Confirmed: The Obama White House Received Intel Reports On Trump

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Dfairlite

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

All that confirms is that Nunes claims the Obama White House received intel reports on Trump... We have no names, no dates, no documents, no computer printouts, no nothing.

Talk is cheap.... not evidence... especially from someone I have no reason to trust in the first place. I believe they do have the evidence, but I don't trust Nunes or anyone else with that evidence unless and until it's made public -- ALL OF IT.

But up until now, we have had rumors of IC people that had proof.
Now we have a House Committee Chairman that says he has it in his hands.
Do you really think he would come out with that info if he didn't have it?

a reply to: Boadicea

Ok, but let's pretend for a moment that I am Nunes.

Obviously I can't show you the documents, but I have seen the evidence and can tell you the white house received these Intel reports.

Now, is that not confirmation?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Further you're the third person banging the "evidence" drum, seems pretty coincidental for three people to have such unreasonable demands.

It's "coincidental" and "unreasonable" that three people actually want real evidence and not just the weasel words of a politician??? That even you concede may very well be a lying liar??? Which, of course, by definition means that absolutely nothing he says confirms anything.

Wow. Okay. Gotcha.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Nunes is a politician. Since when do we trust a politician for his word?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Dfairlite

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

All that confirms is that Nunes claims the Obama White House received intel reports on Trump... We have no names, no dates, no documents, no computer printouts, no nothing.

Talk is cheap.... not evidence... especially from someone I have no reason to trust in the first place. I believe they do have the evidence, but I don't trust Nunes or anyone else with that evidence unless and until it's made public -- ALL OF IT.

But up until now, we have had rumors of IC people that had proof.
Now we have a House Committee Chairman that says he has it in his hands.
Do you really think he would come out with that info if he didn't have it?

The difference being that no one was jumping to any conclusions based on what the IC said. We ARE however saying that the information the IC provided makes a reasonable case for further investigation to see what CAN be concluded.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Dfairlite

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

All that confirms is that Nunes claims the Obama White House received intel reports on Trump... We have no names, no dates, no documents, no computer printouts, no nothing.

Talk is cheap.... not evidence... especially from someone I have no reason to trust in the first place. I believe they do have the evidence, but I don't trust Nunes or anyone else with that evidence unless and until it's made public -- ALL OF IT.

The real question everyone should be asking is why does nunes have to play this so close to the chest "poker term aka hiding your cards" is it because maybe someone within that committee might leak info back to the intelligence community in an effort to hide evidence? This would make sense considering its liberals pushing for the collusion case and even some Republicans!

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Good question. We should investigate Nunes for acting shady, but at the very least we should be kicking him out of the investigation and getting an independent investigator.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Boadicea

Ok, but let's pretend for a moment that I am Nunes.

Obviously I can't show you the documents, but I have seen the evidence and can tell you the white house received these Intel reports.

Now, is that not confirmation?

Okay. Fair enough. That's a possibility. How about this one:

I'm Nunes. And I know I can't show you the documents, so I admit I have the evidence but doctor it in the meantime to protect some and to make others look more guilty... and since I don't have to release it to anyone who can prove otherwise, my half-truths and mis-truths and un-truths cannot be disproven.

Here's a more interesting tidbit today:

‘Anything is possible’: Spicer admits White House may have given Nunes info to defend Trump’s wiretap claim

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer admitted on Monday that it was “possible” that someone at the White House leaked surveillance information to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) that was later used to defend President Donald Trump’s wiretap allegations.

At Monday’s White House press briefing, Spicer was asked if he could say affirmatively that Nunes was not given the information by White House staff. A week earlier, Spicer had claimed that the idea did not “pass the smell test.”

“I can’t say 100 percent that I know anything he briefed him on,” Spicer explained. “I can tell you through his public comments is he has said he had multiple

edit on 3/27/2017 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

a reply to: digital01anarchy

The real question everyone should be asking is why does nunes have to play this so close to the chest "poker term aka hiding your cards"

That is a good question...

is it because maybe someone within that committee might leak info back to the intelligence community in an effort to hide evidence?

That's just one of many unsavory possibilities. Sunshine is the best disinfectant!!!

a reply to: butcherguy

But up until now, we have had rumors of IC people that had proof.
Now we have a House Committee Chairman that says he has it in his hands.
Do you really think he would come out with that info if he didn't have it?

I think he came out with that information ONLY because his hand was forced.

I think he had proof long before this... and I know he has it now... i.e., official Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery... but he sat on it for his own reasons only to be told if he didn't address it that the data would be made public. His hand has been forced, and he still refuses to address Montgomery's claims publicly, much less make that evidence public.

When he makes that info public, and the Whistleblower says it accurately reflects the evidence he provided, then I'll accept it has been confirmed.

Unless and until then, he's playing games.

From the link in the OP:

"We don't have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress," Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.

Nunes says it came from an intelligence official.

When are we going to get the Hillary transcripts with Russia and China . ..leaks

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: butcherguy

But up until now, we have had rumors of IC people that had proof.
Now we have a House Committee Chairman that says he has it in his hands.
Do you really think he would come out with that info if he didn't have it?

I think he came out with that information ONLY because his hand was forced.

I think he had proof long before this... and I know he has it now... i.e., official Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery... but he sat on it for his own reasons only to be told if he didn't address it that the data would be made public. His hand has been forced, and he still refuses to address Montgomery's claims publicly, much less make that evidence public.

When he makes that info public, and the Whistleblower says it accurately reflects the evidence he provided, then I'll accept it has been confirmed.

Unless and until then, he's playing games.

If you are right, and Nunes doesn't release the information, then Klayman/Montgomery will.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Good question. We should investigate Nunes for acting shady, but at the very least we should be kicking him out of the investigation and getting an independent investigator.

That isnt what i mean lol nunes is protecting evidence from tampering. We know that the flynn unmasking was illegal and that they stole communications not related to russia in anyway so that whole hes talking on a tapped line of a russian official is just bs when it comes to flynn! We know that obama has used government agencies like the irs and justice department to do illegal activities.

Here is what I'm saying. If you have enough power in the correct positions you can get away with doing stuff like spying on trump knowing that if an investigation actually happened that you had key players in position to kill it aka some people under nunes. The only reason for nunes to hide this information is because he knows that there are inside people involved with the issue working with him.

Also we know the dems love 3rd party investigators like crowdstrike! Truth is the IC is too dangerous to have some independent investigation by a 3rd party and most of you know this! It would also take forever considering being able to access the classified information by a 3rd party.

Its just something you dems are going to have to deal with and at some point the cards need to be put on the table! If nunes is a moron who pushed a false story it will come out but if he isn't then this could be so big it destroys a lot of career politicians on both sides!

a reply to: digital01anarchy
Oh I know what you were doing. I was just using your partisanship to pitch a better idea. That's all.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Plus there is reason to worry about tampering.
The transcripts of Trump's phone calls to two foreign leader were altered to make Trump look bad.

a reply to: butcherguy

Nunes says it came from an intelligence official.

I find the past tense -- "was an intelligence official" -- interesting. Not sure if it's referring to "it came" in the past tense, or if it's referring to "an intelligence official" in the past tense, as in a former intelligence official, which could be Montgomery.

If you are right, and Nunes doesn't release the information, then Klayman/Montgomery will.

Ya know what? In a way, I might trust it more if it came from Klayman and Montgomery!

a reply to: Boadicea

Ya know what? In a way, I might trust it more if it came from Klayman and Montgomery!

If they have the actual evidence, then they will do just fine.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: digital01anarchy

The real question everyone should be asking is why does nunes have to play this so close to the chest "poker term aka hiding your cards"

That is a good question...

is it because maybe someone within that committee might leak info back to the intelligence community in an effort to hide evidence?

That's just one of many unsavory possibilities. Sunshine is the best disinfectant!!!

Lol the level of hypocrisy is astonishing with liberals are you not the same people who have been fighting trump supporters on this very same issue about laying all the cards on the table with regards to the russian collusion case where trump supporters want to see the evidence by the fbi! then you cry victim when its done back to you? The sad truth is there is way more evidence of illegal activity in this spying on trump then there is with the collusion case. Obama allowing intelligence communities to share information, the unmasking of flynn, obamas request for fisa's, the information leaked to the media, comey not answering the question about obama being briefed on information that was obtained by the IC in relation to the case, the fact that nunes can't be open with the investigation and that the evidence was presented directly to the president and the white house lawyers.