Nunes' Disclosures May Signal a Watergate-Level Scandal

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes should not have gone first to tell President Trump what he’d learned about the possible surveillance of the Trump campaign by the intelligence community during the Obama administration. As a matter of comity, at the least, he should have brought that information to his Democratic counterpart on the committee, Adam Schiff.

But that error should not be used by the media as a reason to ignore the significance of Nunes’ information. 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.
The report by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, although based on anonymous sources, adds significant credibility to the idea that the intelligence community during the previous administration acted unlawfully. Whether White House officials actually encouraged this is a Watergate-level issue that should be the first priority of any congressional investigations.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._signal_a_watergate-level_scandal_133515.html

I remember when Trump first made the allegations it was preposterous and impossible to believe.
Then it was "oh maybe something happened but it's not important!
now it's "ok so what he was wiretapped and spied on but obama didn't physically do it himself"
lol.
and now?

the Deep State Spied
Democrats lied
JPP sighed
Grind abides
 
Hot girls in my avatar said:
As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes should not have gone first to tell President Trump what he’d learned about the possible surveillance of the Trump campaign by the intelligence community during the Obama administration. As a matter of comity, at the least, he should have brought that information to his Democratic counterpart on the committee, Adam Schiff.

But that error should not be used by the media as a reason to ignore the significance of Nunes’ information. 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.
The report by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, although based on anonymous sources, adds significant credibility to the idea that the intelligence community during the previous administration acted unlawfully. Whether White House officials actually encouraged this is a Watergate-level issue that should be the first priority of any congressional investigations.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._signal_a_watergate-level_scandal_133515.html

I remember when Trump first made the allegations it was preposterous and impossible to believe.
Then it was "oh maybe something happened but it's not important!
now it's "ok so what he was wiretapped and spied on but obama didn't physically do it himself"
lol.
and now?

the Deep State Spied
Democrats lied
JPP sighed
Grind abides
Click to expand...

The liberals are acting like since they didn't "jimmy" a lock or dig through file cabinets, that there's no wrong doing here.

Trump may just have to pardon Obama and if that happens, everyone can anticipate the liberals screaming crying louder then they are now.

:evilnod:
 
significant credibility to the idea that the intelligence community during the previous administration acted unlawfully.
Click to expand...
it's becoming clear the IC became more of a Deep State and became weaponized under Obama.

I'm not sure about the surveillance -it could just more of Obama's policy of getting Trump INTEL into more hands
to leak and cripple Trump/
Rice ginned up the reports, like others ginned up the raw intel into reports,,,,something like this.
 
I'm laughing even harder. This guy was WH counsel during Iran-Contra.

Grind, this is a low for you. Another good one to bump soon, though.
 
am i going to have to start threadbannning you thing1? Please contribute intelligently to the conversation. I don't want to keep hearing your head in the sand speak
 
Hoekstra pointed out that the transcripts or other details of the intercepted conversations were what is called “raw” intelligence, which is almost never distributed to policymakers, who only see a resulting intelligence product. He described how difficult it was for him—even as chair of the House Intelligence Committee—to have access to the kind of raw information that in this case was widely distributed within the intelligence community and, as we now know, leaked to the media.

Even so, the intelligence in this case was more “raw” than most, since it apparently included the actual names of the American parties who were engaged in these surveilled conversations. Normally, when an American is a party, his or her name is “masked”—deleted—from the surveillance reports. This apparently was not done with the Trump campaign officials. .......

motive.
For example, we don’t know why these particular conversations were monitored. It is possible to select foreign targets because the agencies involved, or those who directed them, knew that certain Americans are communicating with these specific foreign persons. This would be what is called “reverse targeting.”

If this happened, the choice of a target was made not for foreign intelligence reasons but to find out what the American party was saying in the communication. The fact that transcripts of these conversations were made, that the Americans participating in the conversations were eventually “unmasked,” and that these transcripts were distributed throughout the intelligence community and leaked to the media, is significant evidence that the motive was not to learn about the intentions of our foreign adversaries but to surveille the Americans involved and release the resulting information through leaks........

adly, although a serious investigation is warranted here, it is not yet clear that the FBI or the Justice Department can do it, since members of the FBI themselves could have been involved in the unmasking, and perhaps more....
 
Hot girls in my avatar said:
am i going to have to start threadbannning you thing1? Please contribute intelligently to the conversation. I don't want to keep hearing your head in the sand speak
Click to expand...

Please do, you stupid Trump hack. You're as pathetic as any of them now.

You keep repeating that "Obama didn't do it himself" thing as though it's real. Trump called him a sick (bad) guy. That means Trump was accusing him of being directly involved - ordering it, having his people do it with his knowledge, whatever. Stop w/ the BS distraction.

Ban away. You are an infant, and completely in the tank for Trump & the right.
 
Thing1 said:
Please do, you stupid Trump hack. You're as pathetic as any of them now.

You keep repeating that "Obama didn't do it himself" thing as though it's real. Trump called him a sick (bad) guy. That means Trump was accusing him of being directly involved - ordering it, having his people do it with his knowledge, whatever. Stop w/ the BS distraction.

Ban away. You are an infant, and completely in the tank for Trump & the right.
Click to expand...

All of the stuff in the Middle paragraph is still undecided but distinctly possible.

Why do you assume Obama had nothing to do with it?
 
because he's projecting. I am quoting realclearpolitics (hardly a conservative site), along with WSJ among other sources. This is mainstream news at this point.
 
05439349870e580f0e0138fdd83ac9308e3502-v5-wm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top