• 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!

What Devin Nunes Knows

Born Free said:
This is from the thread named: "Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel," post number 1

"Well here we go


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...iser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-inte


White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration."
Click to expand...

That's nice. It's also utterly irrelevant to what I posted.
 
chuckiechan said:
Obviously, when all you have left is to complain about "process" you have pretty well run out of defenses. The complaint about "process" is the final wheezing of your defeat.
Click to expand...

What you and Trump love to call PROCESS is very important in a government where these are done according to certain procedures and for certain purposes.
 
JasperL said:
She didn't admit to any felonies, so whatever you've made up in your mind is incorrect.
Click to expand...

She spoke. You did not listen.

That is ok.

I won't berate you for clinging to an untenable position.
 
Fishking said:
Yeah, talking to people is super duper bad. But, whatever, the truth will come out eventually and there'll be a giant nothingburger because we'd already know by now if there was anything actually incriminating. I'll pose you the same questions I've asked many other conspiracy theorists, though, no one is able to answer:

Why would someone who has already committed egregious violations of security, who will go to jail if caught, stop short of providing actual incriminating evidence in their leaks? Why has every single leak stopped short of providing the smoking gun and only given enough information for innuendo? If they would already be going to jail, why stop there?
Click to expand...

Because an unknown number of those leaks are bogus.

Because of disinformation planted and played by Russia, often using Trump as a useful idiot to disseminate it.

Because American law enforcement and intel agencies are still working investigations.

Because the US is also working with foreign governments and allies who may have asked that the US not move forward yet with indictments on certain people.

Because one or more leakers may eventually lead to organized efforts to undermine the US.
 
akyron said:
She spoke. You did not listen.

That is ok.

I won't berate you for clinging to an untenable position.
Click to expand...

If you want to list the felonies with some evidence, then you might demonstrate my position is untenable. Not waiting up for that.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Because an unknown number of those leaks are bogus.
Click to expand...

So you admit the leaks are bogus.

Because of disinformation planted and played by Russia, often using Trump as a useful idiot to disseminate it.
Click to expand...

So the "officials" quoted by the media are Russian agents?

Because American law enforcement and intel agencies are still working investigations.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with my question.

Because the US is also working with foreign governments and allies who may have asked that the US not move forward yet with indictments on certain people.
Click to expand...

Also has nothing to do with my question.

Because one or more leakers may eventually lead to organized efforts to undermine the US.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything.

So, the only thing you provided as an "answer" is that the leakers are bogus. I can get down with that. What I'm looking for now is why would a person who legitimately is in a position to know about this particular classified information would break all kinds of laws but stop short of providing the smoking gun and only giving enough for innuendo?
 
Fishking said:
So, the only thing you provided as an "answer" is that the leakers are bogus. I can get down with that. What I'm looking for now is why would a person who legitimately is in a position to know about this particular classified information would break all kinds of laws but stop short of providing the smoking gun and only giving enough for innuendo?
Click to expand...

The only clear law I've seen broken is the leak about Flynn - that is a serious offense. But we don't know who did it or why. I think it's significant that Yates did brief the WH on that and got that info into the political arena where goodness knows leaks happen frequently.

And AFAIK the 'innuendo' isn't actually coming from leaks, but from journalists doing their own investigations. I can't think of a thing related to the Trump/Russia story that's come as a result of other leaks from the intelligence community. Point is I don't actually see "break all kinds of laws" in the evidence.
 
JasperL said:
The only clear law I've seen broken is the leak about Flynn - that is a serious offense. But we don't know who did it or why. I think it's significant that Yates did brief the WH on that and got that info into the political arena where goodness knows leaks happen frequently.

And AFAIK the 'innuendo' isn't actually coming from leaks, but from journalists doing their own investigations. I can't think of a thing related to the Trump/Russia story that's come as a result of other leaks from the intelligence community. Point is I don't actually see "break all kinds of laws" in the evidence.
Click to expand...

Right...they are breaking some serious laws to leak information and the only thing they provide is, "Flynn talked to some Russians" and no evidence of actual wrongdoing. Wouldn't you think that someone would actually save breaking that kind of law for some serious evidence?
 
Fishking said:
So you admit the leaks are bogus.



So the "officials" quoted by the media are Russian agents?



Has nothing to do with my question.



Also has nothing to do with my question.



What does that have to do with anything.

So, the only thing you provided as an "answer" is that the leakers are bogus. I can get down with that. What I'm looking for now is why would a person who legitimately is in a position to know about this particular classified information would break all kinds of laws but stop short of providing the smoking gun and only giving enough for innuendo?
Click to expand...

You're slicker than snot on a hoe handle. AFTER I responded to the questions you asked - and by the way all my answers were relevant to the questions you asked - you then qualify your question in a follow up.

And no I did not say the leaks were bogus, I said they could be bogus. That is ONE possibility. How could any of us possibly KNOW that the leaks are bogus? I can't and neither can you unless you have a crystal ball up your ass.

It is interesting that you only believe that the leaks are true or you believe they are not true. Or that the leaker has all the correct information. Leaks could be partially true and the leaks may serve a purpose for which we are unaware. Or the leaker could be a putz or even a pasty. You seem to be putting a lot of faith in the supposed leaker.

When you think inside the box the possibilities are limited.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
You're slicker than snot on a hoe handle. AFTER I responded to the questions you asked - and by the way all my answers were relevant to the questions you asked - you then qualify your question in a follow up.
Click to expand...

Yep...I'll admit that the clarification was needed and not in my original post. I thought it was clear that the question was based in the premise that they are legitimate.

It is interesting that you only believe that the leaks are true or you believe they are not true. Or that the leaker has all the correct information. Leaks could be partially true and the leaks may serve a purpose for which we are unaware. Or the leaker could be a putz or even a pasty. You seem to be putting a lot of faith in the supposed leaker.

When you think inside the box the possibilities are limited.
Click to expand...

Nah...I'm operating off of the premise that they are 100% true. Now, why would they take the risk of such an egregious violation, risking so much, just to provide a giant nothingburger? I mean, wouldn't someone only do that if they had something real? I sure as hell wouldn't do something like that unless I had some very serious stuff that was like, breaking of the entire election type of thing.
 
JasperL said:
If you want to list the felonies with some evidence, then you might demonstrate my position is untenable. Not waiting up for that.
Click to expand...

Leaking classified information and conspiracy to leak CI is more than enough.

Just unmasking a us citizen is extremely serious.

Accessing cleared info after being out is another issue as well.

The Farkas timeline just got even better with the news that Susan Rice was making unmasking requests.

Susan Rice Lectures Trump About Saying False Things On TV | The Daily Caller

Heh. Like she had a leg to stand on.

This is getting really crazy with new stuff coming out daily.
 
Fishking said:
Right...they are breaking some serious laws to leak information and the only thing they provide is, "Flynn talked to some Russians" and no evidence of actual wrongdoing. Wouldn't you think that someone would actually save breaking that kind of law for some serious evidence?
Click to expand...

"But we don't know who did that or why." And, "I think it's significant that Yates did brief the WH on that and got that info into the political arena where goodness knows leaks happen frequently."

And you say "they" but there is no "they" I'm aware of - just one big leak about Flynn. That's it. Did I miss something? I know of a bunch of embarrassing things coming out of the Trump WH but that's different altogether.

I'll just add one thing - the Flynn leak really had nothing to do with Russia and collusion - really just him lying to Pence, and then sending him off to repeat Flynn's lies to the world. That was the offense. So it could be true, and my guess is it is true, that the purpose of that leak wasn't to release details about the investigation into Trump and Russia collusion, if any, but to get rid of Flynn as NSA, either by the VPs office or perhaps worried people in the intelligence world who didn't want him as NSA. So it's not that unusual to see a leak about one thing with one end goal but not leaks about another that might accomplish a different goal.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Leaking classified information and conspiracy to leak CI is more than enough.

Just unmasking a us citizen is extremely serious.

Accessing cleared info after being out is another issue as well.
Click to expand...

Great, and the evidence she did any of that is where? She sure as hell didn't admit to any of it, or if you think she did, quote her.

The Farkas timeline just got even better with the news that Susan Rice was making unmasking requests.

Susan Rice Lectures Trump About Saying False Things On TV | The Daily Caller

Heh. Like she had a leg to stand on.

This is getting really crazy with new stuff coming out daily.
Click to expand...

You're just making stuff up and alleging they're crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom