• 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!

White House, Nunes blocked ex-acting AG from testifying

VanceMack said:
So thats what you are hanging your hat on? You agree that there was wiretapping. you agree that people in the Obama administration using those wiretaps focused on the Trump team. You even accept that Comey briefed the Obama administration (though he wont say who he briefed, what he briefed, or on whom-at least not in a public hearing). I assume you also acknowledge that someone in the Obama administration with access to this data committed a felony by leaking that information. So Trump was correct THAT they had been spied on but not that Obama had specifically ordered it. Right? Just the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

You talking to me? I suppose you think you might be but you spent that whole conversation with yourself in attempts at telling me what I do and don't believe. Aside from that, what a freegin' stretch combined with leaps of guessing. You want evidence from the left but you can apparently just make crap up on the right and it's evidence enough.
 
poweRob said:
You talking to me? I suppose you think you might be but you spent that whole conversation with yourself in attempts at telling me what I do and don't believe. Aside from that, what a freegin' stretch combined with leaps of guessing. You want evidence from the left but you can apparently just make crap up on the right and it's evidence enough.
Click to expand...
WHich parts dont you agree with?
 
VanceMack said:
WHich parts dont you agree with?
Click to expand...

So thats what you are hanging your hat on? You agree that there was wiretapping.
Click to expand...

I note that the FBI/NSA is always spying on Russians. So not an Obama administration request of wiretapping as seems to be implied by you here.

you agree that people in the Obama administration using those wiretaps focused on the Trump team.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. As has been stated even by Nunes, there MAY have been INCIDENTAL collection. Meaning the FBI/NSA was doing their usual spying on russians and the trump team kept calling these Russians for whatever reason.

You even accept that Comey briefed the Obama administration (though he wont say who he briefed, what he briefed, or on whom-at least not in a public hearing). I assume you also acknowledge that someone in the Obama administration with access to this data committed a felony by leaking that information. So Trump was correct THAT they had been spied on but not that Obama had specifically ordered it. Right?
Click to expand...

No. I've not seen anything indicating that at this point and I have no idea who leaked what. Other than Nunes leaking his investigation to trump.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I note that the FBI/NSA is always spying on Russians. So not an Obama administration request of wiretapping as seems to be implied by you here.



No I didn't. As has been stated even by Nunes, there MAY have been INCIDENTAL collection. Meaning the FBI/NSA was doing their usual spying on russians and the trump team kept calling these Russians for whatever reason.



No. I've not seen anything indicating that at this point and I have no idea who leaked what. Other than Nunes leaking his investigation to trump.
Click to expand...
And yet previous reports show that the Intel community twice proposed specific FISA requests to monitor the Trump campaign (and not 'the Russians' where the Trump campaign was incidentally caught up in the sweep)...once in June of 2016 which was denied and then again in October of 2016 which was granted.
Mark Levin: Was Obama Using NSA Against Trump During 2016 Campaign? | Video | RealClearPolitics

As for using the wiretaps for political purposes...we know that Comey briefed Obama. He refuses to say what, who, or why in open hearings. We also know that someone leaked the contents of those wiretaps to smear Flynn. That cant even be a question. It 'happened'.

No. Obama didnt crawl around in coveralls and plant bugs or specifically wiretap Trumps phones. To date, there is no evidence that Obama himself ordered the monitoring. But there is evidence that the intel community, under the Obama administration, specifically sought clandestine monitoring warrants in October of 2016 AND that Comey briefed Obama (what, he will not say) and tha someone either in the FBI or Obama administration that was privvy to the unmasked data collected then committed a felony by releasing and leaking that unmasked information.

What part of the facts you are willing to actually admit...I guess thats up to you.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
It's not a "criminal investigation"!
Click to expand...

A House Intelligence Committee investigation is covering whether there were possible ties between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign, as well as other efforts by Moscow to meddle in the U.S. election.

The House committee joins its Senate counterpart in pursuing such an inquiry. In a joint statement, Republican Chairman Devin Nunes and ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, both of California, said the scope of the committee's probe includes "any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
Click to expand...

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ble-connections-between-russia-trump-campaign

So since Nunes' is formally at the head of a committee investigating the Russian meddling and possible collusion, you can appreciate why secretly meeting with the subject an investigation and refusing to share evidence with the rest of the committee means he can no longer be a member, let alone chairman. In addition to calling off a hearing so the previous Attn General wouldn't give evidence, this is why the investigation has come to a full stop.
 
Cardinal said:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ble-connections-between-russia-trump-campaign

So since Nunes' is formally at the head of a committee investigating the Russian meddling and possible collusion, you can appreciate why secretly meeting with the subject an investigation and refusing to share evidence with the rest of the committee means he can no longer be a member, let alone chairman. In addition to calling off a hearing so the previous Attn General wouldn't give evidence, this is why the investigation has come to a full stop.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You said Nunes was leading a "criminal investigation". And I said: It's not a "criminal investigation"! You are just spinning stuff right now.
Again it's NOT a criminal investigation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom