"Incidentally collected" info

[ruby59]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ials-were-under-surveillance-during/21913863/


I am not sure I am understanding all of this. "Incidentally collected"
So , I ask, was Trump correct in a way that he was under surveillance under President Obama?

 

[the_mother_thing]

It would appear his transition team was being monitored, and their identities unmasked as well (like Flynn).

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.

https://apnews.com/8f45d6141e4e4cce...mewhat'-vindicated-after-Nunes-intel-briefing

So if they weren't being 'monitored' for Russian ties, what were they being monitored for?

 

[redwood66]

Incidentally collected means that the agency was listening to foreign entities and those entities happened to be speaking to US citizens (Trump campaign staffers).

 

[AGBF]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ials-were-under-surveillance-during/21913863/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ials-were-under-surveillance-during/21913863/


I am not sure I am understanding all of this. "Incidentally collected"
So , I ask, was Trump correct in a way that he was under surveillance under President Obama?

I was just going to post about this topic, ruby. You saved me the trouble. I am outraged by Nunes' conduct and have already e-mailed my Congresswoman demanding that there be a special prosecutor named now that we know The Republican Party (at least in the House Intelligence Committee) has placed party above country and cannot remain impartial in this inquiry. My Congresswoman is a Republican herself and I hope that she will respond with honor!

Nunes had no business giving special information to someone under investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Deb/AGBF

 

[redwood66]

It would appear his transition team was being monitored, and their identities unmasked as well (like Flynn).


https://apnews.com/8f45d6141e4e4cce...mewhat'-vindicated-after-Nunes-intel-briefing

So if they weren't being 'monitored' for Russian ties, what were they being monitored for?

If it is incidentally collected then that is really not the issue. The problem is unmasking and distributing all over and then it is leaked.

 

[ruby59]

So my question is - was Trump essentially correct that he was monitored and it did happen during the Obama administration?

 

[redwood66]

I was just going to post about this topic, ruby. You saved me the trouble. I am outraged by Nunes' conduct and have already e-mailed my Congresswoman demanding that there be a special prosecutor named now that we know The Republican Party (at least in the House Intelligence Committee) has placed party above country and cannot remain impartial in this inquiry. My Congresswoman is a Republican herself and I hope that she will respond with honor!

Nunes had no business giving special information to someone under investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Deb/AGBF

Why are you outraged Deb? I don't see him providing this information any different than Comey acknowledging there is an investigation in the first place.

 

[AGBF]

So my question is - was Trump essentially correct that he was monitored and it did happen during the Obama administration?

No

 

[redwood66]

So my question is - was Trump essentially correct that he was monitored and it did happen during the Obama administration?

If it was incidental then the agency can say they were not monitoring Trump's people directly. But still scoop them up in the monitoring.

 

[the_mother_thing]

No

How can you say 'no' when Nunes said Chump's staff was being monitored?

It was unclear whether Trump's own communications were monitored. Nunes initially said "yes" when asked if Trump was among those swept up in the intelligence monitoring, but then said it was only "possible" that the president's communications were picked up.

Nunes said the information on the Trump team was collected in November, December and January, the period after the election when Trump was holding calls with foreign leaders, interviewing potential Cabinet secretaries and beginning to sketch out administration policy. Nunes said the monitored material was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.

Asked whether he believed the transition team had been spied on, Nunes said: "It all depends on one's definition of spying."

 

[AGBF]

Why are you outraged Deb? I don't see him providing this information any different than Comey acknowledging there is an investigation in the first place.

He is hardly unbiased as Comey is supposed to be as the investigating officer!!! And with this big press conference out of nowhere he is making it look as if Trump might have been right. (Look at ruby's confusion.) {Plus the committee is in the middle of a very serious investigation into the actions taken against our country by a foreign power. He may be alerting our enemies. He should be flogged.

 

[ruby59]

So to all that called Trump a liar and a pig, apparently there is something there according to Nunes and Schiff. They are calling it "possible" and "troubling,"

 

[redwood66]

He is hardly unbiased as Comey is supposed to be as the investigating officer!!! And with this big press conference out of nowhere he is making it look as if Trump might have been right. (Look at ruby's confusion.) {Plus the committee is in the middle of a very serious investigation into the actions taken against our country by a foreign power. He may be alerting our enemies. He should be flogged.

Well if this is true then Trump is sort of right. I thought we all wanted the truth? Or do you only want truth that finds collusion?

 

[the_mother_thing]

If it is incidentally collected then that is really not the issue. The problem is unmasking and distributing all over and then it is leaked.

Right, but it was noted in the AP article that the "collection" Nunes was provided noted NOTHING to do with the Russian hacking, so unless there is some other suspected reason (e.g., other country hacking, suspected his team was involved in something else with a foreign entity, etc), then it sure does look suspicious for his team to have just been 'swept up'. In other words, if not being monitored as part of the Russian investigation, then what were they being monitored/swept up for?

 

[redwood66]

Right, but it was noted in the AP article that the "collection" Nunes was provided noted NOTHING to do with the Russian hacking, so unless there is some other suspected reason (e.g., other country hacking, suspected his team was involved in something else with a foreign entity, etc), then it sure does look suspicious for his team to have just been 'swept up'. In other words, if not being monitored as part of the Russian investigation, then what were they being monitored/swept up for?

I could allow the incidental sweep if it is foreigners that are monitored all the time (outside of an investigation) but to have this many of Trump's people incidentally swept will be difficult to justify for the agency.

 

[ruby59]

People were thrilled yesterday when it was reported that they were looking into whether there was collusion. But would not come out with any facts.

And now these same people are outraged that Trump was sort of right but,
how dare this come out.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Why is it that when it's a police shooting, alleged 'damage' to a dem, etc., people want the information release ASAP; but when it's news that doesn't support a particular narrative, officials should zip it and not release information. Damned if you do, damned if you don't ...

 

[ruby59]

Why is it that when it's a police shooting, alleged 'damage' to a dem, etc., people want the information release ASAP; but when it's news that doesn't support a particular narrative, officials should zip it and not release information. Damned if you do, damned if you don't ...

More like Damned if you are Trump. Guilty until proven innocent. And even then they will still consider him guilty.

 

[the_mother_thing]

So here's what we know:

Chump says Obama admin 'wire tapped' his campaign.
Obama spokesperson says 'nope; didn't happen.'
Clapper (Obama admin Intel Director) says 'nope, didn't get a FISA warrant for that'.
Comey says 'nope, we didn't monitor them'.
Nunes reveals today that not only were several of Chump transition team swept up in 'some monitoring' intel agencies were doing, that it was part of a FISA warrant, that it had nothing to do with a Russian investigation AND their identities were unmasked.

There is something very stinky going on here ...

 

[AGBF]

I'll tell you what. Instead of listening to you all insult my integrity and intelligence, I will just continue to call for publicly and write to my legally elected representatives demanding a special prosecutor. How's that?

I think something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

I think there is a Republican cover-up.

The Intelligence panel chairman broke the news at a press conference earlier in the day and said he briefed Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) before meeting with Trump at the White House.

The GOP chairman never discussed the revelations with the rest of the intelligence panel, Speier said, and Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, expressed "grave concerns" about the chairman's handling of the investigation Wednesday.

"It's not a good visual for what is supposed to be an independent commission, so to speak, an independent investigation being undertaken by the intelligence committee to have that kind of contact going on," Speier said.

"I’m deeply troubled by it. I think all my colleagues on the Democratic side are, and I think there will be a discussion had in our committee hearing tomorrow."

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

I don't read anyone insulting your integrity or intelligence, Deb. Just trying to understand your thinking/position in saying that they weren't monitored when all reported 'facts' seem to indicate they - in fact - were ... albeit potentially indirectly.

 

[redwood66]

I'll tell you what. Instead of listening to you all insult my integrity and intelligence, I will just continue to call for publicly and write to my legally elected representatives demanding a special prosecutor. How's that?

I think something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

I think there is a Republican cover-up.

The Intelligence panel chairman broke the news at a press conference earlier in the day and said he briefed Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) before meeting with Trump at the White House.

The GOP chairman never discussed the revelations with the rest of the intelligence panel, Speier said, and Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, expressed "grave concerns" about the chairman's handling of the investigation Wednesday.

"It's not a good visual for what is supposed to be an independent commission, so to speak, an independent investigation being undertaken by the intelligence committee to have that kind of contact going on," Speier said.

"I’m deeply troubled by it. I think all my colleagues on the Democratic side are, and I think there will be a discussion had in our committee hearing tomorrow."

AGBF

I am not sure where I insulted your integrity. I don't trust the parts of the intelligence community that are leaking classified information to make it appear there is a problem if there is none.

 

[jaaron]

This is well worth a read.

Benjamin Wittes works for Brookings, the conservative think tank, and publishes a blog called Lawfare, which strives to present a reasoned non-ideological look at issues around law and national security. I have always found him to be a rational source of information. This piece isn't particularly fun or sexy, and, like everything else right now, it is speculative, but it's as close to a calm, reasoned look at the situation as I think we're going to find at the moment. On the website, it's followed by a transcript of Nunes's remarks, but I didn't copy those as it would have made this eye-rollingly long.

And for what it's worth- total speculation here- if at least some of the incidental surveillance was of foreign leaders that the Trump transition team was holding conversations with, I believe Nunes was on that team, and there may just be stuff he is personally invested in not having made public.


What The Heck Is Devin Nunes Talking About? A Guide for the Perplexed
By Benjamin Wittes, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic
Wednesday, March 22, 2017, 4:35 PM

• • Google+
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Representative Devin Nunes / Center for Strategic and International Studies

Earlier today, Devin Nunes held a headline-making press conference on Capitol Hill in which he made the following statement:

[F]irst, I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trmp transition team members were unmasked. And fourth and finally, 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 HPSCI would be investigating the following questions:

Who was aware of it?

Why it was not disclosed to Congress?

Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?

Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?

And whether any laws, regulations, or procedures were violated?

Nunes repeated many of his claims at a later press conference at the White House this afternoon, and made the additional claim that there are FISA warrants connected to—though not necessarily targeting—President Trump.

Let’s start with the basics. The full text of what Nunes actually said appears at the bottom of this post. The video is here.

What exactly Nunes is alleging remains a bit opaque. In his initial statement, he makes what seem to be bold and unequivocal claims, but he then spends the question and answer period significantly undercutting several of them.

His statement, for example, says that he has “confirmed” that the intelligence community “incidentally collected” the information in question. But he later says he will say only that it “looks like incidental collection” and acknowledges that he does not know how it was “picked up.”

Nunes repeatedly says he thinks the collection was lawful under FISA, but then characterizes himself as “alarmed.” Furthermore, his statement only references the Trump transition, and it is unclear whether that does or does not involve communications involving President Trump himself. When asked if the President’s own communications were involved, in fact, Nunes gives a number of contradictory responses. It’s not clear at the end of the day whether the issue here is communications about Trump, by Trump transition officials, Trump’s own communications, or a combination of the above.

Still, there’s enough information on the table—assuming any of it is accurate—to begin addressing some questions that lots of people are probably asking. So here’s what we can say based on Nunes’s comments.



Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?

Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.

Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition. He didn’t allege that communications were intercepted legally. And he didn’t allege either that the problem—if there is a problem—lay in the masking or unmasking of U.S. persons in lawful intelligence community reporting.

Trump alleged, rather, (1) that his own wires were tapped—with two p’s, no less, (2) that a specific facility in the United States (Trump Tower) and that he personally were specifically targeted for collection, (3) that the surveillance was illegal, (4) that it took place during the campaign, and (4) that it was all ordered by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.

All of those claims appeared to be malicious lies when he made them. And nothing that Nunes is saying, even if it’s all true, supports any of them.



Is it surprising or scandalous that Trump transition communications might be subject to incidental collection?

Answer: Almost certainly not.

Nunes concedes that all of the interceptions appear to be lawful. So we’re not dealing here with a situation of scandalous political spying on an American presidential transition. The nature of incidental collection is that the targets are lawful overseas non-US persons who happen to have contact with US persons, whose communications thus get swept up in the course of spying on someone else.

Now remember that the Trump Transition violated a lot of norms under which transitions don’t generally run entirely independent foreign policies before taking office. The Trump transition organized all sorts of calls with foreign leaders (legitimate targets for surveillance) without coordinating with the State Department or, presumably, the intelligence community. Trump himself famously chatted with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, undid (temporarily) the One China Policy by taking a call from the President of Taiwan, and did his best to torpedo a UN resolution against Israeli settlements, leading Egypt to withdraw the resolution (only for the U.S. to abstain from the vote on the resubmitted resolution the next day). His staff presumably had any number of other communications with folks abroad whom the intelligence community would be derelict not to be listening to. So it’s not remotely surprising that some communications by some Trump transition people ended up being incidentally collected. Indeed, it would be surprising if none had.



Is there anything surprising or upsetting here?

Answer: Maybe.

Nunes makes two allegations that we put in the category of upsetting if true. The first is that “details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting”—a matter he later alleges took place dozens of times. This should, of course, never happen. When US person information is collected, it is supposed to be minimized unless it has foreign intelligence value. So if Nunes is right here, he’s describing a genuine problem.

He also alleges that he has “confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked”—additional, here referring to in addition to General Flynn. There’s nothing wrong with unmasking in and of itself. But in combination with the previous allegation—that material with little foreign intelligence value was disseminated—unmasking could be a very serious matter. That is, Nunes appears to be alleging that the intelligence community reported a whole lot of material incidentally collected about the Trump transition that was of no foreign intelligence value and then unmasked the US persons involved. This would be a significant abuse if it were true.

But that only raises the question: Is it true?

Color us skeptical—at least for now. Nunes is clearly shooting from the hip here. He clearly does not have all the facts himself (he admits as much). And his allegations are a deep challenge to the professionalism of the men and women of the intelligence community in the conduct of some of their most politically sensitive work. So at least until we learn more facts, we’re going to take Nunes about as seriously as we take Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald when they are comparably breathless in alleging intelligence community malfeasance without knowing all the facts in pursuit of their political goals. One shouldn’t presume what he says is false. But we’re not going to presume it true either.



So why is Nunes shooting from the hip here and going public before he has any idea what he’s talking about?

Answer: Beats us.

It’s a bit of a puzzler, really. Nunes says he doesn’t have any reason to think this collection was illegal. In his second press conference, he said that he thinks there is some level of surveillance activity "perhaps legal, but I don’t know that it’s right and I don’t know that the American people would be comfortable with." Does Nunes mean to say he believes that there are forms of lawfully authorized surveillance which he believes are ethically wrong? If so, this is an odd format for a HSPCI Chairman to make such a startling revelation to the American people. He says that the Administration was not yet aware of the information and that he would be speaking to the White House later in the afternoon. According to both Nunes and the office of committee Vice Chair Adam Schiff, Nunes did not speak to Schiff prior to the press conference. He says he has spoken to NSA Director Admiral Rogers but not FBI Director Comey. So why is he holding a press conference before getting even his basic facts straight?

Bob Dole once famously quipped that the most dangerous space in Washington was the space between then Rep. Charles Schumer and a TV camera. Just a hunch, but something similar might be going on here.



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.

***

[Update: Representative Adam Schiff, Ranking Member of the HPSCI, has released a statement in response to Nunes.]

Below is a full quick transcript of Nunes’s press conference and his later comments after his meeting with the President. To whatever extent it contains any classified material, Lawfare is waiving our policy of not publishing classified information on the theory that, well, these are the words of the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

 

[siamese3]

Jaron, just read that lawfare article and was thinking of posting it.

 

[distracts]

Some individuals in Trump tower have links to organized crime and are surveilled in connection with that. Several of the Trump transition advisors also have links to organized crime and may be surveilled in connection with that. (I am not saying they are purposefully involved in organized crime - but a lot of people who ARE have been in the NY real estate business and rented in fancy apartments like Trump Tower, and this is not some kind of secret that wealthy mobsters like fancy things and real estate). AFAIK all confirmed instances of them being surveilled have not been the result of spying actually on them but rather on other people - like with Flynn and his conversations with the Russian ambassador - who any fool who has watched a spy movie could have guessed was under surveillance.

I don't really think Trump was correct in saying he was being monitored, because him saying it that way makes it sound like it was intentionally targeted to him and his people out of malice - when in actuality it appears to have been data, well, incidentally collected in the course of other investigations. And that data HAS to be collected - you can't have money launderers the FBI knows about going around without being watched because they happen to live in Trump Tower or speak to Trump or his associates, same for possible foreign agents. Unfortunately Trump is incapable of nuance, as are many of his followers, so to him there will seem to be no difference, but to anyone with a working brain it is obvious that there is a significant difference.

Now, that the material was disseminated is problematic, but if any of it is like the whistleblowing material that has previously come to light, I think we should take this in the way people took the DNC and Hillary emails - if they didn't want it to be public, they shouldn't have said it. If that's the standard, then let's let that standard apply to everyone.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sia-romance-there-s-a-tower-full-of-oligarchs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...70cabef46e0_story.html?utm_term=.a34541132664
Previous article best read with this one about his work for US intelligence: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article1942548.html
Remember that Felix Sater is this guy: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-peace-plan-said-was-only-trying-to-help.html

Like just from those articles it is pretty clear they are relatively frequently dealing with people who one might have reason to have under surveillance for issues unrelated at all to Trump.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Some individuals in Trump tower have links to organized crime and are surveilled in connection with that.

Now, that the material was disseminated is problematic, but if any of it is like the whistleblowing material that has previously come to light, I think we should take this in the way people took the DNC and Hillary emails - if they didn't want it to be public, they shouldn't have said it. If that's the standard, then let's let that standard apply to everyone.

There is - IMO - a huge difference between a private organization or citizen being 'hacked' by non-Federal governmental agents (Podesta, DNC), and Federal government agency employee/s who feloniously release information for political purposes about a candidate and his/her staff that it obtained through otherwise legal surveillance. The very people who are entrusted with upholding & enforcing the law and citizens' constitutional rights are the ones who are breaking the law and violating citizens' rights.

 

[distracts]

There is - IMO - a huge difference between a private organization or citizen being 'hacked' by non-Federal governmental agents (Podesta, DNC), and Federal government agency employee/s who feloniously release information for political purposes about a candidate and his/her staff that it obtained through otherwise legal surveillance. The very people who are entrusted with upholding & enforcing the law and citizens' constitutional rights are the ones who are breaking the law and violating citizens' rights.

But this wasn't disseminated in any sort of official capacity - afaik it was essentially "rogue agents" disseminating the information, which would be exactly the same scenario as the hacking in terms of the perpetrators acting illegally and thus being subject to the same consequences.

 

[the_mother_thing]

But this wasn't disseminated in any sort of official capacity - afaik it was essentially "rogue agents" disseminating the information, which would be exactly the same scenario as the hacking in terms of the perpetrators acting illegally and thus being subject to the same consequences.

Rogue agents (in this case) who are also U.S. Federal government employees subject to U.S. Federal law; not foreign 'rogue agents' who are not subject to U.S. Federal law, as appears to be the case in the DNC/Podesta hack. In this case, the information was classified; Podesta's & DNC emails were not classified. One is a matter of national security; the other a matter of national embarrassment.

Sorry, but to me, it's an apples-to-mashed-potatoes comparison.

 

[distracts]

But if the information like that with Flynn potentially shows collusion with foreign governments, it is not a national embarrassment but a national imperative that it not be kept secret.

At any rate, that wasn't the comparison I was making in the first place - when the DNC emails came out no one was defending the hacking on the basis of who specifically had done it, but defending the material on the basis that if it hinted at any unseemly behavior it should be in public view, which is exactly my point, and I think applies regardless of the way the material was first obtained. Either people have a moral right to privacy or they don't - you don't just have a right to privacy "unless a foreign agent hacks you, in which case, oh well, we're going to pretend like your right never existed" or whatever. If people really thought everyone had a moral right to privacy there would have been outrage over the hacking, but instead everyone gleefully went through it. This alleged wiretap info isn't even public, and we don't even know to what extend it was disseminated. Seems like a bunch of outrage solely on partisan grounds to me.

But I also suspect there is a lot more passing around of supposedly confidential info than most people suspect, because people will be people and people love gossip.

 

[t-c]

How can you say 'no' when Nunes said Chump's staff was being monitored?

So my question is - was Trump essentially correct that he was monitored and it did happen during the Obama administration?

Some of your questions have already been answered by redwood66. But here are more details that might help:

1. FISA warrants allow for surveilance of FOREIGN AGENTS in the US. This includes interaction/phone calls of foreign agents to US citizens.

2. If Trump or his team are on the other end of the interaction/phone calls to foreign agents, then as a matter of logistics, their part of the interaction will be monitored. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT TRUMP OR HIS TEAM IS UNDER SURVEILLANCE. If ANYONE, including ruby59, JoCoJenn, or Clinton, is on the other end of a communication with foreign agents, it will be monitored; it doesn't mean they're under surveillance.

3. If the conversation is deemed important/relevant to an investigation or the US person on the other end is considered to have great influence, then the identity of that person may be unmasked.

4. Here is the issue with what Nunes did:

• He visited the White House to give information that is incidentally related to an investigation he is CURRENTLY CONDUCTING.
  
• Nunes made a big deal of the unmasking of Trump/Trump Team, but according to Schiff's statement, Nunes "informed [him] that most of the names in the intercepted communications were in fact masked, but that he could still figure out the probable identity of the parties".
  
• The surveillance, NOT targeted at Trump or his team, was legal with a FISA warrant (according to Nunes), so why disclose this information both to the White House and the press, specially if he's concerned with leaks? Isn't this CLASSIFIED information?
  
• Ironically, Nunes came upon this information from a leak -- a source he doesn't name.
  
• He disclosed this information before even talking to the other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

So to answer your question, ruby59: NO, Trump was not being monitored.

And to answer your question, JoCoJenn: While Nunes may have said that Trump's Team were in surveillance reports, that doesn't mean that Trump's Team were being monitored; they just happened to communicate with a lot of foreign agents that were actually being monitored.