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

[Harry Guerrilla]

Regardless of motive, we avoided having a foriegn agent placed in a high position in our govt. That may have been the motive.

It's completely fine booting him out and locking him up (if he broke the law).
I do heavily question the motive and the entire surveillance program.

How many of these incidents do we tolerate, before it's to much.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You just corroborated what I said (see section c), thinking it contradicted me :lamo

You made it sound like the norm, no it's a process, and a it has to be approved. It is not, and should not be the norm.

 

[Linc]

You just corroborated what I said (see section c), thinking it contradicted me :lamo

What is Nunes hiding from ranking member Schiff that he shared with trump and who knows who else, such as Bannon, since Nunes was part of the trump transition team?

trump just can't let go of the crook Flynn .

 

[sangha]

You missed the part that these collected conversations were incidental, meaning not part of a warrant authorization. That alone makes the distribution illegal, and in cases where people are caught up in even conversations that are meaningful to a warrant, but their involvement is incidental, their names are required to be redacted. Based on what has been reported, these communications were incidental AND the names weren't redacted which means it would break two laws.

You are very certain and certainly wrong. Read post #34 (above yours) and read the regs which say there are situations where the people can be named.

Wrong. Those who are not part of a warrant are entitled to the right to privacy. If they have not been subjected to a legal warrant procedure then they have not received due process necessary to lose that right.

The warrant was legal.

 

[Cardinal]

Both Nunes and Burr have previously met with White House officials and been told to contact friendly Breitbart type reporters to knock down Russia ties in late February. Nunes has now cut the ranking member out of the loop .

Which would help to explain why the Twittersphere is exploding with claims that meeting with Trump is legally a super bad idea. For reference, this makes Tarmac-gate look like...nothing at all.

 

[JoeTrumps]

Nunes: "President Trump's general use of wiretapping as surveillance was correct."

 

[Linc]

it's like a page right out of the Trump Book.

More like a page out of the Nixon book, when I was in college.

trump just said he felt like he said he was "somewhat" vindicated by Nunes, who has now shut the ranking member out of the loop.

That's the huge difference with Watergate, that DEMs were in charge then .

 

[Fenton]

Lots of links to Mainstream Media being posted here. I've only read a couple of them, but they only provide bits and pieces. Here's what he said:



And, more significant...at least from the Democrat's viewpoint, maybe...



Get ready for some delay, obstruction and obfuscation from a LOT of people...though, not necessarily from the Trump administration. If I were Obama, I'd be worried.

The Libo's in this very thread are in desperate damage control.

Its hilarious ! Now Nunez is part of the colluion cover up...Lol !

 

[Mithros]

What universe are you living in? His name isn't out there because it was vital to the investigation. His name is out there because someone illegally released it in a leak.

Do you understand the difference between 'unmask' and 'leak'?

 

[Linc]

Nunes: "President Trump's general use of wiretapping as surveillance was correct."

Nunes is a political hack who was on the trump transition team and is now part of the trump coverup

 

[Fenton]

More like a page out of the Nixon book, when I was in college.

trump just said he felt like he said he was "somewhat" vindicated by Nunes, who has now shut the ranking member out of the loop.

That's the huge difference with Watergate, that DEMs were in charge then .

Trump was correct, Nunez said so. Are you going to apologize for calling him a liar ?
Or go further off the conspiracy deep end ?

 

[Fenton]

Nunes is a political hack who was on the trump transition team and is now part of the trump coverup

Lol !!!

 

[bubbabgone]

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.

Right.
And before he left, Obama made it easier for all Intel agencies (what, 18 or something?) to share information with each other.
So if they shared these little beauties it will make it harder to find out who exposed the names.

Nunes described the surveillance as most likely being “incidental collection.” This can occur when a person inside the United States communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance. In such cases, the identities of U.S. citizens are supposed to be kept secret — but can be “unmasked” by intelligence officials under certain circumstances.
Nunes said his new information appears to show that additional members of the Trump transition team — beyond former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — were unmasked. This means they were identified in U.S. intelligence reports.
He said the information that he had seen and was disseminated across the intelligence community appeared to him to have "little or no apparent intelligence value."

This is getting interesting.

 

[apdst]

I'm confused. If the surveillance was legal why is he telling us?

Because the use and dissemination of the information could be a felony. If it was illegally disseminated for political reasons it's a felony an it'll break the political keel of one of the political parties.

 

[Linc]

Which would help to explain why the Twittersphere is exploding with claims that meeting with Trump is legally a super bad idea. For reference, this makes Tarmac-gate look like...nothing at all.

Nunes has now put his career in jeopardy at the very least.

Ranking member Schiff will tear Nunes a new ass IF he is ever briefed.

We are quickly heading towards a constitutional crisis.

It's all about the messaging war now, with trump continuing his 'BIG LIE' saying he is vindicated.

 

[sangha]

It's completely fine booting him out and locking him up (if he broke the law).
I do heavily question the motive and the entire surveillance program.

How many of these incidents do we tolerate, before it's to much.

Tolerate?

It is a serious crime. We lock people up who are caught leaking classified info.

That is not toleration.

 

[sangha]

You made it sound like the norm,

I did not. I said the same thing regulations you quoted said

 

[Cardinal]

Nunes has now put his career in jeopardy at the very least.

Ranking member Schiff will tear Nunes a new ass IF he is ever briefed.

We are quickly heading towards a constitutional crisis.

It's all about the messaging war now, with trump continuing his 'BIG LIE' saying he is vindicated.

I feel like the entire plot of Fargo is being played out here.

 

[jmotivator]

You are very certain and certainly wrong. Read post #34 (above yours) and read the regs which say there are situations where the people can be named.

Those regs don't say what you think they say. As Nunes pointed out, the documents in question were of incidental communications and not connected to foreign intelligence gathering so those regulations wouldn't apply.

The warrant was legal.

Correct, but a warrant has limitations on what types of information can be collected, and from who the data can be collected. A warrant is not a blanket denial of a right to privacy of all people who interact with the subject of the warrant. In this case the communications were "incidental" which means not subject to the confines of warrant and not otherwise illegal so they are off limits and should not have been gathered or disseminated and the names of the innocent parties would need to be redacted if there was reason to otherwise keep and distribute the the data.

 

[sangha]

Do you understand the difference between 'unmask' and 'leak'?

obviously not

 

[Ikari]

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.

Not many have given a poo about the massive, metadata grab and constant surveillance the US has put us all under. I've been bitching about it since before Real ID. But it only seemed to have been a problem when the Messiah was caught up in the constant surveillance.

Regardless, apparently this was "legal" and blah. They should probably find out how this information became widely available, but also now that it is, follow it up and see how far down the rabbit hole this really goes.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I did not. I said the same thing regulations you quoted said

Nope.


you didn't.




Jmotivator was correct. unless it is shown that the procedure was followed and approval was given to not minimize, minimization, was required.

 

[jmotivator]

Right.
And before he left, Obama made it easier for all Intel agencies (what, 18 or something?) to share information with each other.
So if they shared these little beauties it will make it harder to find out who exposed the names.

This is getting interesting.

Exactly. The policy changes don't just have Obama's finger prints on them, they have his signature. And suddenly people use these policies to start spreading communications not connected to the investigation of Russia to people not involved in investigating Russia or Trump.

 

[sangha]

Those regs don't say what you think they say. As Nunes pointed out, the documents in question were of incidental communications and not connected to foreign intelligence gathering so those regulations wouldn't apply.

Wrong. The regs do not say that people involved in incidental communications can not be unmasked and it came from a wiretap of the Russian ambassador, so of course it was connected to foreign intelligence gathering.

Correct, but a warrant has limitations on what types of information can be collected, and from who the data can be collected. A warrant is not a blanket denial of a right to privacy of all people who interact with the subject of the warrant. In this case the communications were "incidental" which means not subject to the confines of warrant and not otherwise illegal so they are off limits and should not have been gathered or disseminated and the names of the innocent parties would need to be redacted if there was reason to otherwise keep and distribute the the data.

The warrant and the unmasking of Flynns name were legal. There is no law or reg which protects Flynn and the right to privacy does not apply because the recording was not supposed to be made public. Incidental communications can be unmasked. Your claim that they can not has no support in the regs you quoted

You are talking out of your ass.

 

[sangha]

Nope.


you didn't.




Jmotivator was correct. unless it is shown that the procedure was followed and approval was given to not minimize, minimization, was required.

Wrong. Until it is shown that the procedure was not followed, there is no basis for your BS