world

Spying claim by House intelligence committee chairman renews fight over Russia probe

106 Comments
By JULIE PACE and DEB RIECHMANN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

106 Comments
Login to comment

Nunes has walked into a trap. He immediately leaked to the media and ran to the subject of a federal investigation with the first bit of info dangled his way. He will now be completely kept out of the loop and possibly charged with obstruction when this is all over. Nunes just told the Intelligence community : "Don't hand anything over to me, that you wouldn't want turned over to the targets of your investigations who are still on Trump's staff".

7 ( +8 / -1 )

So Trump says he feels vindicated by the words of a man he paid to say things to vindicate him?

I remain skeptical.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I don't believe that candidate or pres-elect Trump's phones had a legal wire tap. That's just crazy.

But ... all sorts of "signals" data is captured all over the world, all the time. Nothing special to President Trump. Just SOP for intelligence gathering. Around NYC and Washington DC, it happens much more often and with wider captures, obviously.

We probably will not be told all the details ... no warrants required, currently, in most locations when US spy agencies (yes, plural), use next-gen devices. Last gen-devices: http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-hi-tech-police-surveillance-the-stingray-cell-phone-spying-device/5331165

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And still the left carries on even after this, desperation is a *****! You guys keep searching, you might something at the bottom of the box if you continue to dig, hopefully. LOL

-19 ( +1 / -20 )

And still the left carries on even after this, desperation is a *****! You guys keep searching, you might something at the bottom of the box if you continue to dig, hopefully. LOL

Yes, we might find out that Manafort was an undeclared foreign agent and accepted $10M in fees from an associate of Putin to lobby Russian national interests.

You also should read more recent "leaked" news before making your trite statements.

The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

This information is from the FBI and not from the MI6 agent's report, which also made the same claims. That report keeps being proven true as time goes on.

There is a reason for an investigation, and it isn't partisan politics. As I said before, if the subject of the investigation were a Democrat, you would be running around on fire.

Nunes antics show he is not impartial and cannot run a so-called independent investigation. An independent prosecutor should be appointed. The American people deserve to know that an investigation of these credible accusations are not subjected to politics.

Nunes may have also committed a crime by disclosing information related to a FISA warrant. Republican hypocrisy on view for all to see.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Jeeze, how many foreign agents were Tump's people talking to?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I see the defections have already started here.

Until yesterday it was there is no evidence which means it didn't happen which was never true. There now IS evidence but everyone still want to talk about Russia or something unrelated about someone else.

The man said this, that he saw evidence that communications related to Trump and his team unrelated to Russia or a criminal activity and with little to no intelligence value were included in daily intel reports during the transition. Names of those people talking were unmasked illegal. Where was everyone during the transition? Trump Tower.

Obama people would have known all this exists as they are the consumers of these reports. So now Trump knows what Obama already knew so the playing field is level now and the no evidence claim is now proven untrue.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Yes, we might find out that Manafort was an undeclared foreign agent and accepted $10M in fees from an associate of Putin to lobby Russian national interests.

Ok, that might be true, he's out anyway, so now what?

You also should read more recent "leaked" news before making your trite statements.

Seriously? Once you said "leaked" your argument was totally delegitimized.

This information is from the FBI and not from the MI6 agent's report, which also made the same claims. That report keeps being proven true as time goes on.

But still nothing that Trump was colluding with the Russians, take to take the lure out and find a suitable pond. LOL

There is a reason for an investigation, and it isn't partisan politics. As I said before, if the subject of the investigation were a Democrat, you would be running around on fire.

I don't care which side of the pond, there is nothing, we found that out this morning. But hey, keep going and I wish you and all the hopeful liberals on your fruitless endeavors in finding pretty much.....nothing.

Nunes antics show he is not impartial and cannot run a so-called independent investigation.

Of course not, ONLY a Democrat can be partial. Yeah, give me a FB! You want a person that fits your narrative that will find something and if they can't, then they are just charlatans, right?

An independent prosecutor should be appointed.

Yeah, who do you have in mind?

The American people deserve to know that an investigation of these credible accusations are not subjected to politics.

They have again and again and again, been investigating since November last year and still nothing. I think the people get it, the left sadly does not.

Nunes may have also committed a crime by disclosing information related to a FISA warrant. Republican hypocrisy on view for all to see.

WOW! That's just all I can say, WOW! You guys have finally hit the bottom of the Indian ocean.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Until yesterday it was there is no evidence which means it didn't happen which was never true. There now IS evidence

What evidence? Are you reading a different article than this one? This article provided no evidence of Trump wiretapping.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

There now IS evidence but everyone still want to talk about Russia or something unrelated about someone else.

Obama did not tap Trump's phone. "PERIOD" to quote Spicer. The FBI and NSA said that on Monday.

The information illegally disclosed by Nunes also makes that clear, i.e., the intercepts were of foreigners, who happen to be talking with Trump associates.... Foreign communications are subject to capture without any direction from a president..

The FBI and NSA also confirmed they were investigating Trump collusion with Russia. They also have evidence of that points to collusion.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The key point was that the FBI director and head of NSA supposedly looked around and said no evidence. They also said information with no intelligence value (not criminal or unrelated to Russia) would not be disseminated down to intel reporting. Then even if it were for some reason the names would be masked.

Yet this congressman just read intel not about Russia and lot about a crime that had people's name on it. These were briefed daily in the brief which Obama complained that he attends but that Trump did not. So when he saw this type of info he could have immediately stopped it and ordered non relevant info to not be briefed.

So now that this appears to be a legal surveillance there is paperwork. Now we will know woo ordered it, who knew about it and who consumed it. Uh oh

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Nunes, who used to raise cattle in Bakersfield and now works with them as part of the House GOP, has certainly stepped in it. His biggest problem is not that he dashed off to tell Trump of an unusual find - it is that he does not know exactly what that find is. One thing I learned in elementary schools is that, when you declare "I'm going to tell on the teacher!" and then do so, you'd better have your facts straight.

It is clear now that many in Trump's campaign were in communication with other, foreign entities that FISA felt disturbing enough to allow monitoring - that is, the foreign entities were monitored, not Trump nor his staff. Why the communication? Another question is "unmasking" - revealing identities of US citizens caught in the dragnet. This is legal if US citizens' identities are determined crucial for investigation, but their identities can also be surmised, particularly if they are multiple.

So: Nunes screwed up by inappropriately revealing info into an investigation that could result in fatal damage to the Trump administration. Just another day in Trumpland.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Are we still going to split hairs and say he wasn't wiretapped. Ok since that's all you have left, he wasn't wirerapped. He was legally survellled, we think. Now need to check if paperwork for that exists or it becomes illegal. The information gained from that surveillance was misused and mishandled and disseminated to people who should not have had it even within the intel community.

The point all along is the Obama and his team were collecting phone calls and sharing it through the government when it wasn't criminal or related to any investigation. This matches what Trump was saying while not specifically "wiretapping". It's surveillance, it's spying, its dirty tricks whatever you want to call it. It is against FISA protocols and against what FBI and NSA claim they do.

Trump has the right to know what evidence exists. He can declassify any information he wants to prove it unless Obama Hawaii judge buddy cab block that presidential power too. When you guys thought no evidence you simply said Trump can order the person who has it to give it to him. What has changed?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

The information illegally disclosed by Nunes also makes that clear, i.e., the intercepts were of foreigners, who happen to be talking with Trump associates....

Doesn't mean that was any collusion going on or that they in some mystical Unicornverse-style way influenced the election to the point where it got Trump into office. Keep looking.

Foreign communications are subject to capture without any direction from a president..

and without a FISA order would be illegal.

The FBI and NSA also confirmed they were investigating Trump collusion with Russia. They also have evidence of that points to collusion.

Ok, so now everyone should be satisfied, let's move on, as for me, it's Cheerios time, I like Apple Cinnamon the best.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

So basically he has confirmed that Trump and his rubes were caught up in US intelligence surveillance because they were in contact with hostile foreign agents attempting to sabotage and subvert America? And we are supposed to feel bad for these traitors who are disguised as Americans? Are there any patriots left in America to correct this situation?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The point all along is the Obama and his team were collecting phone calls and sharing it through the government when it wasn't criminal or related to any investigation.

No, that's not the point.In fact, zero evidence has surfaced regarding this (if you have some, share it and win the Pulitzer Prize). The point is that Russia interfered in an American presidential election. How, to what end, and were there collaborators on the US side: these are the points. Everything else you say is garbage, of the type Trump wishes people would direct their attention to.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Did you guys watch what the congressman said??

Unrelated to Russia. Unrelated to a criminal investigation. Normal everyday communications with foreign countries that a transition team of a newly elected president would have. How do I know? The person who read and reviewed the documents that FBI and NSA claimed don't exist told me.

Hostile foreign agents? Sabotage? Collaborators? Nope, normal daily business unrelated to a criminal investigation or Russia. More to come on Friday unless the FBI director withholds info from Congress.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

How do I know? The person who read and reviewed the documents that FBI and NSA claimed don't exist told me.

Ah. Okay, enough said.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Foreign communications are subject to capture without any direction from a president..

and without a FISA order would be illegal.

Incorrect, FISA warrants are only needed for directly targeting American communications. Even then, there must be a showing of probable cause to justify the surveillance. A warrant requires a volume of records. It is a tedious process. Those records do not exist because there wasn't a warrant to target Trump or his associates.

Doesn't mean that was any collusion going on or that they in some mystical Unicornverse-style way influenced the election to the point where it got Trump into office. Keep looking.

The intelligence committee is also stating that there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump associates. There is direct evidence of collusion.

Still, the alt-right wants people to believe there is nothing to see, and properly investigating this is a waste of time. So, don't even look at it because we won the election.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So now that this appears to be a legal surveillance there is paperwork. Now we will know woo ordered it, who knew about it and who consumed it. Uh oh

Exactly, and since it's already been clarified that Obama was not wiretapping Trump, it will show that the communications were picked up with doing surveillance on other parties.

Are we still going to split hairs and say he wasn't wiretapped.

There's no hair to split. Either he was, or he wasn't. But you seem to have determined that the existence of intercepted communications means that Trump was wiretapped. Yet, all the statements made have pointed people in Trump's campaign getting picked up on wiretaps of other people. That's not a splitting of hairs, it's the difference between Trump being wiretapped, or someone else. We aren't splitting hairs, you are trying to conflate the communication of someone in Trump's campaign having communications with a wiretapped party, with Trump himself being wiretapped.

The point all along is the Obama and his team were collecting phone calls and sharing it through the government when it wasn't criminal or related to any investigation. This matches what Trump was saying while not specifically "wiretapping".

No it doesn't. Trump's tweet:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Nothing in what you said matches Trump's tweet. There is nothing that has been presented to say his wires were tapped. There has been something presented to show something was found, though that didn't come from the wiretaps. And it's not McCarthyism.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Laguna Did you not see the hearing where the fbi and nsa both said thete is no evidence showing russia altered any votes and all votes were legit?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

This was so much easier for you guys when there was no evidence and Trump could just be called a liar. Sure, you can hide behind the word wiretap if you need. But it doesnt change the fact that non criminal, non Russia related communications were briefed in intel briefs with names attached after Trump was elected.

As far as the word wiretap itself and the claim of Trump Tower being wiretapped, Trump is a 70 year old non technical IT guy. All he knows is that someone has the contents of calls he or his staff made from Trump Tower. Change his tweet from wiretap to surveillance of calls made from Trump Tower and change Obama to Obama administration officials and now there is evidence of what he said happened. Now that evidence exists, we will actually have to look at the evidence, This will then show who ordered what, who approved it and who knew it but didnt reveal it to Congress.

The collusion is totally separate issue and last i heard there was no evidence of that either.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

But it doesnt change the fact that non criminal, non Russia related communications were briefed in intel briefs with names attached after Trump was elected.

You're on a roll today, Blacklabel. The nature of the communications has not been revealed - whether criminal or innocuous and with whom. Whether identities of US citizens gathered during monitoring of foreigners were "unmasked" - revealed - is also unknown, and even if they were, that would be legal to advance a criminal investigation.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This was so much easier for you guys when there was no evidence

Um, there's still no evidence.

and Trump could just be called a liar.

Um, Trump is a liar.

it doesnt change the fact that non criminal, non Russia related communications were briefed in intel briefs with names attached after Trump was elected.

And that doesn't change the fact that despite Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped, no evidence has been produced whatsoever to indicate it was.

As far as the word wiretap itself and the claim of Trump Tower being wiretapped, Trump is a 70 year old non technical IT guy.

Who got his information from a Breitbart report on a far-right blogger who made it up.

Change his tweet from wiretap to surveillance of calls made from Trump Tower and change Obama to Obama administration officials and now there is evidence of what he said happened

So you are saying we should change what he said, into an entirely different meaning, so as to fit your narrative.

Sorry, I think we will stick with what he actually said, not a false narrative.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Exactly, and since it's already been clarified that Obama was not wiretapping Trump, it will show that the communications were picked up with doing surveillance on other parties.

Got it! So we all know Obama didn't sit in a corner with a toolset. I believe that, but I also believe that someone in his admin. intercepted the leaks and forward them to the press.

There's no hair to split. Either he was, or he wasn't. But you seem to have determined that the existence of intercepted communications means that Trump was wiretapped.

I'm cool with the findings. Trump seems to be in the clear and Obama didn't wiretap the Trump admin.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yes, I am satisfied with this as well. Now there is something to investigate rather than just people saying because the FBI Director and the NSA head said they have no evidence that nothing happened. There is now evidence to look into, and that evidence is much more than any evidence supporting Russian collusion, which is still none.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I believe that, but I also believe that someone in his admin. intercepted the leaks and forward them to the press.

Which is entirely irrelevant to Trump's falsehoods about Trump tower being wiretapped.

I'm glad you agree that they were falsehoods though, that's rare. Will you join me in condemning him for taking his talking points (or rather twitter points) from fake news?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Everyone the Russian ambassador calls in recorded, or at least there is an effort to. If he picks up the phone and orders a pizza then the guy answering it at the pizza shop is on the recording. Does that mean the pizza shop can say that they under surveillance by Obama for regular business dealings not related to a crime?

The above example uses the Russian ambassador because it's a convenient example to make the point. There calls did not involve the Russians but obviously another actor. Switch put the Chinese ambassador or anyone foreign under surveillance. Hell it could even be Roger Stone and his "back door channel" talking to Wikileaks (talking to them isn't a crime.)

The Congressman needs to clarify his comments. They are vague (see above) and are open to people such as yourself who don't know how the system works deciding to throw a speculation party. He also intentionally kept the news from the Democrats which took away their chance to comment and present their side. Again, he did that intentionally. He released information not normally released and did so in a way where he could control 100% of the narrative with no opposition. But yeah, let's hope he has honorable intentions.

The FBI and the other intelligence agencies and Republicans have said there is no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump. That hasn't changed. Perhaps the Congressman can reconcile that with his cryptic statements. Or maybe they are all covering it up.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes, I am satisfied with this as well. Now there is something to investigate rather than just people saying because the FBI Director and the NSA head said they have no evidence that nothing happened.

So we have a so-called president making tweets, then being unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the claims made in the tweets, then we have the FBI and NSA saying there is no evidence to support the claims made in the tweets, and finally we have Trumpers saying 'but there may be evidence to support the claims'.

I'd feel pretty foolish if I were one saying things like that. I guess some people are more ok with looking foolish than I am.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If he picks up the phone and orders a pizza then the guy answering it at the pizza shop is on the recording. Does that mean the pizza shop can say that they under surveillance by Obama for regular business dealings not related to a crime?>

Ok lets use this. The pizza guy gets a call at his shop and talks with someone who is being investigated. Pizza shop guy claims that staff of or the the actual previous owner of the pizza shop is behind it and trying to use the information gathered to his detriment. Everyone immediate calls pizza shop owner a liar, no one is listening to your calls.

But they fail to mention that someone IS listening to the calls of the people that called him. They also fail to mention that this information while non criminal in nature was briefed to the ex pizza shop owner and all his staff with his name attached to it. The same ex pizza shop owner who says he is going to resist everything you do and do everything he can to hurt you and your staff and obstruct your business. Yet the people who worked for the ex owner and listened to his calls can still claim he is lying about his calls being surveilled?

Thats lame, we werent surveilling you, but only surveilling the person you were talking to. Fine, why was this briefed with my name on it and with my and my staff comments available for my enemies to read and take action during a transition period?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Everyone immediate calls pizza shop owner a liar, no one is listening to your calls.

No one has claimed that no one has ever listed to Trump's calls. We were pointing out the fact that he was spreading falsehoods about Trump Tower being wiretapped, based on a Breitbart report.

they fail to mention that someone IS listening to the calls of the people that called him.

No one has claimed that calls by Trump's people were never picked up on other wiretaps.

However, you seem to be trying to rewrite the narrative to Trump complaining that his calls were picked up at all, when his complains were specifically that Trump Tower as being wire tapped. There is a major difference here. Someone's calls being picked up when they call someone who is being wiretapped is not only understandable, it is to be expected. Wire tapping an incoming presidential candidate, could potentially be an egregious indiscretion, and potentially illegal. So lets stop trying to rewrite the narrative mmkay?

Thats lame, we werent surveilling you, but only surveilling the person you were talking to.

Yeah, and there is entirely nothing wrong with that. Or are you thinking that they should only record one side of wiretapped calls, so that the person calling is never part of the wiretap? That would be entirely ridiculous.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Which is entirely irrelevant to Trump's falsehoods about Trump tower being wiretapped.

No, it's all relevant because both sides need to move on from this.

I'm glad you agree that they were falsehoods though, that's rare. Will you join me in condemning him for taking his talking points (or rather twitter points) from fake news?

Will you join me for denouncing this Russian goose chase?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

As far as the pizza shop, its strange that nearly everyone who called the pizza shop seemed to be under investigation? The Congressman said there were dozens of reports. At what point does that not make sense and you realize it is actually the shop being legally or illegally surveilled and not all the callers?

You record both sides but you dont brief the US citizen side outside of your section. You dont create transcipts that allow the citizen to be identified and you dont brief the contents in the intel briefing attended by the outgoing administration. Trump now has given the information about what calls were captured. He obviously knows if these calls were made from Trump Tower or not.

All of this goes against how the FBI and NSA claim this is to be handled. The tweets are now irrelevant, whether they were lies or just a wild guess doesnt matter. There is now substance that what was captured was not handled the way that was testified to Congress under oath.

There now needs to be an investigation into why these calls were briefed and disseminated within the government when both the FBI and NSA agree that only would happen if they are were criminal or about Russia. Are you all ok with Obama and his administration knowing everything about everyone Trump and his team talked to and being able to use that information with impunity? Guess so, cause Obama and But Russia!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

No, it's all relevant because both sides need to move on from this.

How does making deflections from Trump spreading falsehoods based on fake news help both sides move on to this?

Seems you're just making more random statements to try to deflect from failings by this so-called president.

Will you join me for denouncing this Russian goose chase?

Unlike Trump's falsehoods about Trump Tower being wiretapped, there does actually appear to be evidence worthy of investigation regarding Trump's people communicating with the Russians. Specifically the fact that it's already been shown and proven that some of Trump's people were communicating with the Russians - that is not in question. What is in question is whether or not they did anything legally and ethically wrong.

By calling it a 'goose chase', you seem to be indicating a wish that no investigation be performed even when there is something that should be investigated, if not just for transparency's sake, to prove that nothing untoward happened.

Which is drastically different to your opinions on investigations into Clinton's emails and Benghazi, where even after the investigations turned up nothing whatsoever, therefore revealing the investigations to be actual goose chases, you were still pushing for more investigations.

So in one short post alone, you tried to divert away from one problem, tried to get others to push for downgrading an investigation that by any reasonable means should be investigated, and showed complete hypocrisy in pushing for no investigation for this party when you pushed so hard for investigations into another party. Al in two sentences. That may be a record even for you Bass.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Will you join me for denouncing this Russian goose chase?

I haven't read all the comments, but how is it a goose chase? We now have solid proof that Paul Manafort was secretly working for a Russian oligarch with very real and very close ties to Putin. Paul Manafort wasn't simply Trump's advisor, he was his chief campaign manager. If that's not suspicious enough for you there's more.

It seems Manafort received millions from the oligarch to start a Russian media organization. In addition to being a traitor to the US, he apparently he has balls of steel too, because he pocketed that money and did nothing. The Russians have been hounding him ever since, right up to the point when Manafort became Trump's campaign manager. Then they suddenly went quiet. You think maybe Manafort made another deal with the Russians to make up for the money? Something like promising a pro-Russia Trump presidency?

Trump either knew about this or he didn't. If he didn't, he displayed extremely poor judgement in choosing Manafort, a treasonous criminal, and was played like a puppet when you consider his pro-Russia stance. Either way you slice it, Trump is dangerously unfit as president, so I think it's well worth chasing this "goose."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

its strange that nearly everyone who called the pizza shop seemed to be under investigation?

That's a statement ended by a question mark. Are you saying something, or asking something?

Although my reply is the same either way: you cannot conclude it to be strange or not without looking at why they are being investigated. The existence alone of investigations does not indicate strangeness nor lack thereof.

You record both sides but you dont brief the US citizen side outside of your section.

Of course not.

You dont create transcipts that allow the citizen to be identified

Where has it been reported that no transcripts were made?

and you dont brief the contents in the intel briefing attended by the outgoing administration.

If the outgoing administration is under investigation as a result of the wiretaps, then briefing them would be tipping them off to the investigation, thereby undermining any investigation entirely. Briefing them on the other hand makes no logical sense.

He obviously knows if these calls were made from Trump Tower or not.

Probably some of them were. But the question has never been about whether calls made from Trump Tower were recorded, the question is whether Trump Tower itself was being wiretapped. So this is just another strawman.

Are you all ok with Obama and his administration knowing everything about everyone Trump and his team talked to and being able to use that information with impunity?

If that had happened, of course not. But neither have I seen any evidence that the premise behind this question is based on something that actually happened.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well it will be easy to prove now where the phone calls were intercepted. Lets say none of the calls that originated from Trump Tower were collected. Ok, probably no Trump Tower wiretap. But lets say all the calls originating from Trump Tower were collected and any that were from other locations were not. Then that tells me Trump Tower is the source, not a tap on the person on the other end.

I am just glad the Dems/FBI/NSA now have things they need to look into instead of hiding behind their 'no evidence' claims. I think this leads at some point to Obama people before Congress and further investigation into the documents that Congressman Nunes was given. They will need to answer for the leaking, unmasking and decisions/approvals to disseminate this information. Also calls in to question the truthfulness of the FBI/NSA that something exists that they didnt tell us about and it was handled exactly opposite of how they said it was.

All this, plus that Trump only feels 'somewhat vindicated' gives me speculation he also has his own evidence too. So lets see what happens, its not going to be solved in this forum anyway.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Laguna Did you not see the hearing where the fbi and nsa both said thete is no evidence showing russia altered any votes and all votes were legit?

Did you not see Trump's tweet/lie: "the NSA and FBI tell congress that Russia did not influence the electoral process."

The NSA and FBI rebutted that tweet during the same hearing saying they offered no opinion to that effect. They did say that Russia meddled in the race.

Russia basically committing a crime by breaking into Democrat servers and emails, and then they meddled in the election by slowly releasing information to make one party look bad. Also in the testimony.

Now we are learning that there is direct evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians in those acts.

The alt-right is again completely disregards the facts when it doesn't suit their needs.

Will you join me for denouncing this Russian goose chase?

Only in the Alt-right universe, circumstantial evidence and now facts coming out of an investigation that just begun can be called a goose chase. Benghazi was a goose chase that got chased and chased and chased.

This chase has just begun. It will take one or two years for it to be completed because FBI's counter-intelligence group is handling it. I expect Trump to resign before that happens.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

All this, plus that Trump only feels 'somewhat vindicated' gives me speculation he also has his own evidence too.

Frankly, I don't give a whit how Trump "feels." He's stated that his own net worth depends on how he "feels." Sorry, but when you reach the level of the presidency, your feelings now longer matter.

Trump accused Obama of breaking the law. He has been challenged by members of both parties as well as heads of security agencies, yet he refuses to back down. Fine. If he has evidence, he must show it. If he does not, he should apologize. There is no reason to drag Barry Manilow into this.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Trump is not the one to prove that Obama broke the law. The law enforcement agencies are and will be able to do this based on the results of the intelligence committee investigation. The problem is that the FBI appears to have given up by saying there is no evidence. But now that there is evidence again, maybe they will be forced to do their job as far as the Trump claims. They wont even say they are looking into who illegally leaked classified information.

Thats like saying I personally have to prove that someone broke into my home and stole my TV. Even if I think I know that Suzuki-san did it and say so publicly I dont have to prove it. No, I report that to law enforcement(police), they investigate fully and then arrest the criminal (Suzuki or another) based on the evidence they find.

So once again just because Trump cant prove it doesnt mean Obama didnt do it. Also because there was no evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen, because new evidence has now come available. I think people are getting too hung up on proving Trump tweet details wrong and not focusing on the illegal way that intercepted communications were handled and used.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Thats like saying I personally have to prove that someone broke into my home and stole my TV.

Blacklabel, you're obfuscating again. Actually, what Trump is trying to do is say that the person who anonymously reported the person who broke into the home is more culpable than the person who actually did the breaking in.

Certain agents within the Russian government broke into the house. They were aided by others, mostly non-American but possibly including members of Trump's campaign. No matter how you try to change the story, that is it.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

it will be easy to prove now where the phone calls were intercepted.

It's already been stated that it happened, it doesn't need proving, it's accepted fact.

Lets say none of the calls that originated from Trump Tower were collected.

No one has made that argument. There is a high possibility that calls that originated from Trump tower were intercepted. This sounds like you are building up a strawman, which is supported in your next statement:

Then that tells me Trump Tower is the source, not a tap on the person on the other end.

The source will be wherever the wires were tapped. There has been no evidence found to support Trump's claims that it was tapped.

I am just glad the Dems/FBI/NSA now have things they need to look into instead of hiding behind their 'no evidence' claims.

Trump provided no evidence, and both the NSA and FBI have stated they found no evidence. What you are saying is akin to saying 'we need an investigation into unicorns and dragons. There is no evidence they ever existed, but people keep talking about it, so we need to investigate to find out if they ever existed'.

The right has gone on for years about the 'unicornverse', but it appears you're living in it right now.

Trump is not the one to prove that Obama broke the law.

Trump made claims that Obama broke the law, based on fake news. If he is going to make such claims, he should make sure he can support them after the fact.

The problem is that the FBI appears to have given up by saying there is no evidence.

So should we also not give up on searching for unicorns?

now that there is evidence again

No there isn't. You keep saying that, but literally nothing has shown any evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped.

Thats like saying I personally have to prove that someone broke into my home and stole my TV.

No, it's like saying someone else needs to prove your TV was stolen, when it isn't even missing.

once again just because Trump cant prove it doesnt mean Obama didnt do it.

Sure, and just because we can't prove that Trump himself personally pulled the trigger that killed JFK, doesn't mean he didn't do it. But you know, reality...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Trump is not the one to prove that Obama broke the law. The law enforcement agencies are and will be able to do this based on the results of the intelligence committee investigation. The problem is that the FBI appears to have given up by saying there is no evidence.

Incorrect, the FBI is the law enforcement agency and investigative arm of the DOJ.

The FBI would present evidence to the DOJ of a crime and arrest criminals upon suspicion of a crime or if an arrest warrant was issued by a court of law.

The DOJ would then consider bringing charges or bring the evidence before a grand jury, which could bring charges.

Sorry, the FBI did its job and found no evidence.

End of story. Obama has been cleared, and Trump is proven a liar again.

So once again just because Trump cant prove it doesnt mean Obama didnt do it.

Sorry, your losing me there with the alt-right rhetoric and all those feelings..

I think people are getting too hung up on proving Trump tweet details wrong and not focusing on the illegal way that intercepted communications were handled and used.

Thankfully, it was proven that Trump falsely accused Obama of a crime. However, the accusation could be a crime since it is probably easy to show the accusation was done negligently.

The communications were legally intercepted. PERIOD. There may be questions about the distributions of the communications, but apparently, the names were not unmasked and were still classified.

However, those questions pale in comparison to the accusation of collusion with Russia. Unlike Trump's lies, there are facts directly supporting that accusation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@zichi Selective reading, i said because TRUMP cant prove it doesnt mean that it didnt happen. If you read my post, I said LAW ENFORCEMENT can and will prove it based on the evidence they have or are given.

Bottom line is that you guys hate Trump and have no interest in him being treated fairly for anything. He claims he was the victim of a crime. He reported it and took it to law enforcement. Law enforcement (FBI) dismissed his claims and you guys and the FBI now want it to be over so bad. But another group is also looking into it and their leader was given information that the FBI should have had or had but is hiding. So now law enforcement has no choice but to look into this more.

I think you guys will still try to blame Trump if it is found out that Trump was wiretapped (but not in Trump Tower) and not by Obama (but by one of his senior cabinet members with his knowledge). That is just as bad to me. I dont care if it is confirmed Trump Tower or not and I dont care if they cant directly implicate Obama. Confirmation that it was done and punishment for whoever did it is enough for me.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

i said because TRUMP cant prove it doesnt mean that it didnt happen.

Riiiight. My heart bleeds for the poor, innocent man who has done nothing in his life to suggest erratic behavior.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

intelligence committee investigation

The intelligence committee investigatory power to prosecute are next to zero. They can hold someone in contempt if you decide to testify. They can work to pass a law or impeach a president, but normally, they have no power.

If you read my post, I said LAW ENFORCEMENT can and will prove it based on the evidence they have or are given.

The FBI looked and found no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump. End of story. No prosecution.

Bottom line is that you guys hate Trump and have no interest in him being treated fairly for anything

Hate is too strong a word. I don't like flim-flam men, I don't like nationalists, I don't like racists, I don't like narcissists, and I don't like liars. I certainly don't like those qualities in a President.

Trump has been treated more than fairly. Any other person who does what he has done would never have made it to the Presidency. Instead, he is trying to condition people into accepting his bad behavior.

What is most surprising is that people accept his bad behavior and make excuses for him.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ok, so new evidence came up yesterday but you guys refuse to even consider it and are just basing everything on what was said on Monday. Im glad everyone has already decided with no evidence that any intercepts were legal, there is no way Trump Tower wiretaps were the source of these intercepts, names were not unmasked and Obama has been cleared? Despite what the person who read the documents said. Even people who said the other day that there were no intercepts and no documents because it never happened are now claiming everything was done legally and correctly. Based on what? Thats a really quick pivot but ok sure.

Still claiming Russia collusion with no evidence while refusing to listen to what the Congressman said he was given and that he found it inappropriate. Fine, the investigation will be expanded out to the Obama administration officials and the CIA, so lets see what comes next.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

US regularly monitors foreign agents' communications - and it's perfectly legal in the US, FISA court order may not even be necessary (because they may be foreigners who are not even on US soil).

And sometimes those foreign agents communicate with US residents, so their communications with those US residents get monitored too.

That's different though from targeting US citizens themselves and their communications with foreign agents. That would require a FISA court order, though it's not as easy as it sounds (a FISA court last year rejected a FBI request to monitor Russian communique of several Trump's election workers, due to too broad a focus).

Moreover, a president-ordered wiretap of candidate Trump’s phone in Trump Tower is not only improbable, but would likely cross a legal line. Officials must meet a high bar to tap the phone of an American citizen on American soil, especially if that person is a political candidate. Presidents are not allowed to request or order wiretaps — that is left to law enforcement agents, with court approval.

If ya think FISA is too Orwellian, don't expect it to be de-fanged anytime soon. Because the very same process that Trump is accusing of wiretapping him, is the very same process that Trump's law enforcement agencies will be using for national security purposes to monitor potential terrorists. Trump is too much a national security guy that he would side to err with too much control than with too lax, so very doubtful he would make FISA less powerful.

Regardless, if this is all they got, a Trump apology is still in order because he went personal accusing Obama of a serious crime. Even if these are what happened, that still doesn't mean Obama wiretapped him, or even knew what happened - because it's up to US law enforcement agencies with court approval, not the US President (and that separation is there for a reason - to keep overzealous US Presidents having too much power to monitor US citizens).

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Ok, so new evidence came up yesterday but you guys refuse to even consider it and are just basing everything on what was said on Monday.

The testimony was clear: (1) No evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, (2) FBI investigating Trump collusion with Russia.

There are also statements made by the intelligence committee that there was direct evidence (not just circumstantial evidence) of collusion.

so lets see what comes next

FBI will find someone acted criminally in colluding with Russia, and the FBI will do what it does best, it will blackmail that person into becoming a prosecution witness. That will create a revolving door of witnesses.

Then, we will see how high up the ladder the collusion goes.

At best, Trump was a fool and didn't know his people were leading him around. At worst, Trump knew what was happening.

My prediction is a mixture, a fool who blithely replies to his Russia colluding adviser, sure, ask Russia to hack Clinton. He didn't realize he was a tool for the Russians.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

They stated that on Monday yes. What have they said now? The FBI is still refusing to cooperate with the intelligence committee request for documents from 15 March. So anyone who thinks or hopes this is over is sadly mistaken.

I dont mind if the end result is that Trump apologizes as long as we get to the bottom of the leaking and illegal handling of the intercepted communications. He could easily just come out and say what was found at the end of all of this.

For example: I apologize I thought I was wiretapped because all my calls from Trump Tower, people seemed to know about them when they shouldnt. But actually I was legally (or illegally) 'surveilled' by direction of (the NSA, whoever). Even though Obama knew about it, he didnt directly order it (his DOJ head did) and all the paperwork is (legal or not legal) So my apologies for any of what i thought to be correct not being so .

That way he can get out the facts of what actually happened without people saying none of it happened due to his imprecise tweets. As I said I dont care if Obama did it, or if Loretta Lynch did it, or Hillary Clinton did it. I just case that it happened and it shoudnt have.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Bottom line is that you guys hate Trump and have no interest in him being treated fairly for anything.

This cuts both ways. You love Trump and have no interest in admitting when he is in the wrong, no matter what it is. You are guilty of that which you accuse.

He claims he was the victim of a crime. He reported it and took it to law enforcement. Law enforcement (FBI) dismissed his claims and you guys and the FBI now want it to be over so bad.

The FBI did not dismiss his claims, they investigated, and found his claims to be baseless. And no, we don't want it to be over, I want a full-out inquiry into the matter to show Trump's carelessness and incompetence shown by taking evidence from fake news and portraying it as if it were fact.

I think you guys will still try to blame Trump if it is found out that Trump was wiretapped (but not in Trump Tower)

Trump claimed that Trump Tower was wiretrapped. So if it was found out that somewhere else was wiretrapped other than Trump Tower, it's irrelevant. What we're blaming him for is spreading falsehoods about Trump Tower being wiretapped by Obama.

Ok, so new evidence came up yesterday but you guys refuse to even consider it

There has literally been zero evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Literally none, and I don't use the world literally lightly.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

zero evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped.>

Correct as of this moment. So that is all that matters, specific location and the choice of the word wiretapped? If he was not wiretapped but illegally surveilled on his personal cell phone its ok? I dont get why everyone is so hung up on the precise details of what Trump think happened being proven wrong. None of the rest of the leaking, unmasking of names and briefing of Trump transition team communication in the intel briefings to try to encourage more leaks and to hurt the new President seems to concern anyone. Guess dislike/hate just overrides any sense of fairness.

By the way, I dont even like Trump. I only started supporting him back when I saw how unfairly he was being treated as he went through his campaign. The unfairness has never stopped and its hurting MY country to the point that he cant even make one decision about anything without being attacked or called names. he was even attacked over the electronics ban. I guess non US citizens have a constitutional right to use their Ipad in the main cabin when there was obviously intel that show a threat. Trump hates Muslim laptops too I guess and wants to deny them their human rights.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I dont mind if the end result is that Trump apologizes

An apology is not enough. He should be impeached for defamation. LOCK HIM UP!

as long as we get to the bottom of the leaking and illegal handling of the intercepted communications.

If there was anything illegal done, it should be investigated. But that's entirely irrelevant to Trump spreading falsehoods based on fake news.

Correct as of this moment.

You are agreeing that there is zero evidence that there is no evidence that something claimed to exist actually exists, and you are limiting it to 'as of this moment'? Then the same could be said of literally anything.

There is no evidence as of this moment that humans with six arms live. There is no evidence as of this moment that unicorns are real. There is no evidence as of this moment that Hitler killed both JFK AND Jesus. But you know, give it time, right?

So that is all that matters, specific location and the choice of the word wiretapped?

The claim was of wiretapping at a specific location, so yeah, in regards to this issue, that is all that matters.

If he was not wiretapped but illegally surveilled on his personal cell phone its ok?

If he was illegally surveilled on his personal cell phone, it would not support his claims that Obama wiretrapped Trump Tower. So it's entirely irrelevant to this issue.

None of the rest of the leaking, unmasking of names and briefing of Trump transition team communication in the intel briefings to try to encourage more leaks and to hurt the new President seems to concern anyone.

No, we're just not falling into your attempts to deflect from the fact that Trump claimed Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, without any basis in fact.

By the way, I dont even like Trump. I only started supporting him back when I saw how unfairly he was being treated as he went through his campaign.

Kind of how I felt about Hillary.

The unfairness has never stopped and its hurting MY country to the point that he cant even make one decision about anything without being attacked or called names.

Both he and you are lying in the bed you have made. He makes ridiculous claims, lies about things, makes up other things, uses rhetorical language, is narcissistic, and uses unclear language. All of that is unpresidential, and as president, he is being called out for it. That's not unfair, that's life. And you guys voted him in. If you want your president to not be called out for doing those things, elect a president that doesn't do those things. Complaining because he as president is being called out for the things he does that are unpresidential, is just ridiculous.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ok so we are just going to hold to the idea that if he wasnt wiretapped at Trump Tower he lied and that none of this other illegal stuff didnt happen and that there was no attempt by Obama and his buddies to undermine Trump in any way. OK thats fine. Thankfully the law will look at it a little differently and will identify and punish illegal behavior regardless of where it happened or who did it.

And I say at this moment, because the intelligence committee investigation isnt OVER and the findings of it are still to come. BTW, for your unicorn remark, here are 10 things that now exist that didnt exist before 2016:

http://earthsky.org/earth/top-10-new-species-of-2016

Same as evidence, some evidence that doesnt exist now may exist tomorrow or next week prior to the closure of the investigation. So until the investigation is done, no one can say anything is done for certain or that anyone is cleared or not cleared.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Ok so we are just going to hold to the idea that if he wasnt wiretapped at Trump Tower he lied

I haven't used the word 'lie', I use 'spreading a falsehood'. A lie implies a willful intent to spread something one knows isn't true. I think Trump is stupid enough to have believed the fake news and not fact check it, so I can't call it a lie. Just something that shows he is extremely unpresidential.

Now moving past that, his claim was specifically that Trump Tower was wiretapped by Obama. It wasn't. So yeah, we're going to hold on to the idea that his claims were entirely incorrect, and amount to defamation. Very unpresidential. One may even say, 'sad'.

none of this other illegal stuff didnt happen

Some stuff has happened. There has been no determination as to whether it was illegal, and either way, it has nothing to do with Trump spreading fake news as fact, defaming a former president in the process.

I say at this moment, because the intelligence committee investigation isnt OVER and the findings of it are still to come.

The investigations into Russia are ongoing. There is nothing to investigate with the claims of Trump Tower wiretapping, as the FBI and NSA already looked into it and found nothing.

There does need to be an investigation into Trump spreading fake news as fact though. LOCK HIM UP. LOCK HIM UP.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So until the investigation is done

There are a number of investigations, the Senate, the House, and the FBI counter-intelligence. These investigations are focused on Russian interference with the election. The most important is the FBI's investigation. The legislatures' investigations are more akin to government oversight, but they could directly lead to impeachment.

The whole Obama wiretapping investigation originated from Trump to slow the Russian investigation down, and that investigation is done and over. In hindsight, that tweet was pretty stupid because now you have the FBI and NSA stating on the record that they are investigating Trump collusion with Russia. Plus, it was negligently sent (Trump could have easily asked the FBI and DOJ), which could be criminal in itself.

Then you have Nunes holding a new conference and running to Trump with supposed wiretapping information. In fact, this is collections on foreigners who are talking with Trump associates. Although the names were legally redacted, Nunes stupidly confirms it is obviously Trump, which is probably criminal.

Nunes actions causes other intelligence committee members to come out and say, yes there was not only circumstantial evidence of collusion but there is direct evidence of collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

Overall, not the GoP at their best. If you want to listen to GoP who are not absolute idiots, watch Sen. Graham and McCain. They are at least rational and not beholden to Trump.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The news isn't looking good for Comrade Trump and his team.

One of our paid Russian contributors is clearly in a high state of agitation. And what a lone voice of obfuscation he is. The real Trump supporters seem to be utterly absent as more and more information to the case comes out. I wonder why....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. -George S. Patton

I stand by my statement that this is going in a direction that few of you will be able to accept or comprehend. Same as the election results. Nice post above mine that adds nothing to the conversation but manages to slip in 2 Russia references and a paid accusation. The reason no Trump supporters come here is because none of you will listen anyway, you will just have to wait and see what happens in the end. Same as the election.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Very simple. Trump lied about Obama in order to distract from some very serious allegations against him and his team. He knew that many would chase this red herring, whether true believers, those instructed by Trump or with alt agendas, or paid Russian trolls.

Trump's accusations were and remain an outrageous lie. The man has no shame, and every day he continues with this farce is another which history will condemn him for ignominy.

Some may be easily distracted. Professionals will not. The "Obama wiretapping" farce is over as a serious case. The real issue - Russian involvement - is just getting started.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I stand by my statement that this is going in a direction that few of you will be able to accept or comprehend.

Well, you are predicting that. You may be right, or you may be wrong. But either way, it has nothing to do with the falsehoods that Trump spread about Trump Tower being wiretapped.

The reason no Trump supporters come here is because none of you will listen anyway

I listen to facts. I've admitted Trump was right when he's been right, and I've commented on him doing the right thing when he's done the right thing.

I can't recall you ever criticized anything the guy has done.

So to me it sounds like you are criticizing others for something you are clearly guilty of yourself.

you will just have to wait and see what happens in the end.

Unfortunately that's true. But in the meantime, we can continue to point out his inanity, until enough people who aren't blind followers of his turn, that the overwhelming majority of the country sees him for what he is, and rise up in peaceful protest to say 'enough'.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Blacklabel, talking about the wiretapping investigation:

No evidence of something does not mean it didnt happen.

Talking about the investigation into Russia and Trump collusion:

Did you hear Comey say that any actual evidence of collusion was found?

Talking about accusations against Trump:

Trump has the right to know what evidence exists.

Talking about accusations Trump made aboit Obama:

Personally, I still believe Trump has something to prove it (no calls to release it)

On continuing claims of Russian collusion:

This is why the continuation of this Russia story with no evidence is having a negative impact on the foreign policy of the USA.

On continuing claims of wiretapping investigation:

Same as evidence, some evidence that doesnt exist now may exist tomorrow or next week

His opinion of the FBI when investigating wiretapping:

The key point was that the FBI director and head of NSA supposedly looked around and said no evidence.

And his opinion of they find no evidence against Russia and Trump:

The FBI can continue their own investigation into collusion indefinitely or they can simply have a cutoff point where if nothing is found in x number of more months, then there is no evidence and its closed.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Actual evidence of collusion yet to be found same was wiretapping. Why does looking for one have to end after only 3 weeks but another must continue after 9 months until something is found? Neither has confirmed evidence yet. My other comments said collusion can continue more but it should end at some point because it's causing delays in other things that need to get done.

Trump has the right to know about any evidence about him as does Obama. The difference is that Obama era officials have no interest in providing any information to Trump and expect him to get it himself. Obama had all the info provided to him.

As far as trump policies there have been none I don't support yet. Obamacare replacement looks a little shaky but Obamacare does need to be repealed and replaced. I'm for illegal immigrants being removed, against sanctuary citi es, for the "ban", for border security, for the wall, for decrease in regulations, for programs for women and minorities, for the proposed budget and for job creation. Other things I am neutral.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

We will just have to wait and see how this plays out. It goes way beyond what happened to Michael Flynn for sure. CNBC Washington Reporter: “Nunes says there will be more information coming out Friday. Says … related to a FISA order.”

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Great anthology, Superlib. I'm wondering which of the above categories I listed he belongs to; perhaps the latter.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

My guess for the "collusion" is that Roger Stone knew about the Wikileaks dump 2 days prior and he and trump by default did nothing to stop, discourage or condemn it.

Seeing as Hillary was pretty happy about the leaked tape of the entertainment program and acted the same way I don't see any harm. A leak is a leak.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Will you join me for denouncing this Russian goose chase? there is evidence of communications so the investigation is ongoing. Last I remember I never heard a Republican denounce the Hillary email goose chase, for which Clinton was cleared of by the FBI. Trumps going to need many more made up stories to keep all his dirty laundry from falling out of the closet.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The difference is that Obama era officials have no interest in providing any information to Trump and expect him to get it himself. Obama had all the info provided to him.

That's what happens when the president cannot be trusted by the intelligence agencies, particularly when he trashes the on and off.

You guys wanted a non-presidential president, someone who was going to shake things up. But now it appears you are not happy having to deal with the consequences of having elected such a president. Sorry if the rest of us feel no sympathy whatsoever.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

There are a number of investigations, the Senate, the House, and the FBI counter-intelligence. These investigations are focused on Russian interference with the election. The most important is the FBI's investigation. The legislatures' investigations are more akin to government oversight, but they could directly lead to impeachment.

Good luck with that! That would be the equivalent of me being able to snag a date with Emma Watson.

The whole Obama wiretapping investigation originated from Trump to slow the Russian investigation down,

The whole Russian connection of them influencing the election is to totally and completely undermine the president, dog hunt.

and that investigation is done and over. In hindsight, that tweet was pretty stupid because now you have the FBI and NSA stating on the record that they are investigating Trump collusion with Russia. Plus, it was negligently sent (Trump could have easily asked the FBI and DOJ), which could be criminal in itself.

And the liberal hypocrisy continues.......

Then you have Nunes holding a new conference and running to Trump with supposed wiretapping information. In fact, this is collections on foreigners who are talking with Trump associates. Although the names were legally redacted, Nunes stupidly confirms it is obviously Trump, which is probably criminal.

Do you have proof of this?

Nunes actions causes other intelligence committee members to come out and say, yes there was not only circumstantial evidence of collusion but there is direct evidence of collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

Ahhh, you guys are just angry and wouldn't object at all if Nunes were a Democrat, end of story. Although funny nonetheless.

Overall, not the GoP at their best. If you want to listen to GoP who are not absolute idiots, watch Sen. Graham and McCain. They are at least rational and not beholden to Trump.

Hmmmm.....the Washington establishment elite rational? Even socialist Bernie Sanders would object to that comment.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Blacklabel: My guess for the "collusion" is that Roger Stone knew about the Wikileaks dump 2 days prior and he and trump by default did nothing

Wait, what?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Some tv guys were saying that the supposed Russian hacker let the guy named Roger Stone know that he was going to release the damaging Hillary emails in 2 days. Roger stone then tweeted that in 2 days Hillary was done and sure enough 2 days later the Wikileaks came out.

So because Roger Stone didn't tell the hacker not to release those and even might have encouraged it once he heard it, they consider that he coordinated the release with the Russian hacker. Thus "coordination" with Russia to harm Hillary's chance to win.

So I'm saying if that's all, then it means little (to me at least). Because Hillary and her people seemed to have coordinated the leak of the Trump tape right before the debate as well. But the guys on tv were really worked up about this for some reason.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That can't be true.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Do you have proof of this?

Only the bumbling comments from Nunes, but I forgot, words spoken by the GoP don't matter.

Hmmmm.....the Washington establishment elite rational? Even socialist Bernie Sanders would object to that comment.

No, it is the rational thought rationale as opposed to the alt-right party rationale, which are inherently irrational.

It should be easy to distinguish between a rational discussion and a hair brained alt-right discussion. No wonder why Trump got elected if people can't tell the difference.

Bernie Sanders is already on the record saying that there should be an independent investigator appointed, which is what McCain and Graham recently recently said. Graham and McCain also denounced Nunes antics.

Trump has no credibility left, except with the apologists and 37% of the population giving him a positive approval.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Except that it was announced that the NSA has agreed to turn over tons of brand new documents tomorrow. These documents have been said to be directly related to what is now being called 'spying' of the Obama administration on Trump. Some are the documents Nunes already saw, and some are supposedly ones he hasnt seen.

Not surprisingly, the FBI has refused to comply with the request for their documents. I dont think most Americans care about the technicalities. If it is found that Obama administration now 'spied' on Trump and his people by monitoring their communications, that is going to be really bad for them. No one will care about tweets or the word wiretap, they will just know Obama admin was listening to Trump's phone calls and trying to hurt him by making reports about them. Americans love their privacy so anyone will agree thats not right to do, incidental collection or any other excuse aside.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Except that it was announced that the NSA has agreed to turn over tons of brand new documents tomorrow. These documents have been said to be directly related to what is now being called 'spying' of the Obama administration on Trump. Some are the documents Nunes already saw, and some are supposedly ones he hasnt seen.

Ahh, the hope that suddenly unicorns will be proven to exist! Good luck!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cute comment. Well, you know a unicorn is just a horse with a horn. Horses already exist and horns already exist, as you know. So as far as the investigation all they have to do is put all the new evidence they have together and poof! might be a unicorn. I am willing to wait and see.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Horses already exist and horns already exist, as you know.

Oh, then we must conclude that unicorns already exist, right? Right!?

So as far as the investigation all they have to do is put all the new evidence they have together and poof! might be a unicorn. I am willing to wait and see.

Hah, I think you're going to be waiting a loooooooong time for them to find evidence of unicorns.

Though to be fair, they may genetically create one in a few years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yeah true enough. My point is that all the parts that make up a unicorn exist, they just need to be put together. I personally think the 'Russia Collusion' has been called a unicorn, but when you look into it there is just a regular horse with a horn velcroed to his head.

These are really interesting times. if people within our government really were actively working with Russians to influence our democracy or elections that is very very bad. But it is equally bad if the Obama administration was spying (by whatever means) on their political opposition by misusing a legal foreign surveillance program to actually listen to Trump instead.

I think those programs are needed (terrorism intelligence gathering, etc). But any proof of misuse or that they were used to spy on US people (especially political opponents) is going to be devastating to the ability to keep using those programs legally authorized. That type of partisan political use is supposedly only done by dictators and 3rd world countries.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

My point is that all the parts that make up a unicorn exist, they just need to be put together

All the parts exist, but unicorns don't. "Putting them together" means coming to a conclusion that doesn't exist - which is exactly what happened here. Trump Tower exists. Trump was caught on wire taps. The parts exist, but Trump Tower does not appear to have been wiretapped. Yet some people will say that because Trump Tower exists, and Trump was caught on wiretaps, Trump Tower was wiretapped.

it is equally bad if the Obama administration was spying (by whatever means) on their political opposition by misusing a legal foreign surveillance program to actually listen to Trump instead.

And it would be equally bad if Trump had shot JFK himself, or if Obama was a satanist! Let's come up with more things that would be equally bad and speculate on how bad they would be if they happened? Maybe Hillary was a spy for North Korea! That would be equally bad too! Or maybe JFK was actually a secret communist, which is why they killed him. Or maybe Russia is really democratic, and they've just been hiding it all these years! Wow, think of all the possibilities!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's plain to any intelligent person that claiming Obama ordered the wiretapping of his phones (or even to stretch to Trump's silly claim that he meant surveillance in general "it was in quotes") is far different than some communications with Russians have been incidentally scooped up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only the bumbling comments from Nunes, but I forgot, words spoken by the GoP don't matter.

That's why liberals keep losing election. It's all about them.

No, it is the rational thought rationale as opposed to the alt-right party rationale, which are inherently irrational.

As opposed to the radical violent alt-left?

It should be easy to distinguish between a rational discussion and a hair brained alt-right discussion. No wonder why Trump got elected if people can't tell the difference.

Or maybe people got tired of not having a job and the poor spooning off each other.

Bernie Sanders is already on the record saying that there should be an independent investigator appointed, which is what McCain and Graham recently recently said. Graham and McCain also denounced Nunes antics.

Once you said, Bernie Sanders, I fell asleep.

Trump has no credibility left, except with the apologists and 37% of the population giving him a positive approval.

2 months, he has no credibility? People thought the same about Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Trump should be fine. Oops, Cheerios time!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Given that the New York Times has reported that “wiretapped data” was being used to investigate President Trump’s associates and they are going over those conversations, whether by a court order or not it seems self-evident that someone has the recorded conversations.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

whether by a court order or not it seems self-evident that someone has the recorded conversations.

No one has claimed otherwise.

However, Trump's claim was that Trump Tower was wiretapped by Obama, which has been shown to be a falsehood.

Are you ok with your president spreading fake news as fact?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If NSA has complete data and this was just 'incidental', then what’s needed is for someone to run the right algorithm(s), perhaps with a little tweaking, target a data range, and a team sifts through what comes out. It isn't a transcript that would or should have been handed over to the White House in the case nothing was found, as the NYT articles have claimed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

However, Trump's claim was that Trump Tower was wiretapped by Obama, which has been shown to be a falsehood.

That's what the report says, at least on paper, but given the fact that the previous administration did spy on Merkel and on Nentanyahu, oh, without a doubt I do believe someone in that administration at the very least intercepted Trump and his administrations conversations and leaked them. The leaks just to trickle out by themselves. Again, this is going by what they have done to some of these foreign leaders, so I don't think in the slightest it's something far fetched. So if I were Trump, I would NEVER apologize. Yes, he was wrong to make that accusation PUBLIC without backed up evidence, however, him thinking that these people were responsible for the leaks, i think he's on to something.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Stooges of Putin.

Who'd have thought it would be the conservatives?

Pootie saw how easy it was for Bush and Cheney to lie the Americans into a war of mass killing and corporate profit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Pootie saw how easy it was for Bush and Cheney to lie the Americans into a war of mass killing and corporate profit.

And your proof of that is?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Look up the Gerasimov Doctrine: Valery Gerasimov and assymetrical warfare.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I did, here we go again with pure garbage.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That's what the report says, at least on paper, but given the fact that the previous administration did spy on Merkel and on Nentanyahu, oh, without a doubt I do believe someone in that administration at the very least intercepted Trump and his administrations conversations and leaked them.

And no one has claimed otherwise. But once gain, literally nothing has been presented by Trump, nor anyone else, to show that Trump tower was wiretapped. Trump got his information from fake news. Are you ok with the president presenting fake news as fact?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And no one has claimed otherwise.

Thank you, Strange!

Are you ok with the president presenting fake news as fact?

It doesn't bother me, no. It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It doesn't bother me, no. It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory.

Wow, I'm amazed, I never thought you'd admit to Trump regularly spreading fake news.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Wow, I'm amazed, I never thought you'd admit to Trump regularly spreading fake news.

I never said that. This is the problem with the left, you tell them you have a cut, they spin it as you had an amputation. I don't think Trump is necessarily making fake news, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar, I blame more of the MSM spreading the fake news to delegitimize and undermine the president and that's these guys have a trouble with ratings and credibility.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I never said that.

Sure you did. We were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said: It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory.

I agree, Trump spreading fake news does go with the territory. I'm just surprised you admitted it so freely.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Sure you did. We were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said: It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory.

What I admitted to saying is, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar, I blame more of the MSM spreading the fake news to delegitimize and undermine the president and that's these guys have a trouble with ratings and credibility. In a nutshell.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

What I admitted to saying is, I think more he just calls it as he sees it

No, we were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory. So either you were admitting that Trump spreads fake news, or you were unable to follow the topic of the conversation. Which was it?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Which was it?

I don't think Trump is necessarily making fake news, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar, I blame more of the MSM spreading the fake news to delegitimize and undermine the president and that's these guys have a trouble with ratings and credibility.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

My question:

we were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory. So either you were admitting that Trump spreads fake news, or you were unable to follow the topic of the conversation. Which was it?

Your answer:

I don't think Trump is necessarily making fake news, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar

As people who are able to follow a conversation are able to see, you didn't answer the question. So once again I'll ask it:

We were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory. So either you were admitting that Trump spreads fake news, or you were unable to follow the topic of the conversation. Which was it?

(I'd put my money on your not being able to follow the conversation, as evidenced by the fact that you weren't even able to follow the conversation enough to answer the question I just asked)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How did Trump get to 70 years old without getting through the "terrible twos"?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

We were talking about Trump spreading fake news, and you said It's Trump, kinda goes with the territory. So either you were admitting that Trump spreads fake news, or you were unable to follow the topic of the conversation. Which was it?

Strange, I follow your conversation, now can you read my response to that question.

I don't think Trump is necessarily making fake news, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar, I blame more of the MSM spreading the fake news to delegitimize and undermine the president and that's these guys have a trouble with ratings and credibility.

(I'd put my money on your not being able to follow the conversation, as evidenced by the fact that you weren't even able to follow the conversation enough to answer the question I just asked)

And I am guessing you are not reading my response. But I did try, so don't hate me for it. I can only do so much.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Strange, I follow your conversation, now can you read my response to that question.

The question:

Are you ok with the president presenting fake news as fact?

And your "answer":

I don't think Trump is necessarily making fake news, I think more he just calls it as he sees it, but it doesn't make him a liar, I blame more of the MSM spreading the fake news to delegitimize and undermine the president and that's these guys have a trouble with ratings and credibility.

As you can see, the question doesn't match the answer. I never said anything about Trump making fake news, and I never talked about the MSM spreading fake news. And you never actually answered the question of whether or not you are ok with the president presenting fake news as fact.

So as much as you'd like to claim you can follow the conversation, once again your so-called "answer" to the question doesn't answer the question, and goes off on some other tangent. So once again you've proven that you cannot in fact follow the topic of the conversation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Trump is one stupid person, He stated " You think i am that stupid to get caught on video, give me a break, I am a gemofobe. Yet he assumed that the republican congress will vote as a block on the ObameCare repeal bill. This bloke don,t know what going on around him, like he gets caught on tape talking about abusing women. like he real cautious. So I am not assuming when I state, Putin-gate. This bloke has done a tricky Dicky but unlike Tricky Dicky he will get impeach and gaoled within his first term.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Private communications of Donald Trump and his presidential transition team may have been scooped up by American intelligence officials monitoring other targets and improperly distributed throughout spy agencies"

Oh my...

TRUMP IS READY TO RUMBLE AFTER HEARING WHAT JUDGE NAPOLITANO GOT ON TV & TOLD HIM TO DO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVyPy3ucmw

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Private communications of Donald Trump and his presidential transition team may have been scooped up by American intelligence officials monitoring other targets

Yeah, that's what they've been saying all along.

and improperly distributed throughout spy agencies

If this turns out to be true, it's a problem.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites