Based on what evidence do you say “apparently he was correct”?
bangs head on desk repeatedly
Trumpists like to claim that the investigation into Russian influence during the campaign is the modern equivalent of Joseph McCarthy’s search for Communist subversives.
Except from context you knew that it wasn’t a literal quote, and I’m honest about it not being a literal quote. Would you consider it more readable if I wrote, as if Obama tappppped my phones in a Nixonian way to target political opponents actually means the FBI was lawfully recording conversation with foreign intelligence agents that members of my transition team were calling all the time?
So you admit that you knew that Trump accused President Obama of Nixonian spying on political opponents, you admit that Nunes says that didn’t happen… but you’re maintaining that Obama was carrying out Nixonian spying on political opponents and that Nunes says the tweets are probably correct? Am I getting this right? And when Trump says he had his “wires tappppped,” are you taking that literally or not?
By the way, Nunes just said again right now on CNN: “This doesn’t mean that Obama tapped Trump Tower.”
And Jake Tapper just asked, “There’s still no evidence that President Trump was wiretapped, correct?” Nunes responded, “That’s correct. That’s correct.”
Spin that, Okrahoma.
Just make sure you keep time with Okrahoma’s tap-dancing or I’ll completely lose the track of this thread.
I quoted the article that quoted Nunes. Bloomberg article. I will repeat the quote:
“Nunes told reporters outside the White House, where he briefed the president on his findings, that “it is possible” Trump’s tweets were correct concerning surveillance.”
Oh, that poor chicken.
I will quote myself from the previous post:
"Trump was wrong to imply illegality if he wasn’t sure of it.
Apparently he was correct that he and his people were under surveillance by the Obama administration (and some of their conversations and their contents were disseminated under their names inside the Obama administration, apparently). Which, while questionably legal, definitely smells bad (or sick?)."
The people they talked to were under surveillance. The Trump campaign was not the target. Maybe you should link to the court order allowing surveillance on the Trump campaign.
They got caught talking to someone they shouldn’t.
There was someone on CNN explaining that the target is listed on the transcript by name. Incidental contacts are redacted and listed only as “American contact” (appx. term, I don’t remember the exact phrase). The point is the name is removed from the transcript(though retained in a separate record). Anyone reading the transcript won’t know who the person is.
The real issue is who leaked this information to Nunes though. That’s our real criminal here.
By what evidence was he correct? Why would it smell bad or sick?
Why shouldn’t they have?
And yet “American contact”'s Flynn’s name and contents of his conversations were widely disseminated. As were the identities of other Trump aides, according to Nunes.
As in “But Nunes said he was “alarmed” that the identities of Trump aides were revealed in intelligence community documents.”
Um, maybe I’m missing something here. To quote you from earlier in this post “Why shouldn’t they have?”. I mean, if they were talking to people that were under surveillance then it seems pretty natural to me that they would be identified in those same documents.
By the way, Ravenman, here’s the full relevant transcript:
REPORTER: “Do you believe the President appropriately used the word ‘wiretapping?’ Was it used correctly in his tweets, based on the information that you have seen?”
NUNES: “I think the wiretapping, if you use it generally like the President has said, he clearly used it differently than what I think a lot of people took it which was did Obama actually wiretap the Trump Tower, which we know didn’t happen. I think the President has been pretty clear on that.”
REPORTER: “But the physical act of the wiretapping, do you see anything —“
NUNES: “No, and I said that on day two.”
REPORTER: “Can you rule out the possibility that senior Obama Administration officials were involved in this?”
NUNES: “No, I cannot.”
So - no, Obama did not “physically”, literally, wire-tap Trump. Ah what a relief. Now we can overlook the fact that Trump was under surveillance by Obama administration. “Incidentally” of course. And the contents of the “incidentally” gathered conversations were disseminated, together with Trump’s aides’ names, in the intelligence community.
Not according to rules about exposing identities of American counterparts in the surveilled conversations.
Until evidence is presented, why should anyone treat this any different than the myriad of other evidence-free lies made by Trump about Obama?
The point is, they weren’t supposed to be revealed as they were not the target. As in, not “under surveillance”.
And yet they were revealed.
Nunes:
"Today I briefed the President on the concerns that I had about incidental collection and how it relates to the President-elect Trump and his transition team and the concerns that I have. As I said earlier, there will be more information, hopefully by Friday. The NSA is cooperating very, very well. And lastly I’ll say that the reports that I was able to see did not have anything to do with Russia or the Russia investigation or any tie to the Trump team."