• 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!

Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe[W:266]

Jack Hays said:
1. So far there has been no evidence whatsoever of DJT campaign collaboration or coordination with Russia.
Click to expand...

So what. The author said, effectively, that surveillance of people committing or reasonably suspected of committing treason, colluding with a foreign power to swing a U.S. election, is worse than....the treasonous activities that warranted the surveillance. It's absurd on its face, and what we have evidence to support at this point is irrelevant to his conclusion. Reread what he wrote...

"If he is correct that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign, we have a matter at least as significant—if not more so—than the possibility, still unconfirmed in any way, that the Trump campaign collaborated or coordinated with Russia. . . ."

2. Unmasking per se is in bounds among appropriate cleared officials. The crime occurs when the unmasked identities are shared beyond that, with the press for example.
Click to expand...

Correct, and the hack Wallison conflated the two, I guess, as you are doing. His comment and what I quoted about about unmasking, not leaking. If he wanted to talk about leaks, he should have talked about leaks, not the legal exercise of unmasking some U.S. persons as provided for under the law.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but he gave the game away with his 'surveillance of people engaged in treason > treason' comment.
 
JasperL said:
So what. The author said, effectively, that surveillance of people committing or reasonably suspected of committing treason, colluding with a foreign power to swing a U.S. election, is worse than....the treasonous activities that warranted the surveillance. It's absurd on its face, and what we have evidence to support at this point is irrelevant to his conclusion. Reread what he wrote...

"If he is correct that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign, we have a matter at least as significant—if not more so—than the possibility, still unconfirmed in any way, that the Trump campaign collaborated or coordinated with Russia. . . ."



Correct, and the hack Wallison conflated the two, I guess, as you are doing. His comment and what I quoted about about unmasking, not leaking. If he wanted to talk about leaks, he should have talked about leaks, not the legal exercise of unmasking some U.S. persons as provided for under the law.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but he gave the game away with his 'surveillance of people engaged in treason > treason' comment.
Click to expand...

My point was to explicitly unconflate the two. As for the rest, we shall see.
 
Jack Hays said:
My point was to explicitly unconflate the two. As for the rest, we shall see.
Click to expand...

OK. The article was a pretty sorry example of integrity selling drivel, so I commend you for not defending it.

As to the 'rest' my point is pretty simple - if the IC had credible information that suggested collusion/wrongdoing on the part of the Trump team, the alleged surveillance was obviously appropriate whether or not the investigation results in chargeable or even impeachable offenses - that's what we hire them TO DO. Investigate/prevent/prosecute threats against the country, including against the electoral system, by foreigners and others.

You can't look back with 20/20 hindsight and say, "well, there was all this smoke but we never found the fire ===> political witch hunt!" but that is what will happen, and in a way that's understandable because of the leaks.
 
JasperL said:
OK. The article was a pretty sorry example of integrity selling drivel, so I commend you for not defending it.

As to the 'rest' my point is pretty simple - if the IC had credible information that suggested collusion/wrongdoing on the part of the Trump team, the alleged surveillance was obviously appropriate whether or not the investigation results in chargeable or even impeachable offenses - that's what we hire them TO DO. Investigate/prevent/prosecute threats against the country, including against the electoral system, by foreigners and others.

You can't look back with 20/20 hindsight and say, "well, there was all this smoke but we never found the fire ===> political witch hunt!" but that is what will happen, and in a way that's understandable because of the leaks.
Click to expand...

Now you're starting to get it. The IC most often operates in conditions of ambiguity, seeking clarity.
 
Jack Hays said:
No longer in play. We shall see. I think he'll come out better than Schiff.
Click to expand...

He apologised and resigned. Credibility gone. And Nunez's credibility has nothing to do with Schiff.
 
Buck naked said:
He apologised and resigned. Credibility gone. And Nunez's credibility has nothing to do with Schiff.
Click to expand...

He did not resign. He remains committee chairman. He recused himself from this particular investigation. You presume too much.
 
Jack Hays said:
He did not resign. He remains committee chairman. He recused himself from this particular investigation. You presume too much.
Click to expand...

Of course I was referring to the Russian probe, which was the topic of the dialogue concerning credibility.:roll:
 
vesper said:
Nunes has done nothing wrong. He will not be stepping down.
Second, there are two investigations. One into the Russian influence into our election and the other is on the unmasking of names in the Trump transition team on surveillance that had nothing to do with Russia and the purpose behind these convervations being widely dispersed among intel agencies and even leaked.

Part one should be about both campaigns and their Russian ties if the evidence proves Russia indeed try to influence the past election. While the left keeps wanting to make a big deal of anyone who met or talked with a Russian within the Trump transition team, for cripe sakes John Podesta Clinton's campaign manager was up to his eyeballs in Russian ties as is his brother Tony Podesta who runs the lobbying group Podesta Group. The Clintons also have several Russian ties through their Clinton Foundation.

The other part of the investigation that Nunes is pointing to are the leaks of intelligence to the press started under Obama and shortly after he left office the leaks started pouring out as Obama's administration lowered the level of classification so they could be easily leaked just a week before he left office. Conversations that had nothing to do with Russia but instead were picked up, unmasked, and dispersed among all the 16 intel agencies. The big question is why? The logical answer or conclusion was to sabotage Trump's transition and to spy on the Trump team. Obama appointees were in place because the Dems in the Senate were taking their damn good time in confirming any of Trump's cabinet allowing them to continue with the leaks to the press.

Well Nunes is going to get to the bottom of who leaked what and mark my words those in the Obama administration will be facing time behind bars.
Click to expand...

I told you that you did not want those words marked......

Obama will continue to enjoy a peaceful life as an elder statesman

Meanwhile, the current (not for long) president is looking at 3 hots and cot.... OK, the current president is not likely to spend any jail time (though he is just closer to it than Obama), but his post presidency will be much more about disgrace and shame than "elder statesman."

Now you better understand what the FBI was really looking at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom