem to be deteriorating faster than the liver cells.

 

[Grooveriding]

This is just red meat thrown to the Trump fanatics so they can avoid contending with the revealed facts that Trump made up and spread another conspiracy theory, that his campaign is under investigation by the FBI and that Russia hacked the Democrats and used fake news on these same gullible useful idiots to help Trump win.

Sad! Using Breitbart propaganda, a site apparently now under investigation by the FBI for spreading fake news during the election that Russian Intelligence then spread on social media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tes-fake-news-bots-donald-trump-a7641826.html

 

[emperus]

Oh bullshit. You know jack about the details.

Additionally, you're imply that the IC is too GD stupid to know who they're tapping. For heaven's sake, he was President elect.

You actually think when the question is "was he tapped under FISA" that a reasonable answer is "no" when it did happen? Your assertion is ridiculous. When asked if it happened under FISA and you know only half of who was tapped (1 party is named on the warrant, the other is not = 50%) you can't honestly say "No".

And I don't believe they don't know who they wiretapped. I don't believe that for even a NY minute. They know who the other party is/was and have procedures for it.

IF (and I think it a big if) Nunes is right, we've potentially got other serious problems too. Now, Trump either (1) has no evidence and just flat-out got lucky or (2) somebody in the IC leaked it Trump. Then the question is how the fvck does somebody in IC leak it to Trump, yet all those who testified said there's no evidence when their own employees have it in-hand. I mean JFC, a low level Intel employee knows about Trump being tapped but the IC Directors don't? And we have a lower-level IC employee relaying/leaking this info without his/her superior's knowledge?

Fern

This is exactly the response Nunes expected when he put out these claims. I always thought he put it out for low informatuin voters to muddy the waters in their minds. I would never imagine those who were discerning not seeing this for the Bullshit that it is. But what is scary to me is we have people like Fern, who has access to information and seem to be have a modicum of discernment who lap this shit up.

Fern, help me understand why you choose not to objectively think about these things? Does the explanation people in this forum have made not make sense to you? What about the countless articles written about it? Would it help you to know that if Obama is talking to foreign individuals that are being monitored he would probably be caught up as incidental collection as well? Being on a technology site, you probably have a semblance of an idea how the technology behind this works right? And do you know that this has nothing to do with the claim Trump made. In fact how could he have made this claim if he didn't know about it until Nunes told him? Does any of these questions give you pause? Honestly, I'm really interested how reasonable seeming people fall for this BS. And not only fall for it but put voice to it. I understand the people on TV whose livelihood is dependent on dissembling and obfuscating, but what do you get from it? Or do you even know you are obfuscating?

 

[Grooveriding]

It shouldn't be surprising that the Trump fanatical segment laps it up. These are probably the same sorts that believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. When they put out this propaganda, they know who they're dealing with, and that they've been gaslighted to the point they'll believe anything at this point so long as it comes from a source that is heavily slanted to their biases.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says it appears surveillance was related to a FISA order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/844625711323402241

The minimum authorization for a FISA warrant is not the POTUS or VP, it's the AG. The call for blood, death on the streets makes sense now.


Fitton: Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Records on Infamous Tarmac Meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-info-on-clinton-lynch-plane-meeting-n2299270
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eting-between-loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton/

Loretta Lynch: We Need More Marching, Blood, Death On Streets
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/loretta-lynch-we-need-more-marching-blood-death-streets

Activate troll army!!!!

 

[Thump553]

Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says it appears surveillance was related to a FISA order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/844625711323402241

The minimum authorization for a FISA warrant is not the POTUS or VP, it's the AG. The call for blood, death on the streets makes sense now.


Fitton: Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Records on Infamous Tarmac Meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-info-on-clinton-lynch-plane-meeting-n2299270
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eting-between-loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton/

Loretta Lynch: We Need More Marching, Blood, Death On Streets
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/loretta-lynch-we-need-more-marching-blood-death-streets

Disregarding your total misrepresentation of what Loretta Lynch said (as another already pointed out, your talking point was 100% false) I'd like to dwell a moment on your citation that Nunes said more information would come out Friday. In the same news conference when asked by various reporters as to whether Trump was surveiled, Nunes answered with an emphatic "yes", then seconds later when asked again, said no, then seconds later when asked a third time said "very possibly". His fourth answer was the "we won't know till Friday" you cited.

I have a question-why did Nunes have TWO news conferences on this subject yesterday when none of the rest of the committee had no access to the information he first claimed to have? More importantly, why level accusations and statements of fact when he admits he won't have the info until Friday? Finallyin what universe does an investigator brief the target while the investigation is going on?

The guy is an out and out political hack and is trying his best to make this investigation a sham.

 

[Pens1566]

Couple of things:

1) If, as he stated, this was information gathered incidentally under a FISA warrant, Nunes just committed a crime in releasing classified information
2) Nunes himself stated that this doesn't verify Trump's claim in any way. Again, learn the difference between the target of a FISA warrant, and incidental collection
3) Nunes said it wasn't related to Russia. So, do we have another "bad guy" that justifies a FISA warrant besides russians that Trump and Campaign were in contact with? Plot thickens.
4) US persons incidentally collected in FISA searches are supposed to be redacted from reports unless they are involved in subsequent criminal activity as found by the search. Not all US persons were redacted from whatever report Nunes saw/read. Hmmm ....
5) This is extremely bad for Trump. It does nothing to legitimize his original accusations (except in wackjob eyes, see this thread for example) and does wonders for pushing us towards an independent investigation (see McCain responses to Nunes actions).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

towards an independent investigation (see McCain responses to Nunes actions).

I prefer my heroes not to be captured...thank you


#sarcasm for those that need this

 

[zinfamous]

someone(s) in the obama WH is guilty of 12333 executive oversight procedure. Lie detector time.

lol.

 

[emperus]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-devin-nunes-talking-about-guide-perplexed
Good read on this disclosure.

Interesting nuggett

Did Nunes publicly disclose anything classified?

Answer: We’re not sure but it’s a question well worth asking.

As Comey said at Nunes’s hearing on Monday, “All FISA applications reviewed by the court and collection by us pursuant to our FISA authority is classified.” Assuming that anything Nunes said was true, it appears to involve material obtained under FISA. Nunes confirmed as much in his White House press conference; when asked if the targets were subjects of surveillance “under FISA orders,” he said, “It appears so.” Silly us, but we thought such material was classified until affirmatively declassified by the original classifying authority. Have NSA and FBI declassified the facts that Nunes publicly described today? Remember that Nunes apparently hasn’t even spoken to Comey about this yet.

When asked whether the Justice Department authorized him to make the information public, Nunes said he thought the President “needed to know,” presumably indicating he did not, in fact, have DOJ permission. Considering the focus on leaks of FISA material of Republicans at Monday’s hearings, the question of whether Nunes himself has just improperly discussed classified FISA matters in public is one that deserves at least some attention.

 

[hal2kilo]

The reports, the content and who ordered them should be matters of fact.

As spring starts we see intellectual dishonesty is in bloom.

What do you expect from a "former" birther.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is exactly the response Nunes expected when he put out these claims. I always thought he put it out for low informatuin voters to muddy the waters in their minds. I would never imagine those who were discerning not seeing this for the Bullshit that it is. But what is scary to me is we have people like Fern, who has access to information and seem to be have a modicum of discernment who lap this shit up.

Fern, help me understand why you choose not to objectively think about these things? Does the explanation people in this forum have made not make sense to you? What about the countless articles written about it? Would it help you to know that if Obama is talking to foreign individuals that are being monitored he would probably be caught up as incidental collection as well? Being on a technology site, you probably have a semblance of an idea how the technology behind this works right? And do you know that this has nothing to do with the claim Trump made. In fact how could he have made this claim if he didn't know about it until Nunes told him? Does any of these questions give you pause? Honestly, I'm really interested how reasonable seeming people fall for this BS. And not only fall for it but put voice to it. I understand the people on TV whose livelihood is dependent on dissembling and obfuscating, but what do you get from it? Or do you even know you are obfuscating?

Still talking about a "former" birther. Nuf said.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Here's my interpretation of what Nunes is saying:

The communications of Americans being picked up while monitoring foreigners is legal and routine. No big deal there, and if some of those Americans are Trump and his people, still no big deal. The issue is what the intelligence organizations do with the intercepted American communications. Apparently they are supposed to redact all names (unless necessary to understand context) and in general avoid focusing on them. In this case, what Nunes is suggesting is that not only were the names not redacted but disseminated, and the Trump people became the focus of reports based on these communications, which were then widely circulated in the intelligence community because of Obama's executive order on 12333 data collection being shared by all intelligence agencies which intern, allows more people have access to leak the communications. Trump will probably use this as validation on his claims that "Obama tapped his phones".

Needless to say, I'm not vouching for the validity or significance of Nunes' claims. But this appears to be what he's saying, IMO. What it boils down to is the Trump WH is pissed that all their communications with Russia got leaked.

 

[HomerJS]

Here's my interpretation of what Nunes is saying:

The communications of Americans being picked up while monitoring foreigners is legal and routine. No big deal there, and if some of those Americans are Trump and his people, still no big deal. The issue is what the intelligence organizations do with the intercepted American communications. Apparently they are supposed to redact all names (unless necessary to understand context) and in general avoid focusing on them. In this case, what Nunes is suggesting is that not only were the names not redacted but disseminated, and the Trump people became the focus of reports based on these communications, which were then widely circulated in the intelligence community because of Obama's executive order on 12333 data collection being shared by all intelligence agencies which intern, allows more people have access to leak the communications. Trump will probably use this as validation on his claims that "Obama tapped his phones".

Needless to say, I'm not vouching for the validity or significance of Nunes' claims. But this appears to be what he's saying, IMO. What it boils down to is the Trump WH is pissed that all their communications with Russia got leaked.

Fine but here is an additional problem. According to Schiff ranking Dem he had a conversation with Nunes and was told...

Schiff said that, according to conversations with the chairman that took place after the press conference, many of the names in the communications remained masked. Nunes took issue with the intercepts because he was able to infer the identity of the Trump team members despite their being masked, Schiff said.

"Most of the names in the intercepts were in fact masked, and the chairman's concern was that he could still figure out the identities of some of the parties even though the names were masked. Well, that doesn't mean that the masking was improper," Schiff told reporters. "The chairman has provided no evidence that any names that were unmasked were unmasked improperly."

So most of the names were masked but Nunes was able to guess their identity. Not even close to unmasking all the names. The ones that were unmasked, no evidence it was improper.

 

[VRAMdemon]

^^^
Well, he changed his claim so it's hard to know what his point is, but his later claim was that the names were redacted but one could still figure out who they were by context. Basically it boils down to this, if you're super famous, there may be a minor risk that redacting your name isn't enough and that investigators may be able you figure out that it was you who had an conversation with a bad guy.

Big fucking whoop. This is a minor privacy issue that can be worked out by the intelligence community or congressional oversight pointing out to them that "hey when you guys redact a name, the policy needs tweaked for the cases where the person is famous."

I don't buy his story one bit. Nunes is on the intelligence oversight committee. Their job is to point things like this out to the intelligence community behind closed doors, not by rushing to meet with people who may be under investigation and holding two press conferences about it. I think he was either trying to drum up support for Trumps wiretapping claim, trying to discredit the investigators, or was there for some other reason.

 

[piasabird]

While congress was asking for proof, Congress was being briefed about the spying that was going on by the FBI and others whether that was the CIA or the NSA. Congress already had the proof by way of security briefings. In other words the intelligence community was lying and covering all of this up, pretending to be sweet little patriots. They are all lying sacks of shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's my interpretation of what Nunes is saying:

The communications of Americans being picked up while monitoring foreigners is legal and routine. No big deal there, and if some of those Americans are Trump and his people, still no big deal. The issue is what the intelligence organizations do with the intercepted American communications. Apparently they are supposed to redact all names (unless necessary to understand context) and in general avoid focusing on them. In this case, what Nunes is suggesting is that not only were the names not redacted but disseminated, and the Trump people became the focus of reports based on these communications, which were then widely circulated in the intelligence community because of Obama's executive order on 12333 data collection being shared by all intelligence agencies which intern, allows more people have access to leak the communications. Trump will probably use this as validation on his claims that "Obama tapped his phones".

Needless to say, I'm not vouching for the validity or significance of Nunes' claims. But this appears to be what he's saying, IMO. What it boils down to is the Trump WH is pissed that all their communications with Russia got leaked.

Names are redacted for the purposes of public release of information, not for communications within the intelligence community. Believing it be otherwise defies reason.