re: Nunez comments vs supposed smoking gun

If Obama knew about the surveillance and didn't order it to stop, he approved of it.

quote:

---

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?

---

I believe what he is saying is the type of intel that "incidentally" was captured of the Trump team specifically, didnt seem to have any evidentiary value and raises questions as to why those portions would have been included in a report in the first place. When you take into account that some of these reports were widely deciminated before 12333 was inacted and the names of US citizens were unmasked illegally, in totality it appears someone ordered the surveillance of the POTUS elect under the legal cover of foreign intelligence gathering in order to weaponize that intel and overthrow the new democratically elected government.

quote:

---

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. 

---

I think this is a real possibility but it would never - NEVER - get tied definitively back to Obama. Anyone expecting this needs to adjust their expectations.

It would exceed all my expectations if they were simply able to establish that someone went digging where they wdrdnt supposed to be.

quote:

---

I can accept that as a win

---

You accept *everything* as a win. You have no credibility. Even among other Trumpkins. That is the sad part.

Josh...nothing will fill that whole for you man. Nothing. You have to find something off of here.

quote:

---

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.

---

You don't need FISA to monitor foreign people. I think foreign surveillance is done under section 702 (someone correct me if I'm wrong). FISA is for American persons who have 4th amendment rights. That's why there's a secret court.

Snowden's documents showed that NSA has access to all phone calls in Russia. The documents said "100% of Russian calls" are being monitored. So, we know that our foreign intel capabilities are vast and do not seem to be restricted very much by any law.

So, if you understand how much data NSA collects from foreign sources, then you can see how easy it would be to target an American "incidentally." While it's technically "legal" it is pretty underhanded. For instance, if we are monitoring 100% of calls from France, then any American who calls ANYONE in France would have their shite monitored by default. All NSA has to do is track these calls to France and listen in on an American target. They would not be allowed to listen in on this American's calls within America, but once they go international it is fair game.

I think that's what happened here. NSA targeted Trump people (without warrants) and just waited until their calls went international.

quote:

---

You left it open enough to declare victory on basically any conclusion...including if Trump was incidentally collected because he associated with folks under a lawful and bonafide investigation.

---

If I eavesdrop on a circle of people with whom you or your associates are likely to converse, and I focus my attention as much or more on your end of the conversation than on that of the supposed target, I am surveilling you. You are being 'wiretapped' as surely as if you yourself were the target of surveillance.

Without masking, and coupled with wide material dissemination, any claim that Trump was not "targeted" is a distinction without a difference.

What he is saying is that the NSA had authority to listen to conversations by some foreigner based on a warrant issued for some reason...presumably upon suspicion of nefarious behavior. With a court warrant, they can legally listen to hours and hours of conversations...with the guys wife, kids, friends, colleagues....much of which is irrelevant to the investigation or any criminal wrongdoing. For example, if they surveil a russian ambassador, who per his job talks to officials from all over the globe, then those conversations are recorded. If he talks to a U.S. official as part of his job, it is recorded. Even if they talk about tje weather. Per law, if a U.S. person is "incidentally collected", and isnt doing anything wrong, or the i.d. doesnt assist the investigation, then the identity of the U.S. citizen has to be "masked". The law is extremely protective ofpeople's rights to privacy. Only a few people in the intel community can authorize unmasking...and only for very narrow reasons. Here, Trump officials were unmasked, apparently for no good reason...which indicates the unmasking was for political reasons. It is a felony to do this. So, unless they can show that the unmasking fit into one of the narrow exceptions to the rule, somebody should go to jail. Trey Gowdy went through this explicitly in questioning Comey. Go youtube it. Also, being incidentally collected by no means indicates that the guy collected was doing anything wrong. Just means had a conversation with a dude who was being watched. The surveillance is "lawful", the unmasking is not. There. Best I can explain it. TLDR.

quote:

---

You will eat crow tomorrow.

---

We'll see.

Both sides claim to have a smoking gun revealing some enormous wrongdoing by the other about once every six weeks and it never materializes.

The thing is this - politicians and the media are liars.

Sheeet - I popped my last "V" pill for the circle jerk this morning - love to fap watching trumpinks chew on crow.