- 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
re: Nunez comments vs supposed smoking gun
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:01 am to TiggerB8t
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:01 am to TiggerB8t
quote:
Anything less than that would mean the surveillance authorized was manufactured, thus illegal.
I think the problem here is Nunes cannot talk about why or how the spying was done due to its classified nature. As a result, the press seems very confused how this could be "incidental" yet also targeted at Trump at the same time. The press would say "if there was no FISA warrant of someone involved, then how was the collection even done legally?"
The truth is you don't need a warrant. I would assume the collection was done under FISA section 702. Under 702, NSA can spy on all foreign communications and collect them in bulk. They routinely collect the entire contents of a foreign nation's communications. This is why they had to build that datacenter in Utah.
Now if they can do that, then it doesn't take a genius to understand they can target Americans who make foreign phone calls. This is called the "backdoor loophole" and has been bitched about for years by groups like ACLU. All you need to do is figure out who the American is calling overseas and listen in. Remember NSA can collect your metadata legally with no warrant (metadata is things like the numbers you are calling). Then they target any and all numbers you are calling internationally and listen in. Then they say "Hey, bro this was incidental, we weren't really targeting the American, wink wink."
Nunes knows this goes on, but I don't think he wants to admit it, even though it's widely known if you've been paying attention to Snowden and other leaks.
Bottom line: Yes incidental collection is legal. No, they don't need a warrant for you or your (foreign) contacts. If it's international, it's fair game.
1
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:05 am to AUstar
quote:
The press would say "if there was no FISA warrant of someone involved, then how was the collection even done legally?"
"the press"??? how about basically the entirety of this board, and every other Trump supporter with vocal chords...
quote:
Bottom line: Yes incidental collection is legal. No, they don't need a warrant for you or your (foreign) contacts. If it's international, it's fair game.
you guys are FINALLY admitting to knowing what we've been saying since the start of this shite!! congrats on FINALLY coming to the conclusion that most of us have been at for a while now!!!
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:14 am to chRxis
quote:
you guys are FINALLY admitting to knowing what we've been saying since the start of this shite!! congrats on FINALLY coming to the conclusion that most of us have been at for a while now!!!
I've known about it for years. I am only trying to explain it to people who keep saying "They need a warrant." No, they don't.
That was the entire purpose of adding section 702 to FISA. It was too cumbersome for NSA to request warrants for all foreign targets or to have the FISA court oversee every single foreign intel operation. So, what happened is they went to the court and said "Hey bros, can we please monitor ALL comms in Saudi Arabia for a period of one year?" Judge says "Yes, I hereby grant you this authority, come back in one year and we'll review it again."
If you watched the hearing, they kept talking about 702. People like Trey Gowdy kept saying "Admiral, this is really going to hurt 702 when it comes up for reauthorization." What did Gowdy mean? He was basically telling Rogers "Hey if ya'll mofos can't promise not to abuse 702 like I know you've done, then we're going to pull it. How you like that bitch?"
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:19 am to AUstar
quote:
I've known about it for years. I am only trying to explain it to people who keep saying "They need a warrant." No, they don't.
with as many on here that where screaming about needing a warrant, or trying to use that as some sort of proof that the prior administration was in violation, if you weren't one of the many saying that, then i sincerely apologize for lumping you in and coming on strong with my previous post...
but you have to admit... there were many posters here, from your side, that were saying EXACTLY that... they kept at it, kept at it... they were just determined to try to cross a bridge that wasn't there, insisting it was true...
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:40 am to chRxis
quote:
there were many posters here, from your side, that were saying EXACTLY that..
I'm not sure which side you think I'm on. I am on the side that is saying "Yes, Obama spied on Trump and he did it legally with section 702." However, I doubt Obama was heavily involved with the "ordering" of anything because doing that isn't necessary anyway.
The reason I brought it up is because I saw Nunes struggling with the press. They just don't get it and I could tell he was frustrated because he didn't want to get into the details of why something is legal or illegal.
For example, one guy said (I'm paraphrasing): "So, Nunes, if this was legal, as you say, then that means Trump's peeps were communicating with shady characters already under surveillance, right?"
Nunes did not want to say "You do realize we spy on everyone, right?" because it might be illegal for him to even admit that (I don't know for sure). So Nunes just said shite like: "I am saying it was legal and incidental and we'll leave it at that."
The press still didn't understand and they keep insinuating that if it was legal AND incidental, then the Trump people must have been communicating with foreign agents, spies, or terrorists that were under a specific targeted FISA surveillance. In other words, the press is trying to spin it as "Well, if Obama was monitoring these foreign actors, they had a good reason. Therefore, Trump is shady as hell by even talking to these people in the first place."
I am only saying that this is a false interpretation bore out of either ignorance or malice. There are entire countries under FISA surveillance (under section 702), so it is perfectly legal for the NSA to "incidentally" listen to you or me calling a friend in France or the UK. The foreigners don't have to be suspected of anything.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 4:41 am to AUstar
quote:
I'm not sure which side you think I'm on.
IIRC, you are republican.... and your theory....
quote:
My theory:
Obama (via Lynch) got a FISA order to spy on Flynn. Keep in mind that Obama HATED Flynn with a passion because Flynn was his DIA director and they had their fall-outs over foreign policy. Since the Russian hacking thing was such a big deal, it probably would not be hard to convince a judge to let them have a warrant on anyone who might be "talking to Russians."
So, anytime Flynn talked to anyone on Trump's team, they also were being monitored -- including Trump himself. Essentially a tap on Flynn meant an automatic tap on Trump's team. This is why we see "incidental" used.
Now, Nunes said that NONE of the conversations he saw (and he read transcripts) had anything to do whatsoever with Russia. So we know these conversations had nothing to do and were NOT RELEVANT to any ongoing "Russian hacking" investigation that Comey had underway. Nunes said "The conversations had zero intelligence value yet were listened to and stored anyway." Not only were they stored, but the names were also unmasked.
So what we have is Obama being sneaky and using a legit FISA to spy on Trump second hand. This might explain the report that one FISA request was turned down -- perhaps they named Trump and the judge refused. They narrowed it to Flynn and it got approved. FISA has such a low bar to get approved anyway that this shouldn't be hard.
TL;DR -- Trump was being spied on by Obama
seems a little bit different than the tone you now claim to have about the whole situation....
This post was edited on 3/25/17 at 4:49 am
Posted on 3/25/17 at 5:07 am to chRxis
quote:
IIRC, you are republican....
Independent MAGA here.
I am only saying that this whole "illegal vs. legal" means absolutely nothing here. NSA can already spy on just about fricking anybody LEGALLY, at least if one end of the call is foreign.
Nunes is not concerned with it being "illegal" in a technical lawful sense, because he knows we spy on everyone. This is why he keeps harping on the "unmasking" and "dissemination." This is why he says "it disturbs him" that this info is being passed around the IC when it clearly has no "intelligence value." In other words, the NSA was listening in on Ivanka's sexting with her hubby and passing it around for lulz. This is what he is implying when he says "no intelligence value." Remember Nunes was on Trump's transition team and it's possible he was spied on here as well. It could be why he looks so pissed off.
The NSA is supposed to be the gatekeepers of our data. Even if they get it legally, they are not supposed to unmask or disseminate it unless they have a very good reason to think it constitutes a serious crime or a threat to national security (Mike Rogers went over this in the hearing). According to Nunes, it looks like they were actually unmasking Trump people and passing around their idle gossip in official IC reports. Not cool.
quote:
seems a little bit different than the tone you now claim to have about the whole situation....
Yeah, I don't know if Flynn had a warrant that covered him or not. If he did, that is one way they could listen to Trump's people and do it domestically. But now that I've listened to Nunes some more, it seems like these calls were all foreign, so they wouldn't need a FISA warrant for any specific individual.
This post was edited on 3/25/17 at 5:11 am
Posted on 3/25/17 at 5:14 am to AUstar
so read your theory again.... nothing about 702, talking about FISA warrants, etc... does it not look a lot different than how you are just so casually saying "it's okay" now?
i'll give you credit, when reading back over your posts, you do say that the NSA can surveil foreign people whenever they want, however, you do seem to then double down on the FISA warrants throughout your posting history, up to about a few days ago... why is that?
i'll give you credit, when reading back over your posts, you do say that the NSA can surveil foreign people whenever they want, however, you do seem to then double down on the FISA warrants throughout your posting history, up to about a few days ago... why is that?
Posted on 3/25/17 at 5:21 am to chRxis
quote:
i'll give you credit, when reading back over your posts, you do say that the NSA can surveil foreign people whenever they want, however, you do seem to then double down on the FISA warrants throughout your posting history, up to about a few days ago... why is that?
Because it doesn't look like there was a FISA warrant now. I mean I know Heat Street reported one, but I've seen no evidence of it. This all could have been collected under 702 without specific warrants, assuming the calls were international.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 6:19 am to AUstar
quote:
Because it doesn't look like there was a FISA warrant now
so what, back then, made you so sure there was one then, for you to claim there had to be one? why make such polarizing claims, when you didn't have any evidence or way to back that up?
Posted on 3/25/17 at 6:45 am to chRxis
These arrogant assholes were freely passing around all sorts of shite they were not supposed to.
Now the only question is how to cover it up.
Now the only question is how to cover it up.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 7:02 am to gthog61
quote:
These arrogant assholes
who?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News