It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nunes Exposed As Trump Lapdog — WH Staff Fed Him 'Incidental Collection' Docs

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
If the docs are real and show that expanded surveillance powers are being abused for political purposes---do you not care?




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

John Dean?


No. I found the it. That saying is from a book in the Bible.
www.biblegateway.com...:9



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Because Sally Yates blows apart the whole "no one knew Mike Flynn was working with Turkey and Russia"...



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Is he denying it under oath? I thought his dealings with Russia and Turkey under his own business was already established? Also happened before he was working with Trump.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

Hey, I'll take that!

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss though. Five days ago, nobody was all that interested in this:

Has Disgraced Nat Sec Advisor Lt. Gen Michael Flynn Cut A Deal With The FBI?

Hours ago: Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity - The Wall Street Journal



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I like Nunes. He eats triggered tears and craps liberal butthurt. Nice thread.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
So many words OP. So little to say.

Try autistic screeching instead.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

This sounds like childish games that would only prolong the inevitable. From what I read, this whole supposed charade was only to keep Sally Yates from testifying?

The risk doesn't seem worth the reward.

If not, then why. Why the cloak and dagger to push out the information through Nunes and not just publish it? Does Nunes have more credibility than the White House?


Lol why the cloak and dagger? Just look at how they handle the source of the information they automatically assumed trump forged documents at the white house and went back in time to plant them before he got elected lol. Why hide the information lol would you want to release information to people actively trying to investigate your ties to russia who will feed the information back to other dems and then to the newpapers to twist a narrative that obama was looking for? I mean honestly obama was actively spying on trump collecting intel to frame him in secret only so you think trump wants these same people with that info ahahahhaha sure.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Yea I get the reasoning, sure, but as I said the risk isn't worth the reward. It will get spun regardless if they are first to get it out.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy




Just look at how they handle the source of the information they automatically assumed trump forged documents

Um. I think you lost the drift.

Who, that matters, has assumed anything was forged?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whyamIhere

Hey, I'll take that!

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss though. Five days ago, nobody was all that interested in this:

Has Disgraced Nat Sec Advisor Lt. Gen Michael Flynn Cut A Deal With The FBI?

Hours ago: Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity - The Wall Street Journal


Lol another fake story as flynns spokesman said

A spokesman for Mr. Flynn disputed the account, saying “at no time did Gen. Flynn discuss any illegal actions, nonjudicial physical removal or any other such activities.”

Ahahahha ok this is the same story they have ran other and over again saying flynn was being flipped only this is the newest one to do it



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: digital01anarchy




Just look at how they handle the source of the information they automatically assumed trump forged documents

Um. I think you lost the drift.

Who, that matters, has assumed anything was forged?


Why act like the intel is supect if it came from the whitehouse then?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy


Why act like the intel is supect if it came from the whitehouse then?

Same question.
Who, that matters, acts like the intel is suspect?

As far as I can tell, no one else has seen it.


edit on 3/31/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
No "cloak & dagger", just dumb & dumber.

They pushed this Incidental Collection nonsense trying to get their base to cry Obama Obama.
Like good little Pavlovian graduates they complied.

They knew their base would not understand the implication.

It's really very simple, the spooks find bad guys operating on US soil.
Spooks go to FISA judge to get permission to monitor bad guys.

Now here is where it gets complicated (well not really but they fail to grasp it).

If you call & communicate with the bad guys then your calls & communications are also collected.

So Drumpf & cohorts are too stupid to understand that by releasing the info that their communications were "incidentally" collected they publicly admitted they were in communication with the bad guys.

Putin & all his pals be they government or private oligarchs are criminals & gangsters.
Putin is a gang boss not a President.

K~



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Someone finished their Kool Aid.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The only actual indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

My assumption is you do not like Trump...lol



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

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 that notion.

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 Cambridge Analytica — 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.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: digital01anarchy


Why act like the intel is supect if it came from the whitehouse then?

Same question.
Who, that matters, acts like the intel is suspect?

As far as I can tell, no one else has seen it.



Maybe because it has false information in it that trump doesn't want legitimized by leaking out the fact he was spied on. Think about it if trump proves obama spied but the information collected is falsified in some ways then it makes all the information seem factual. My guess would be thats why he wouldn't release it to people looking into russian collusion with him in it full form. It would be a smart move in an attempt to stop him from using the information agaisnt him!
edit on 31-3-2017 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Do you get dizzy?

Thinking in circles like that?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join