• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
93,450
Reaction score
68,146
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
House intel chairman: Trump personal communications may have been collected - CNNPolitics.com

Nunes said at a news conference he discovered the potential surveillance of Trump himself while reviewing intelligence reports, but said it was not related to Russia.
"This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect," Nunes said. "This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Also at that hearing, Comey said he had seen no evidence so far of the specific allegation of wiretapping Trump Tower.

Nunes did not know whether the "incidental collection" happened at Trump Tower, and could not say for certain whether Trump's communications were directly collected.

Not quite a smoking gun, in fact, it's rather vague and doesn't speak to the wiretapping claim Trump has been backing down from the past week. But it's possible, that maybe, a little of Trump's communications had been captured. Maybe.
 
Another story

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration - POLITICO

Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.

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."
 
Why don't we just call it like it is? Trump made another off the cuff, unsubstantiated comment and every department is now scrambling to find a shred of something to make it look valid, rather than doing more important work like running the government.
 
Why don't we just call it like it is? Trump made another off the cuff, unsubstantiated comment and every department is now scrambling to find a shred of something to make it look valid, rather than doing more important work like running the government.

Incidental collection isn't the issue, the issue is that someone unmasked his name (Flynn) for political purposes, which is really, really bad.
 
Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.
It may have been legal to collect the information under FISA, but why was the previous administration "widely disseminating" details from about people in the incoming Trump administration that had no foreign intelligence value? The intent of the law is not serve as a database to mine personal information on your political opponents.
 
I'm confused. If the surveillance was legal why is he telling us?
 
Another story

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration - POLITICO

Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.

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."

It is sounding like the collection was legal, but the dissemination was illegal? The way it is being reported sounds to me like the intelligence services were collecting communication as part of legal warrants on other people, and then disseminating the transcripts without masking the names of the innocent parties? More info would be helpful, but I guess they need time to clean it for public consumption.
 
It may have been legal to collect the information under FISA, but why was the previous administration "widely disseminating" details from about people in the incoming Trump administration that had no foreign intelligence value? The intent of the law is not serve as a database to mine personal information on your political opponents.

I agree with you completely. Lets see how this plays out but if true there are going to be many questions
why the incoming president was under some sort of collection? FBI Director Comey said there was none going on!
 
I'm confused. If the surveillance was legal why is he telling us?

Probably because disseminating it, especially without masking the names of those subject to incidental collection, is not.

Surveillance warrants only give you limited rights to collect and distribute data. If these people were not part of the warrant then disseminating the transcripts of their conversations is illegal.
 
Probably because disseminating it, especially without masking the names of those subject to incidental collection, is not.

Surveillance warrants only give you limited rights to collect and distribute data. If these people were not part of the warrant then disseminating the transcripts of their conversations is illegal.

Oh, so in other words Nune's is trying to shift the narrative away from the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Got it.
 
Oh, so in other words Nune's is trying to shift the narrative away from the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Got it.

LOL. Wut.
 
Why don't we just call it like it is? Trump made another off the cuff, unsubstantiated comment and every department is now scrambling to find a shred of something to make it look valid, rather than doing more important work like running the government.

Yes, let's call it like it is.

You guys got freaked out of your minds, and now it looks like you were wrong. Now, you're deflecting as fast as you can.

The media will do the same, and it'll be like this never happened.
 
LOL. Wut.

I'm going to come back to this topic later on when my attention isn't split between work and this. I'm not confident I'm digesting this story accurately.
 
Oh, so in other words Nune's is trying to shift the narrative away from the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Got it.

So partisan.......... Nune's is briefing the reporters and will brief the White on this new information.
Are you saying he is not telling the truth?
 
Incidental collection isn't the issue, the issue is that someone unmasked his name (Flynn) for political purposes, which is really, really bad.

Michal Flynn the foreign agent.....

But it is really really bad that someone unmasked the name... It's bad for Flynn. Because it means that the people conducting the investigation thought the fact that naming foreign agent Michale Flynn name was vital to the investigation. It's confirmation that he's a potential target.

This is someone who retroactively filed as a foreign agent, who lied about both conversations, payments, and visits to foreign countries, who was given access to and allowed to make decisions on the most sensitive intelligence possible. So yeah, it's really bad.
 
So partisan.......... Nune's is briefing the reporters and will brief the White on this new information.
Are you saying he is not telling the truth?

It's probably best for everyone to come back to this story later after the briefing and the actual information has been cleared and released.
 
Michal Flynn the foreign agent.....

But it is really really bad that someone unmasked the name... It's bad for Flynn. Because it means that the people conducting the investigation thought the fact that naming foreign agent Michale Flynn name was vital to the investigation.

This is someone who retroactively filed as a foreign agent, who lied about both conversations, payments, and visits to foreign countries, who was given access to and allowed to make decisions on the most sensitive intelligence possible. So yeah, it's really bad.

If Flynn broke the law, he should go to jail.
Unmasking is only supposed to be done for law enforcement issues and even then, it isn't supposed to be leaked to the media.
It's really bad, because it wasn't released for transparencies sake (something I would actually agree with) but it seems to be released purely as a political hit.

Now imagine this is normalized and Trump decides to use this on his political opponents.
Not only does it violate the trust we supposed to have that these orgs (NSA, FBI, CIA) are supposed to uphold, it allows for blackmail and all sorts of nasty things.

Stop being so "single issue" and look at the big picture.
 
Oh, so in other words Nune's is trying to shift the narrative away from the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Got it.

Rep. Schiff: '''Circumstantial Evidence of Collusion''' Between Trump Campaign, Russia - NBC News

So this one Dem thinks there's CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, even when Clapper says there's nothing. But you buy the Dem's side of it. And what exactly is this circumstantial evidence I ask? And how did they get it?

Eventually the truth about wiretapping will surface.

Trump team communications captured by intelligence community surveillance, Nunes says | Fox News
 
One more....

Conversations Caught in Surveillance

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-22/nunes-says-trump-team-communications-caught-in-u-s-surveillance

"I’m actually alarmed by it," Nunes, a California Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. "Details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in an intelligence community report,” he said. He said he didn’t know if Trump’s “own communications were intercepted.”

The disclosure may bolster Trump’s effort to back up his disputed claim in Twitter postings that the Obama administration “wiretapped” him, which he later amended to say that his team was under surveillance. FBI Director James Comey testified before the House committee this week that “I have no information that supports those tweets.”

“I do think this is a startling revelation," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.
 
House intel chairman: Trump personal communications may have been collected - CNNPolitics.com





Not quite a smoking gun, in fact, it's rather vague and doesn't speak to the wiretapping claim Trump has been backing down from the past week. But it's possible, that maybe, a little of Trump's communications had been captured. Maybe.

I'm sure all of our communications have been captured at some point. But I don't see anything in this article that backs up claims by Trump that Obama ordered a tap(p) on his wires/phones in October, or implies it, or would be related to it.
 
Trump's errand boy?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Another story

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration

Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration - POLITICO

Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.

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."

Oh so they were under surveillance during the Obama Administration.. Fancy that.
 
If Flynn broke the law, he should go to jail.
Unmasking is only supposed to be done for law enforcement issues and even then, it isn't supposed to be leaked to the media.
It's really bad, because it wasn't released for transparencies sake (something I would actually agree with) but it seems to be released purely as a political hit.

Now imagine this is normalized and Trump decides to use this on his political opponents.
Not only does it violate the trust we supposed to have that these orgs (NSA, FBI, CIA) are supposed to uphold, it allows for blackmail and all sorts of nasty things.

Stop being so "single issue" and look at the big picture.

Who's defending leaks? You trying to argue that intelligence gatherers that named foreign agent Flynn instead of leaving it anonymous represents some sort of criminality with the intelligence gathers. Rather than what it really means, that Flynn was being investigated.

Second we're dealing with more than law enforcement, this is also national security.

Third, don't be surprised if the leaks came from the VPs office as it wasn't leaked until the VP was informed weeks late.

Forth, why the hell did it take for this being leaked publicly for Trump to fire foreign agent Flynn?? Why?
 
Who's defending leaks? You trying to argue that intelligence gatherers that named foreign agent Flynn instead of leaving it anonymous represents some sort of criminality with the intelligence gathers.

Second we're dealing with more than law enforcement, this is also national security.

Third, don't be surprised if the leaks came from the VPs office as it wasn't leaked until the VP was informed weeks late.

Forth, why the hell did it take for this being leaked publicly for Trump to fire foreign agent Flynn?? Why?

I don't know, but I do know that unmasking Flynn alone isn't the problem, it's the unmasking then releasing it to the public.
You're just trying to change the subject.

What happened is bad, regardless of Flynn's alleged behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom