I don’t know that Nunes is dishonorable etc., only that there’s reason to suspect that he might have coordinated with the WH. The reason it’s reasonable to suspect it is that there have been allegations of this, which have not been disproven to my knowledge. But I don’t base my assessment of people based on what’s reasonable to suspect. You can allege things about a lot of people, which will then become “reasonable to suspect”, and in heated partisan battles this will tend to happen.
I think Schiff has acted similarly to Nunes in that he’s politicized the issue in his very frequent media appearances (I believe over 200 in the last year alone) with speculative claims about possible wrongdoing. A guy like Nunes is not operating in vacuum. If Democrats (including but not limited to Schiff) were truly concerned only about the underlying issue and not with scoring political points against Trump and the Republicans, then they would have taken a more low-key and measured approach to things (Mueller would be a good example - granted that he’s not a politician and has a different set of standards). But once it becomes a political weapon, it’s inevitable that defenders will act accordingly.
This is not to say that “it’s all the fault of the Democrats” and that Republicans would not have been biased without Democratic political involvement. Only that there are two in this tango, and both sides seem to have members who have acted along the political lines.
Which is not a departure from prior investigations either. If you recall the Fast and Furious probe, Democrats in congress ran interference for Holder and Obama, though it turned out that Holder had lied to Congress and Obama’s Executive Privilege claims were struck down by the courts.
In sum, that’s how politicians act. I don’t see anything unusual about Nunes in particular.
IIRC, Nunes admitted to meeting with the WH and giving them critical info relevant to the investigation before he shared it with the rest of the committee. That doesn’t seem usual, or “how politicians act”, IMO. Not that politicians tend to be pillars of honesty, but that’s a pretty brazen form of disregard for his responsibilities, IMO.
I assume you’re referring to Nunes sharing the fact that intelligence agencies had picked up Trump transition people in their intelligence monitoring. That was not Nunes’ finest moment (and he properly apologized for it) but I wouldn’t call that “critical info relevant to the investigation”.
If the fate of the farm hung in the balance, and you were forced to choose whether Nunes is a man of integrity acting on behalf of his party and his president but only within the confines of a strict ethical code and with the interests of the country held above all, or a corrupt slimeball up to his earlobes in something really foul who’s ready to pimp his own mother if it will keep Trump afloat and save his own ass, which way are you leaning?
Need answer fast— the coops and cornfields are depending on you.
And why is that, do you think? Do you not find it the slightest bit concerning that our intelligence agencies so frequently captured conversations between Trump campaign officials and Russian spies?
I don’t know why would anyone think that the “unmasking” of Ameticans caught in suspicious circumstances is anything but routine. Apparently it is, and it happens at a much lower level than Obama and Susan Rice.
But we all know the snswer. Half the country thinks it doesn’t matter what you do to win, as long as you win. They were perfectly fine with Russia helping Trump, because they think the country was saved from a horrible fate. It’s the ultimate dog whistle.
The context to this point has been about the extent to which Nunes crossed a line in disclosing the monitoring of Trump people.
But as for your new point, I would just note that you’re being somewhat misleading in describing these people simply as “Russian spies”, as if they were full-time professional spies and there would be no other purpose in talking to them other than spy-related matters. In reality, these people were government officials, who have official duties in addition to their spying duties (much like many American consulate officials). Such as the Russian ambassador, for example.
Bottom line is that without a lot more detail, your point has no significance at all.
Apparently so. It becomes more significant and sensitive if it’s unmasking politicians of the opposing party.
But that said, I incline to think that the unmasking will probably not turn out to be a big deal at the end (though Susan Rice lying about it doesn’t add to that confidence).
Depends on what the discussions were about. If they were full time spies, then it’s reasonable to assume that the discussions must have been about spying-related matters. If they also had official roles relating to policy matters, then there’s no reason to assume that the discussions would have to have been about spying.
I already noted this in the very post you quoted. You bolded some of my words but stopped in mid-sentence to avoid highlighting the explanation given above.
I read your explanation. It doesn’t make sense. People who are spies, whether full or part time (a laughable concept), don’t telegraph when they’re being spies and when they’re just “discussing policy matters.” You offered an “explanation” that is nonsense.
You have fundamentally mischaracterized the youtube of Susan Rice to which you cited me. The conversation between Judy Woodruff and Susan Rice on the clip is discussing the dishonesty of Trump’s White House – not the dishonesty of Susan Rice. Nothing in that video “proves” Susan Rice lied about anything. Did you think it did?
Well yes, Susan Rice is not having a discussion about the dishonesty of Susan Rice. No big revelation there. But in one of her first responses she comments about the Nunes surveillance/unmasking claims and says she knows nothing about it. It later turned out that she had a significant role in this and obviously knew all about it.
In line with my earlier remarks, I am unlikely to respond further unless you say something substantive, which I do not anticipate.
LOL, yet again, no one understands you, and you cannot make a post that does not include a personal insult. You’ve proceeded to Step 3: Claim you don’t have time to talk to people who are too stupid to understand your points. You may as well finish up with Step 4: Flounce off.
You don’t seem to grasp that you merely saying that Susan Rice lied is proof of anything. The youtube video is a discussion between Susan Rice and Judy Woodruff about the dishonesty of Trump and his administration. What you need to produce is a cite that clearly says, “Susan Rice lied to Judy Woodruff in that youtube video.” No one is taking your word for it.
I listened closely to what Rice said to Woodruff in the part you’re talking about. She is refuting the claim that Obama wiretapped Trump – which was Trump’s claim. It was not a lie by Rice to say that she knew nothing of Obama wiretapping Trump, because Obama never wiretapped Trump. She specifically referred to incidental collection of information – which is not the same thing at all. You seem unable to draw the distinction and have offered proof of nothing.
No wonder you struggle with what’s really happening in the Russia investigation, poor thing.
What is she supposed to do, disclose classified information about FISA warrants on national television, so she won’t be accused of lying later?
There is no proof that Trump was scooped up in incidental surveillance. Michael Flynn probably was, but in March of 2017, there was absolutely no basis for her to share that information, even if she did know it.
I guess in your world, it’s more important that she not be caught lying than that she disclose classified information. I forgot that your side doesn’t really care about that. Mea culpa.
