Confirmed: The Obama White House Received Intel Reports On Trump

a reply to: Dfairlite

His excuse according to him was that he could not share the information with the committee:

“It’s a judgement call on my part,” he told reporters when asked why he spoke with Trump and the media before House Intelligence Committee Democrats.

“At the end of the day, sometimes you make the right decision, sometimes you don’t,” Nunes added, noting he could not show the panel information that was given to him by a source.

Nunes declined to disclose his source’s identity when asked if it was the White House.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN Thursday that Nunes had apologized "in a generic way" for his actions.

I don't understand why he could not share that with the committee members, number one. Number two, I don't see how he could brief POTUS about it in that case either.

It's an odd series of events, that's for sure. Seems like a lot of walking on eggshells for no good reason.

~Tenth

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes. Because that's what it does. It confirms that the president received the information. Dissemination information isn't really subject to a bias.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

You think it's proof of wrongdoing on the IC's part, or Obama?

Is it not also possible that is was unmasked and the president was briefed because someone within the Trump team was doing something they should not have been doing?

It is quite possible that there was wrongdoing by both.
There have been numerous instances where it has been said by the IC that there was no wrongdoing found on the part of the Trump team and Russia.
The information was released to the news media, a violation of the law.
There's smoke here.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bluesjr

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?

Don't get too far ahead of yourself.

I suspect we are going to learn a lot more in the coming months.

So it would not be wise to come to any conclusion just yet.

Well if it takes as long as prosecuting Hillary's security violations, we will all be waiting a very long time. That's why its an excellent strategy to falsely accuse someone. It then (apparently now) gives them the right to put them under surveillance knowing full well that it could be years before a conclusion is reached, even if that conclusion is simply "oh, sorry, nothing to see here".

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

What if what he says is not true? Did you think about that?

did you read my whole post? If it comes out that he lied, I'll be the first to change with the evidence of it. But right now, this is all we have to go on.

So you will agree then that when unknown sources came forward saying Trump and his team colluded with Russia, it is also confirmed.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

If he has to have access to a classified system to access the info?

a reply to: Dfairlite

You're the guy using definitive words like "confirmed".

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't understand why he could not share that with the committee members, number one.

The article says that the only terminals with access are in the executive branch. Before he can reveal the information to them he has to get them permission and access to a terminal. That's happening later this week.

I don't see how he could brief POTUS about it in that case either.

The president has a terminal. But also, he did brief the other committee members, he was just unable to show them directly due to the terminal issue and authorization issue.

a reply to: Dfairlite

From your article.

It says there that intelligence gathering was going on for whatever reason. Which was then shared with the intelligence community and the white house.

So far there has been no evidence provided to suggest that any wiretaps were illegally placed.

I suggest we closely watch this story to see if any more evidence comes out.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: tothetenthpower

If he has to have access to a classified system to access the info?

Why would he have a source willing to share that information - presumably illegally, with Nunez and not the rest of the committee? I don't know much about security clearances but I would imagine if he doesn't have the clearance he should not view the materiad.

If he does, then why not send it to both committee heads?

Why isn't this being reported as a 'leak' in that case either? Like I get the part where he had to be at a secure location to see what he needed to see, but it would have been smart to at least bring 1 other member of the committee with him to prevent any of this nonsense.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what comes out of that.

~Tenth

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

Lol the communications that were intercepted wasn't from for the russian collusion case. That was stated by nunes this would make that call from flynn to russian ambassador intercepted at trump tower then used agaisnt flynn a crime lol nice try

a reply to: Mictain

Nope. Unknown sources could be anyone, there's no accountability. Nunes put his name on it and directly viewed the evidence. He will bear the consequences if he lied.

Remember when unknown sources told Harry Reid that Romney didn't pay his taxes? Who was held responsible?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

The "evidence" is all classified. All of us here have to operate off the public accounts. Asking for something that cannot be obtained in this arena is what is lazy. Further you're the third person banging the "evidence" drum, seems pretty coincidental for three people to have such unreasonable demands.

It's unreasonable to assert something has been confirmed when you admit you don't have the proper evidence.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Don't get to upset with some of these posters.

49.2% of people get a check from the government.

So, get back to work.

People are waiting for their monthly freebie.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

The "evidence" is all classified. All of us here have to operate off the public accounts. Asking for something that cannot be obtained in this arena is what is lazy. Further you're the third person banging the "evidence" drum, seems pretty coincidental for three people to have such unreasonable demands.

It's unreasonable to assert something has been confirmed when you admit you don't have the proper evidence.

This guy gets it!

a reply to: Dfairlite

That makes more sense.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Why isn't this being reported as a 'leak' in that case either? Like I get the part where he had to be at a secure location to see what he needed to see, but it would have been smart to at least bring 1 other member of the committee with him to prevent any of this nonsense.

I agree. The press conference he had imo was a "leak". While he was not specific, he did release info to the public that the other committee members did not have access to. I think it was a mistake.
The entire committee should be seeing this "new" information today.

a reply to: introvert

A source that has the proper evidence, confirmed it. Now, unless he is lying, it's confirmed. Is this really that hard of a concept?

a reply to: Dfairlite



Treason Is What Treason Does.............







www.newsmax.com...

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.