"Incidentally collected" info

[the_mother_thing]

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

Show me where I said I supported or favored Nunes' actions releasing what he did. Please!


I asked Deb why she was against the Nunes release since she and others were pushing (in prior news events) to release information/videos/etc. prior to an investigation being completed.

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.

Dad, is that you?

How about: 1) you don't twist my comments for whatever your soapbox stance of the day is and then post false statements about who/what I support; and/or, 2) leave my name out of your rants altogether until you can actually comprehend my statements correctly and/or KNOW what/who I support. You just make yourself look foolish.

 

[bunnycat]

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- click quote on the message you want to quote, then go to the box where you type and click insert quote before typing. Click inset these messages and it will insert the quote in the box. .

 

[AGBF]

Annette wrote to me about some of my fellow Pricescopers:

Deb, I do not know why you are even replying to their nonsense.

Matata recently chastised me in a similar way to the way you are for being too apologetic and explaining myself too much. I'm afraid it's just (as I have said before) that I am a pedant. I never wanted to be a teacher or a social worker, because they were such mundane occupations. (My mother was a professional teacher and my father was a professional social worker.) But in the end, I became both. I am boring and a former teacher. I cannot stop trying to explain things as I understand them. Since I actually used to learn from my students, even the high school freshmen and sophomores, I attempt to listen here, too. Sometimes. It seems possible, if not probable, that someone with whom i disagree may actually open my eyes to something.

Deb

 

[the_mother_thing]

Deb - while we have differing views, I do appreciate our usually civil exchanges and open mindedness.

Smit - thanks for the free rent.

 

[t-c]

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.

Trump's team were caught up in the monitoring of other people, but Trump and his team are not directly targeted.

Imagine you place a listening device on a criminal. You'll hear everyone's conversation with that criminal. If another person happens to talk a lot to the one being monitored, then a lot of their conversation will get caught. As an investigator, you'll want to know who that criminal is talking to so you ask to unmask them.

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?

The US government monitor other foreign agents besides Russians. It is possible Trump and his team were talking to those people.

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.

They were only released to the media by Nunes when he called a press conference. Before that, no one knew the existence of these intelligence documents outside of the people who had clearance. The press didn't know about these particular documents before Nunes talked about them. He could have just gone straight to the White House (still wildly inappropriate for a chairman of a committee investigating WH involvement) without talking to the press, but he didn't -- this is why a lot of people (including me) believe that his actions were to provide cover to the WH. It was not enough to assuage Trump privately, it had to be announced to the public that Trump was "vindicated" by this intelligence.

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.

Let's assume that Trump is correct when he tweeted he was being unjustifiably wiretapped at the behest of Obama. That would mean:
1. Obama would be guilty of a felony.
2. The NSA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies are criminally complicit in spying on an American citizen on US soil.
3. The DoJ and FISA court would be criminally complicit.
4. The UK government and intelligence services would be criminally complicit in spying on Trump at the request of Obama.
So, for Trump to be correct, it would mean unprecedented corruption directed at one person not just in the US government but also the UK government.

Maybe in your world that is a likely scenario, but in mine it seems so much easier to believe that Trump and his team talked to a lot of people who were monitored foreign agents. Occam's razor and all that.

 

[the_mother_thing]

t-c: no offense but you're not stating anything I didn't already know (as I stated a few times).

Nunes was not the first to release this stuff to the media though; whoever leaked Flynn's convo (to the Post, I believe) gets to claim that honor.