Are you seriously still trying to bend this into “Trump told the truth?” Because the human brain hand handle only so much twisting. I realize there’s a great deal of cognitive dissonance required to defend Trump from…well, from Trump. But there’s got to be a limit somewhere, right? Right?
Then the transition team was not “under surveillance”.
Let’s keep in mind that Nunes was PART of Trump’s transition team. If he says things that are not corroborated by others, it should be taken with the same grain of salt that Trump’s statements are.
Try to explain that to the public. “They listened to his conversations, but he was not “under surveillance””. I am sure that will work.
Trump has a history of lying, with zero evidence, about Obama. He did it for years. Until he actually presents evidence for this latest assertion about Obama, I’m inclined to see it as just another example in the long history of Trump lying about Obama.
They listened to the conversations of those under surveillance. I doubt there’s a switch that shuts off the other side.
If Trump and His Gang of Idiots weren’t playing footsie with one of our enemies, they wouldn’t be in such an awkward position.
Flynn was once in the position to be on the surveillance end of things and was still stupid enough to try secret deals with the very people who are most likely to be under surveillance.
Because the public are a bunch of rubes?
Because the public knows a bullshit argument when they see one.
Which explains Trump’s low ratings.
Maybe the public will question why the Trump transition team was talking so much to Russian spies.
So, if it comes out that there were foreign spies under surveillance, and because these spies were under surveillance, and the trump team was making deals with them, so they got caught up in the surveillance, are you going to continue to defend this?
It would be like complaining that the police have you on tape ordering drugs because they were wiretapping your drug dealer.
So far there is no evidence of that whatsoever. If you actually bring some evidence, I will consider it.
But there is evidence that Nunes is bringing that Trump’s people and possibly Trump himself were under “incidental” surveillance by Obama administration’s departments. So most you can now say about Trump’s “lies” is that he didn’t say “incidental”. Or maybe that he said “Obama” instead of “Obama administration”. As I said, the public will see all those as a bullshit distinctions that they are.
Wow. A Trump supporter wants evidence. Why don’t we go with what we feel is the truth?
If you’re going to use technical terms, please learn what they mean. There is no “incidental surveillance.” There is “incidental collection.” For example: if you go to Little Italy and have lunch with shady characters in a private club, and the FBI has bugged that club, your voice will be incidentally collected. You are not under surveillance.
But I have the feeling that accuracy is not what you’re concerned about here, and that you will throw around any terms in a reckless manner to try to make Trump look like he was telling the truth, when it seems perfectly clear that Trump has no basis for his statements. Didn’t Fox just fire the guy who Trump said was his main source of the allegations?
See my comments on throwing up chaff.
Why did they lie about meeting with Russians if they had nothing to hide?
Fair, but to begin, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Nunes that this happened at all. I don’t know exactly what his credentials are, so, first, he needs to bring some evidence that it happened at all. He is in a position where he could theoretically know a bit about the situation, but he may be just as informed as Judge Napolitano, and just as honest as well.
And if his evidence is recordings of phone calls of Trump people talking to foreign agents about conspiracy type things, I don’t know that that makes your case all that well either.
If you talk to other people who are under surveillance, then you can’t complain that you yourself are under surveillance. You especially cannot call the former president sick (or bad) for happening to catch you while you were conspiring against the democratic process.
It would be one thing if the Obama admin had, even without Obama’s knowledge, spied on Trump because he was a political opposition. I would condemn that, and it would make me lose quite a bit of respect for obama. It is another if the intelligence community was watching potential criminals and threats against our country, and the Trump team talked to them, and got recorded, not because of who they were, but because of who they were talking to.
Like I said, is it fair to complain about the police surveilling you, if they’re actually surveilling your drug dealer, and you just happen to be associating with a criminal who is under surveillance?
As Nunes and other people pointed out, it is quite fair to be complaining about being an “incidental” surveillance object and having your conversations outed with you named. Which is what happened to Flynn and, Nunes says, to other Trump people.
What evidence?
Nunes just repeated in his news conference moments ago that the President’s tweet about having his phones tappppppped by Obama is false.
Will you please give up the idea that Trump was correct?
Evidence that Nunes (as the House Intelligence Chairman) says he has. You know, kinda like evidence of Russian meddling that Comey says he has. Etc. etc.