originally posted by: The GUT
If the docs are real and show that expanded surveillance powers are being abused for political purposes---do you not care?
Surveillance conducted for political purposes would be criminal abuse and yes, I would most definitely care. But what evidence has been presented that
this is likely to be the case?
The only person who is acknowledging that he's seen the reports and has spoken about it publicly, has made statements that really don't comport well
1. It's repeatedly described as "incidental collection" which you and I both know means that whatever the data is, the person it was collected from
wasn't the target. The problem is "incidental collection" isn't a term in common usage and in fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the
population doesn't know the meaning of the word "incidental" beyond perhaps the context of hotel deposits.
That's pretty much the only reason that it makes a good deflection. But that will only work for some people. That's why Nunes stresses that the issue
exposed by the reports is that names are "unmasked."
2. Nunes says that the incidental collection appeared to have taken place during legal surveillance.
3. The precise nature of the data in the reports isn't described. We don't know what it is, when it was collected, where it was collected or who the
Trump-connected inviduals involved are. Aside from the incidental collection bit, the only other solid clue we have is that it didn't "appear" (I
believe that's the word he used) to be related to the Russian investigation. So what are the people under surveillance for? Or is it even people? It
could be incidental collection from the surveillance of a single well connected individual.
Nunes can't even say if one of the people who had data incidentally collected was Donald Trump.
And lets face it, the evidence is piling up that Nunes has been coordinating with the Trump administration and they've both been lying about it.
That's a coordinated effort to manipulate people (and who knows if they're consulting
— the "incidental collection" narrative might be their
invention) and a cover up of this collusion between Nunes and the White House.
Which you have to admit isn't a particular good look considering that the investigation they seem to be working to derail is an investigation into the
possible collusion between Team Trump and another party in an effort to manipulate the American people.
Also, if the NYT story is true and they must be pretty damn sure considering that they have named names, then what credibility do any of them have at
all when they've clearly been engaged in a conspiracy to cover up their own collusion?
What am I missing here? Ask yourself why Nunes would have given that press conference in the first place. The ONLY purpose it could have been expected
to serve was to create mass confusion. That seems to be the game plan and it's very Putinesque of this lot. Create a lot of confusion and then there's
room to try to litigate reality in the court of public opinion.
The question now is whether or not the "unmasking" narrative will take hold. The thrust now among the pro-Trump echo chamber is to link "unmasking" to
these accounts of the Obama administration disseminating intelligence in their final months.
However, once more, Nunes's own statements don't seem to fit well with that narrative. If these were widespread intelligence reports, then why would
they need to do it at the WH SCIF? Wouldn't the intelligence that the Obama administration supposesdly circulated related to... the investigation of
Trump ties to Russia?
It's just not adding up well at all. On the other hand, when it comes to Nunes, the pieces seem to be falling into place one development at a time.