Confirmed: The Obama White House Received Intel Reports On Trump

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rickymouse

Exactly. The problem isn't the incidental collection, it's the unmasking and dissemination. We're all incidentally collected on at some point. Now it will move on to how legitimate the investigation was and what sparked it.

All my life I observed people and analyzed them. But I did not cut them down or blab to other people about their mishaps. Collecting information about someone to make sure they are not going to be a problem is one thing, but spreading it all over to make all of the government distrust someone when there really was really no evidence to prove any wrong doing, that is a crime.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Ahhh, but this wasn't communications with foreign individuals.

The entire reason members of Trump's team were caught in their surveillance was because they were in communication with foreign individuals the IC were keeping an eye on.

Correct?

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's only bad if you get caught. And the higher-uppers are as slippery as banana peel... add stuff like this and they are not much less slippery. But you know... sometimes...

a reply to: Dfairlite

Nothing was confirmed.

Before getting too excited about oversharing intelligence, however, let's remember that Nunes is the only member of his committee to actually read these documents. It's possible that other people could have a different interpretation of what they mean or their pertinence to foreign intelligence collection, the legal standard that must be met to unmask the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected by the intelligence community.

The good news is that we will soon get a second and third opinion. Nunes told me that he expects that his committee's members, including Democrats, will be able to read these documents themselves at secure locations outside of Congress as soon as this week.

Who gave him this evidence? How did this person get the evidence? What is the evidence? Has the evidence itself been verified? Who verified the evidence? How was the evidence verified?

All we've got are weasel words and anonymous sources. That's not confirmation of anything.... yet.

If the information that Obama learned Spying on Candidate/Presdent-Elect/President TRUMP is part of the international release described by the New York Times... Obama, Clapper, Lynch, and others, should be punished. What's suitable punishment that's doable?

Obama Opens The Intel Floodgates: www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

I very much think he will and is continuing to do so.

Being honest and transparent is hard, and Trump is good at neither of those things.

Governing that way is much harder.

"I never said repeal and replace", yeah okay Donald, back to the golf course with you.

~Tenth

a reply to: Dfairlite

When Warren runs for president in 2020, it will be okay for Trump to "wiretap" her communications because she has (in the past) met with representatives of foreign governments.

a reply to: introvert

Absolutely. Many laws and procedures, actually.

First, all intelligence collected is need to know. What need does the president have, to know the movements, non-foreign related, of the trump transition team?

Second, unmasking a person who was incidentally collected is only to be done when it is vital to the intelligence. What trump or trump team members say to other American's is highly unlikely to be material in foreign investigations.

Third, Nunes has stated it was movement related, meaning what they were doing and where they were doing it and also not related to the anything Russian. If this is true (and we have no reason to doubt it, yet) then this data should have been deleted. Not disseminated.

There's more but I'll stop there.

a reply to: Boadicea

All we've got are weasel words and anonymous sources.

Nope, the source is Nunes who directly viewed the evidence.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

Well, here we have it, Obama was getting info on the political oppsoition by using our intelligence agencies against them.

That's not what your source states. Getting updates on current investigations as a sitting president is not the same as using the intelligence agencies against political opponents.

One is normal and expected. The other would be illegal.

The House Intelligence Committee was supposed to be briefed on these matters too.... but it was only quite recently that they were briefed.

Ok.

What your point? Was their a law broken?

Unmasking and disseminating classified information that was important enough that the POTUS was briefed, but the Congress was left out.
Obama wrote an executive order to allow for the information to spread like it never had before.

Yeah, nothing to see here folks... move along.

a reply to: eirgud

No big wig will have time in jail for this. That's not how the system works. Some lowly intel officer will see a jail cell though, unless he was smart enough to CYA.

a reply to: butcherguy

Don't forget, that EO came AFTER the dissemination of this information.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Ahhh, but this wasn't communications with foreign individuals.

The entire reason members of Trump's team were caught in their surveillance was because they were in communication with foreign individuals the IC were keeping an eye on.

Correct?

Is it correct?
We have yet to see the FISA warrant.
If I remember correctly, the government agencies were on record as saying that there was no FISA Court warrant.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Dfairlite

If Trump's communications were intercepted as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the election, then there's nothing illegal about that.

If people at Trump tower were talking to Russians during the campaign or during the transition, then intelligence agencies who were investigating these reports had every right to listen to and record those foreigners. If they were talking to Americans while this was happening then that data collection is incidental.

And completely legal.

The dissemination however, I'm not sure of the laws regarding that.

~Tenth

Apparently there is no evidence of the Trump/Russia thing, so how did they get the judges to sign the warrants and all that without evidence in the first place?

a reply to: Dfairlite

"Movement related" intelligence? That's BIG! Obama was using all the CIA tools (exposed recently by Wiki-leaks) to VIEW and MONITOR MOVEMENTS of Trump, his family, and transition team? Holy crap.

The Wiki CIA release was not coincidental then..

More dots in the puzzle are being connected.

No wonder Loretta Lynch made that desperate video calling for a Civil War. (Keeps her out of jail, maybe)

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Apparently there is no evidence of the Trump/Russia thing, so how did they get the judges to sign the warrants and all that without evidence in the first place?

How is it apparent?

We already know that Flynn was talking to a so called Russian Spy. Manaford and Stone have some very questionable ties to Russia oligarchs and organisations that are pro Russia in the Ukraine.

I most certainly see enough 'evidence' to pursue an actual investigation. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Until Congress releases a report with said evidence or otherwise, everything is speculation, but there's more evidence for this being a thing to look at, then not.

~Tenth

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Dfairlite

If Trump's communications were intercepted as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the election, then there's nothing illegal about that.

If people at Trump tower were talking to Russians during the campaign or during the transition, then intelligence agencies who were investigating these reports had every right to listen to and record those foreigners. If they were talking to Americans while this was happening then that data collection is incidental.

And completely legal.

The dissemination however, I'm not sure of the laws regarding that.

~Tenth

Apparently there is no evidence of the Trump/Russia thing, so how did they get the judges to sign the warrants and all that without evidence in the first place?

"So-Called Judges" ... traitorous fakes

a reply to: butcherguy

That FISA warrant was supposed to be out by now... hopefully it leaks soon.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Ahhh, but this wasn't communications with foreign individuals.

The entire reason members of Trump's team were caught in their surveillance was because they were in communication with foreign individuals the IC were keeping an eye on.

Correct?

Each day it seems more and more like Obama and Hillary made the whole Russian scandal up. Months of investigations and nothing found. So did they make it up just so they could pull this off in the eyes of those who believed it?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

How is it apparent?

I must be behind on the whole investigation because I thought a few big wigs came out and said they found no wrong doing between Trump and Russia.