- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Nunez comments vs supposed smoking gun
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:13 pm
What is confusing me is Nunez continuing to stste that all of the surveillance appears to be legal but not necessarily fair. Seems to me that it could only be fair if the intial surveillance of foreign individuals had actual merit warranting FISA authorization which would indicate potential criminal activity. Anything less than that would mean the surveillance authorized was manufactured, thus illegal. Am I missing something? Is there any other angle to this that would indemnify those who surveilled, ordered the surveillance, or unmasked the U.S. Individuals identities?
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 10:16 pm
9
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:14 pm to TiggerB8t
quote:
or unmasked the U.S. Individuals identities?
Nope.
They fricked.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:How many times will child-like Trumpkins be fooled?
They fricked
HRC is in jail right?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:18 pm to TiggerB8t
Nunes has said he's receiving more info tomorrow, Fox is reporting that info contains a smoking gun
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:21 pm to TiggerB8t
Legal in the way it was acquired or approved, but we all know what a sympathetic judge is capable of.
Unmasking is a separate issue.
Unmasking is a separate issue.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:21 pm to Tigerdev
You will eat crow tomorrow.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:21 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Fox is reporting that info contains a smoking gun
Key piece of info I was missing.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:22 pm to TiggerB8t
It sounds to me like there was surveillance on foreign officials and Trump's people were involved in some of those intercepted calls. However, they were masked accordingly.
But then Obama people secured FISA warrants for no valid reasons, but this still made it legal to unmask them.
Not being fair because no real valid rationale to unmask.
But legal because they did properly secure FISA to unmask them.
This is just the logical deduction on my part.
But then Obama people secured FISA warrants for no valid reasons, but this still made it legal to unmask them.
Not being fair because no real valid rationale to unmask.
But legal because they did properly secure FISA to unmask them.
This is just the logical deduction on my part.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:24 pm to CptBengal
Let's set aside the unmasking part of this which we all understand is unlawful (although I thought I heard Schiff comment today that there are certain allowances for unmasking that are not illegal, which further confuses me).
The bigger,broader fraud would be to confirm that there was a politically motivated effort to confuse and coerce intelligence authorities to allow supposed legal surveillance of foreigners to actually get at Trump and or his associates.
To that point, is Nunes being careful or coy by not outright accusing Obama of trying to set a trap to embarrass Trump?
The bigger,broader fraud would be to confirm that there was a politically motivated effort to confuse and coerce intelligence authorities to allow supposed legal surveillance of foreigners to actually get at Trump and or his associates.
To that point, is Nunes being careful or coy by not outright accusing Obama of trying to set a trap to embarrass Trump?
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:24 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You will eat crow tomorrow.
yeah, i'm just gonna go on ahead and bookmark this thread now, before i forget...
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:33 pm to BBONDS25
Ill man up if i need to. Will you? We both know you wont
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:33 pm to Tigerdev
You might want to prepare your man up thread, my friend.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:34 pm to joshnorris14
State the terms clearly. No usual trumpkin post moving
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:39 pm to Tigerdev
Barack Obama and/or his administration was aware of, and, at the very least, didn't object to the wide data gathering of Trump, Trump's transition team, and/or Trump's family. Data including, but not limited to, information on the upcoming Trump Administration, potential Trump Administration officials, and/or the plans of Trump's family within the time frame set forth by the Congressional Intelligence Committees
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:42 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Fox is reporting that info contains a smoking gun
British spying on Trump?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:45 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Not being fair because no real valid rationale to unmask.
But legal because they did properly secure FISA to unmask them.
And it's perfectly legal for me to obtain a conceal carry permit and carry my gun around, that is up until the point I use it in an illegal manner - then my permit means jack shite.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:53 pm to joshnorris14
quote:Already sounds like a YUGE goal post move from Trump's original tweet but I'll play.
Barack Obama and/or his administration was aware of
quote:Need to specify...Trump's team is already confirmed to be under a federal investigation for potential collusion with foreign government. The line in the sand has to be "incidental collection" vs. "Obama authorized surveillance on Trump or his team".
gathering of Trump, Trump's transition team, and/or Trump's family.
Unless we aren't going by Trump's tweets anymore
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:03 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
Need to specify...Trump's team is already confirmed to be under a federal investigation for potential collusion with foreign government. The line in the sand has to be "incidental collection" vs. "Obama authorized surveillance on Trump or his team".
Unless we aren't going by Trump's tweets anymore
Not if Obama's administration used the loophole of surveilling foreign officials purely with the intent to really capture Trump's communications, hoping to find dirt in them.
That's a real possibility here.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:03 pm to Tigerdev
I already clarified exactly what information I was looking for.
Also the only member of Trump's transition team that has been even rumored to be under investigation is Michael Flynn. Carter Page was not involved with the transition, Roger Stone was fired in July of 2015, and Paul Manafort was fired in August of 2016. This surveillance occurred from November to January according to Nunes
Also the only member of Trump's transition team that has been even rumored to be under investigation is Michael Flynn. Carter Page was not involved with the transition, Roger Stone was fired in July of 2015, and Paul Manafort was fired in August of 2016. This surveillance occurred from November to January according to Nunes
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:03 pm to BeefDawg
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News