"Incidentally collected" info

[the_mother_thing]

Whether it was a Trump-specific targeted surveillance warrant or an indirect/other targeted person/s surveillance warrant ... sprinkle whatever seasoning you want on it: Trump's team was being monitored, and those reports were interestingly and ironically widely distributed just before he took office. Of course they were talking to 'foreign agents'; he was the president-elect ... this is nothing new for an incoming administration. I understand the surveillance difference/reasons; however:
1) Nunes said the reports he read noted NOTHING about Russians, so if not monitoring for possible 'Russian interference in the election', why was Trump's team being monitored? What/who was our government investigating that picked up these 'incidentally collected' chats?; and,
2) Regardless of the reasons they were monitored by our government, their identities were not only unmasked but released to the media, again, BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT (which HRC was not, btw). Re: Shiff's statement they weren't unmasked, that is a contrast to Nunes' public statement, and I am opining/erring on the side of caution here.

It's possible the surveillance was targeting some non-Russian election-interference person/s, or that they were monitoring Trump for other suspected criminal reasons; it's also possible that the monitoring was going on for nefarious political purposes. Either way, it is essential we - citizens - learn of the truth ... either way, and hold those who did leak the information illegally accountable.

 

[AGBF]

In this case, the information was classified; Podesta's & DNC emails were not classified.

Nunes is the one who released classified information. He's a rookie. And Trump was using him as a pawn to draw attention away from the Russia mess. There is no other explanation for why he would go around to all the Republicans, holding press conferences, and not consult other members of The House Intelligence Committee with his supposed "new information". He said he had to alert the president about it! As one commentator said: it's like the prosecutor in a capital murder trial saying he just got some information and he has to go across the hall and tell the defendant a few things he learned. Bizarre. Remember that Nunes was on Trump's transition team. It shows why he cannot be impartial. He is still following Trump's orders.

"At a briefing with reporters on Thursday, Pelosi said that Nunes appeared to be a 'willing stooge' of the president.

'He committed a stunt at the White House yesterday raising questions about Chairman Nunes’ impartiality,' Pelosi explained, noting that Nunes had been a part of the Trump transition team."

.@NancyPelosi calls House Intelligence Cmte Chair Devin Nunes a "stooge for the president of the United States"


"House Intelligence Chair Nunes apologizes for how he handled revelations surrounding Trump and his aides" (excerpts from "The Washington Post")

"House Intelligence Committee Democrats said Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) apologized to them Thursday during a closed-door meeting for his handling of revelations about surveillance that potentially could have been collected about President Trump and his associates during the transition period.

(snip)​

On Thursday, Nunes said it was a 'judgment call' to personally brief Trump before speaking with his Intelligence Committee colleagues, who are actively investigating allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections and suspected links between Trump aides and the Kremlin.

When he made his apology, Nunes stressed “that he really wanted us to be bipartisan,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the Intelligence Committee. 'He was contrite. Internally on the committee, he’s a very reasonable guy. But outside, on a number of occasions, he’s acted in the interests of the Trump campaign.'

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on March 22 that President Trump’s communications may have been inadvertently picked up by intelligence agencies during the transition of power.

Himes said Nunes’s actions 'dramatically increased the pressure for an outside bipartisan commission.' But until that happens, he said, the Intelligence panel needs to stick with its probe. “We don’t have a choice,” he said. 'If we walk away, the Senate might be the only group working' an investigation in Congress.

The California Republican has said he is expecting the NSA, CIA and FBI to respond to a request for a full list of names of people whose identities were disclosed after the individuals were picked up in 'incidental collection,' or legal collection by U.S. intelligence agencies of communications of individuals speaking with targets of surveillance. Nunes said Wednesday that the information he has seen may show that Trump or his aides were picked up in such incidental collection during the transition.

Some Democrats have accused Nunes of speaking publicly in an attempt to deflect attention from Monday’s congressional hearing, at which FBI Director James B. Comey not only confirmed that the FBI is looking into allegations that the Trump team coordinated with Russian officials during the election, but flatly denied Trump’s accusation that the Obama administration had wiretapped him.

Said one Democratic committee official: 'This looks like the president got in hot water over his wiretapping claim, and the White House had to find a way to give him an off-ramp.'

Nunes would not say whether his source was affiliated with the White House or what type of incidental collection had occurred — whether it was direct conversations between Trump or his team and a foreign agent, or whether two foreign entities were simply picked up discussing the president. He said only that the communications did not involve Russia.

The intelligence community regularly monitors, under court approval, the communications of foreign individuals acting as agents of a foreign government, as well as some people suspected of terrorism. The communications of Americans who are in touch with foreign agents can thus be 'incidentally collected' — as occurred when former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was picked up talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who was under surveillance.

The problem potentially arises when the identities of those Americans are 'unmasked' — that is, revealed to others in the government. There are legal procedures allowing for such unmasking when it is deemed necessary for understanding the context of the intelligence in communications.

Nunes said Wednesday he was concerned about the unmasking in the information he viewed. But after speaking with Nunes, Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Adam B. Schiff (Calif.) said that only one name in the report that Nunes viewed was 'unmasked' — and that name had nothing to do with the Trump team.

Nunes told reporters that the identities of the individuals in the report were 'very clear to me,' and that they were members of the Trump team.

That has sparked charges that if anybody is revealing more than they should, it is Nunes — for potentially telling the public that hidden names in surveillance reports referred to the president and his advisers, something that is likely classified information.

Nunes said the information was classified, but he argued that disclosing the existence of the report and the nature of it did not reveal any classified information.

Nunes’s own staff were not aware of the chairman’s decision to go public and brief the president and were dismayed by his actions, said several individuals familiar with the matter.

'He betrayed the independence that our committee must show to get to the bottom of what happened with Russia’s interference in our elections,' said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). 'He should have come to the committee first. He never under any circumstances should have gone to the president, whose campaign is under federal criminal and counterintelligence investigations.'


Swalwell said Nunes’s actions prove the need for an independent commission to investigate the Russia-related allegations because 'the people we have been counting on to be impartial in getting to the bottom of what happened have shown that they cannot be.'

Swalwell has co-authored legislation to establish such a commission with Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

But Democrats are not the only ones calling for the investigation to be taken away from Congress following Nunes’s actions Wednesday.


Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on MSNBC Wednesday that despite his continued faith in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation, the House Intelligence Committee’s process has become so politicized that “no longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone.”


He called for either a select committee or an independent commission to look into the matter."

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

It should not have come out? Well, who cares. I am glad it did.

Funny how none of you are talking about all of the leaks that had come out when the President talked to dignitaries from other countries. Or when there was a oops that there was circumstantial evidence that there had been a connection between Trump's staff and the Russians. People here were salivating.

Leaking info is a federal offense. Why are they not looking for the people who did that?

As far as Pelosi, she has her own obvious agenda so I could not care less what comes out of her.

If this did something to remove the cloud over the President then why not? Unless you all do not want that but for him to get so mired in partisan muck that he cannot do his job.

 

[AGBF]

Unless you all do not want that but for him to get so mired in partisan muck that he cannot do his job.

If his job is cutting health care for the weakest and sickest members of society: children; the disabled; and elderly. If his job is discriminating against people based on their religion. If his job is selling the United States out to the Russia, then, yes, I would like to get him so mired in partisan muck that he cannot do "his job"...i.e. his evil work.

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

If his job is cutting health care for the weakest and sickest members of society: children; the disabled; and elderly. If his job is discriminating against people based on their religion. If his job is selling the United States out to the Russia, then, yes, I would like to get him so mired in partisan muck that he cannot do "his job"...i.e. his evil work.

AGBF

If all of us are no longer required to buy policies that cover situations we will never encounter or need, so that we can actually afford it, then yes.

A single man does not need to buy a policy that covers maternity any more then a single woman needs one to cover male health issues.

Give us a choice of policies to pick one that meets our individual needs. It is what I used to have until ObamaCare took that away from me.

**edited by moderator, please do not make generalizations about religions and terrorists**

If it means no more 14 year old is going to get raped by an 18 year old man who was already detained by and let go, then thank you.

And you need to take off your Russian tin foil hat. Maybe Clinton will become mayor of New York and you can move there. But according to what I have read, New Yorkers do not want her either.

 

[the_mother_thing]

He said he had to alert the president about it! As one commentator said: it's like the prosecutor in a capital murder trial saying he just got some information and he has to go across the hall and tell the defendant a few things he learned. Bizarre.

Actually, I believe in criminal proceedings they call that very activity 'discovery'.

 

[AGBF]

Actually, I believe in criminal proceedings they call that very activity 'discovery'.

That wouldn't be discovery, Jenn. That would only happen if the prosecutor was paid off or psyhcotic!

Now, seriously: in theory, the prosecution might have the duty to disclose evidence, but in how many cases is it even done, let alone done in the wild manner described above?

Deb

 

[jaaron]

It is, but it's only ever done after indictment. Doing it before compromises the investigation.

* Meant to quote jocojenn, but couldn't quite figure out the quote function.

 

[jaaron]

It should not have come out? Well, who cares. I am glad it did.

If this did something to remove the cloud over the President then why not? Unless you all do not want that but for him to get so mired in partisan muck that he cannot do his job.

Nothing--nothing--can remove the cloud over him other than an independent investigation.

 

[lovedogs]

Actually, I believe in criminal proceedings they call that very activity 'discovery'.

This is absolutely NOT "discovery". This is obstruction of justice, because criminal proceedings haven't begun, and no charges have been brought. He absolutely can't do what he did without compromising the investigation--which he did.

 

[E B]

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president’s wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.

"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday. Nunes was a member of the Trump transition team executive committee.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inte...e-trump-associates-directly/story?id=46325928

Nice work, genius.

Glad this may finally be the kick needed to get an independent investigation. A member of Trump's transition team should NEVER have been overseeing this investigation.

 

[E B]

Nunes rushing to bring this to Trump before the committee (or before thinking, really) isn't the action of a man who thinks his boss- or his boss's team- is innocent. It was a very public flail.

I read a theory that the FBI/Comey wasn't forthcoming with the House Intel Committee (making Schiff quite frustrated) because of Nunes, and this makes that a lot more likely.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is all speculation until the facts come out ... and considering how so many have been so insistent at info being released in other cases before an investigation is completed, I am hard pressed to understand the resistance now. But at this point, it's really not worth trying to force a horse to drink water we don't know is not tainted, and if so, by whom.

 

[AGBF]

This is all speculation until the facts come out ... and considering how so many have been so insistent at info being released in other cases before an investigation is completed, I am hard pressed to understand the resistance now. But at this point, it's really not worth trying to force a horse to drink water we don't know is not tainted, and if so, by whom.

Jenn-

No resistance here!!!

I'd really LIKE the information to come out. I want to know all about the connections between Trump and the Russians. Can YOU force him to tell? I thought I might have to wait for a special prosecutor, but if you can do it right now, be my guest!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

From "The New York Times"...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

"By speaking expansively about intelligence gathering, Mr. Nunes may have broken the law by disclosing classified information, however obliquely. The congressman, who has assailed leaks to the press, said his information came from unnamed 'sources who thought that we should know it.' That’s rich.

On Wednesday night, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the recent developments make it necessary to appoint a select committee or independent commission to run an inquiry. 'No longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone,' Mr. McCain said in an interview on MSNBC. 'And I don’t say that lightly.'

Mr. McCain is right. It was predictable that standard congressional committee investigations into the role of Russia and the election would turn into muddled partisan fights. But Mr. Nunes’s conduct stands out for his brazenness and heedlessness. His role as a committee chairman is to carry out responsible oversight of intelligence matters. Instead, he used his position to distract attention from the crucial question of whether Mr. Trump’s election was aided by collusion with an adversary."

 

[phancynan]

Best example of incidental monitoring I've heard: Say you work at a pizza place. The pizza place is being monitored for human trafficking, and the phones are tapped. You talk on the pizza place phone line about buying pot with your buddy and are overheard by the federal agency. (Pizza place = Russians, you = Trump Staff). You are not being monitored. You are crashing into an ongoing investigation and get swept up in it.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Jenn-

No resistance here!!!

I'd really LIKE the information to come out. I want to know all about the connections between Trump and the Russians. Can YOU force him to tell? I thought I might have to wait for a special prosecutor, but if you can do it right now, be my guest!

Deb

I don't have any sort of 'secret spongecake special powers', Deb; I am just confused why you'd have a problem with Nunes' loose lips about what he learned to the point of contacting other elected officials about him doing so, if you wanted to know all the details. I'm not suggesting Nunes was right or wrong in his actions; your conflicting statements are just confusing me.

I get the difference between direct and indirect/incidental monitoring. Where it crosses the line (for me) is that the 'incidental monitoring' appears to have been improperly handled and disseminated. I am also eager to see what this supposed 'smoking gun' is that Fox noted last night links Obama to the mess.

 

[Tekate]

I don't have any sort of 'secret spongecake special powers', Deb; I am just confused why you'd have a problem with Nunes' loose lips about what he learned to the point of contacting other elected officials about him doing so, if you wanted to know all the details. I'm not suggesting Nunes was right or wrong in his actions; your conflicting statements are just confusing me.

I get the difference between direct and indirect/incidental monitoring. Where it crosses the line (for me) is that the 'incidental monitoring' appears to have been improperly handled and disseminated. I am also eager to see what this supposed 'smoking gun' is that Fox noted last night links Obama to the mess.

We don't know if it's imaginary, over read, over-reaching..has it appear that the 'info' was improperly handled and disseminated.. you know Jenn I really felt that way about the Wiki leaks and still do. Little fanfare from the right then about 'leaks' etc.. when it suits a person's views it's okay.

Fox - meh - their science news is always top notch.. the rest.. so partisan and hard to read without a feeling of being bamboozled.

 

[the_mother_thing]

We don't know if it's imaginary, over read, over-reaching..has it appear that the 'info' was improperly handled and disseminated.. you know Jenn I really felt that way about the Wiki leaks and still do. Little fanfare from the right then about 'leaks' etc.. when it suits a person's views it's okay.

Fox - meh - their science news is always top notch.. the rest.. so partisan and hard to read without a feeling of being bamboozled.

This isn't the same as Wiki/Podesta emails; this is OUR government, allegedly spying/mishandling information about its own citizens; not some rogue web crawlers who may/may not be sponsored by another country/government.

Fox just reported on it (as other outlets have as well); the source is being attributed to the NSA, and apparently is set to be provided to house intel comm today ... we shall see!

 

[E B]

Nunes just cancelled the open hearing on the 28th without consulting the rest of the committee. Co-chairman has just gone on record saying it's to "choke off public info."

Again, another total not-flail by a man who's not at all worried about his boss's innocence. It'll be interesting to see what develops from here.

 

[E B]

Schiff presser at 11:30. This'll be one worth listening to. I imagine he's furious.

With reports that there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion with Trump camp and RU, this seems to be heating up pretty quickly.

 

[redwood66]

Nunes just cancelled the open hearing on the 28th without consulting the rest of the committee. Co-chairman has just gone on record saying it's to "choke off public info."

Again, another total not-flail by a man who's not at all worried about his boss's innocence. It'll be interesting to see what develops from here.

I am not too worried about this. They can get more intelligence info if it is not public. There are Dems on the committee too.

 

[AGBF]

I am not too worried about this. They can get more intelligence info if it is not public. There are Dems on the committee too.

Yes, and the Democratic ranking member, Mr. Schiff just publicly asked everyone to write to all members of the committee to demand that the Tuesday session be reopened to the public. I just sent this e-mail to Mr. Nunes. I just dashed it off, but no one is going to read it, anyway. It is just counted as 'for" or "against" by a staffer. feel free to use it as a template if you wish to follow in my footsteps and contact members requesting that tuesday's session be open, though.

Dear Mr. Nunes,

I want the Tuesday hearings to be open, not closed. The American people should not be shut out of the proceedings. The Trump administration may be involved in treason with Russia. We have a right to know about it. I watched all of the last hearing on television. I attended the Watergate hearings in person as a young woman. This is not only your country. The American people have a right to know about corruption. I have taught high school history and volunteered to teach immigrants who were taking citizenship tests. The Constitution matters to me. It begins with the words, "We the people", not "I the President".

Sincerely,


AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Congressman Schiff suggested getting in touch with all members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but said it might be more important to contact the Republicans on the Committee than the Democrats. That is why I started with Congressman Nunes. I have posted a list of the entire committee here to facilitate getting in touch with members. If it has to be done one by one, I do not know if I will do everyone on the list. I think I will concentrate on the Republicans!

AGBF

HPSCI Majority Members (Republicans)

Devin Nunes, Chairman
22nd District of California

Mike Conaway
11th District of Texas

Peter King
2nd District of New York

Frank LoBiondo
2nd District of New Jersey

Tom Rooney
17th District of Florida

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
27th District of Florida

Michael Turner
10th District of Ohio

Brad Wenstrup
2nd District of Ohio

Chris Stewart
2nd District of Utah

Rick Crawford
1st District of Arkansas

Trey Gowdy
4th District of South Carolina

Elise Stefanik
21st District of New York

Will Hurd
23rd District of Texas

HpSCI Minority members (Democrats)

Adam Schiff, Ranking Member
28th District of California

Jim Himes
4th District of Connecticut

Terri Sewell
7th District of Alabama

Andre Carson
7th District of Indiana

Jackie Speier
14th District of California

Mike Quigley
5th District of Illinois

Eric Swalwell
15th District of California

Joaquin Castro
20th District of Texas

Denny Heck
10th District of Washington

 

[E B]

I am not too worried about this. They can get more intelligence info if it is not public. There are Dems on the committee too.

That isn't why he cancelled it, though. He's trying to kamikaze it. If there's nothing to fear, he'll either soon recuse himself due to the optics of these latest shenanigans, or Ryan will remove him. If there is, he stays. And there is.

 

[bunnycat]

I am not too worried about this. They can get more intelligence info if it is not public. There are Dems on the committee too.

That's if they don't withhold information from them like the other day....hmmmm....or maybe he'll suddenly involove the whole committee in the decisions in how to conduct the investigation instead of acting unilaterally...hmmm.... I'll be over here holding my breath.

 

[AGBF]

Update on contacting members of the House Committee on Intelligence: I tried to contact each of the Republicans on the Committee. (I may try each of the Democrats next if I have the energy.) The only ones I could reach by e-mail, due to the constraints put up to block non-constituents by most members, were Mr Nunes; Mr. King; and Mr. Gowdy. Those three, I believe, have the most political ambition! So I wrote to all of them. Do not waste any time attempting to contact other Republicans. Unless you live in their districts, you will be unable to reach them via e-mail.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

There is no-one who is supporting REp. Nunes on his actions, except for Jen & Ruby. The behavior is inexplicable. We know the only person he gave the info to was Rep. Ryan so he must have had Ryans OK to speak to the press, first, and then the Pres.
Nunes has apologized to his members and must produce his evidence to the whole committee. He has closed the hearing to avoid public comment. Someone will leak it.
Not withstanding Jen and Rubys ridiculous arguments in favor of this action. this has not helped the Pres. This is part of the cover-up. Its beginning.
Deb, I do not know why you are even replying to their nonsense. Someone once said, "Stupid is, as stupid does."
Annette

 

[jaaron]

Based on Nunes's sudden ridiculous actions combined with Stone, Manafort and Page's equally sudden willingness to appear (before the committee where they are not under oath) combined with the wh throwing Flynn under the bus, my guess is that Flynn has now cut a deal. His position's not great, and generally speaking, the first person to turn gets the most benefit in terms of immunity/reduced charges.

 

[smitcompton]

Based on Nunes's sudden ridiculous actions combined with Stone, Manafort and Page's equally sudden willingness to appear (before the committee where they are not under oath) combined with the wh throwing Flynn under the bus, my guess is that Flynn has now cut a deal. His position's not great, and generally speaking, the first person to turn gets the most benefit in terms of immunity/reduced charges.

Hi,

The telling key to the Russia story is the fact that a member of the RNC has come forward recently and said that the Pres, himself asked that ind. to include in the Rep. platform a pro Russian stance on the Ukraine. If this goes to the Pres, and not Manafort, the Pres has already lied. Manafort has denied making the change. This is not a nothing investigation, so everyone should be careful. The WH has been told they should seek council during this investigation.
Annette
Ruby & Jen, please do not reply to me.