Right. That’s clearly what Nunes meant.
Wait – so you are now agreeing with Nunes that Trump’s tweet is wrong? Because two pages ago, you were clinging to a vague statement of Nunes as proof that Trump’s tweet was correct.
Nunes, on Sunday: “Was there a physical wiretap of Trump Tower? No, there never was.”
On Wed (or was it Tue?) press conference: "There was not a physical wiretap of Trump Tower.”
Yes, that is clearly what Nunes meant.
Only if “wiretap” can only mean a physical fiddling with wires. But that’s not what “wiretap” means.
Anyway - back to my hypothetical - can anyone answer it? I answered yours…
So would you say that the odds are very high that at this moment, Trump is wiretapping Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Reminds me of this:
First, my question was addressed at Pantastic, not you. I’ve given up asking you to admit that Trump or his campaign was not under surveillance, another point brought up in my hypothetical. So, I’m not sure why I’m responding to you since you refuse to answer my questions about being under surveillance. With that said:
I don’t know – why was the FBI or NSA monitoring that person? Was it appropriate for the politician to discuss the campaign with that person? What are the rules for the FBI/NSA as far as disseminating the names of callers to persons of interest? I ask because sharing has been encouraged between the agencies.
Say that person is a known agent of North Korea and the politician is caught talking to that person. It’s known that North Korea is hoping to disrupt an election, so giving details of what a campaign is going to could be a problem, even if the politician doesn’t know the guy is an NK agent. However, it’s important to figure out whether that politician is sharing campaign info with other foreign agents, so his name is disseminated so that other groups can be aware to watch out for that politician’s name coming up.
So, your hypothetical is incomplete and I need more details to say whether something was appropriate or not.
Irrelevant to the illegality of “unmasking” the US person.
Irrelevant to the illegality of “unmasking” the US person.
"During an interview on Fox News, Woodward said that if that information about the unmasking is true, “it is a gross violation.”
…
He noted that there are about 20 people in the intelligence community who, for intelligence reasons, can order this “minimization” be removed.
“But the idea that there was intelligence value here is really thin,” Woodward said. “It’s, again, down the middle, it is not what Trump said, but this could be criminal on the part of people who decided, oh, let’s name these people.”
He drove the point home, adding that “under the rules, that name is supposed to be blanked out, and so you’ve got a real serious problem potentially of people in the Obama administration passing around this highly classified gossip.”
If somebody does something, do you think that someone else has the right to do something too?
Here’s a report from a right-wing news source that says that Nunes told Schiff that the main problem was that Nunes could “infer the identity of the Trump team members despite their being masked.”
I’m starting to think that Trump looks like a rock-solid, trustworthy truth-teller compared to Nunes. Nunes can’t even keep his stories straight on why he is outraged!
Every story I’m reading, including Woodward’s, says identities “may” have been disclosed. Even the report Nunes ran to the WH with, doesn’t definitively say identities were disclosed, nor who those people were.
So what do we really know? More importantly, what does Nunes actually know?
Is Nunes’ definition of “unmasked” similar to his definition of “wiretapped”?
If “wiretapped” means tapping an actual wire, then maybe “unmasked” means taking an actual mask off?
When we’re dealing with these levels of aversion to facts, it could be a tape recording of Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador doing a Netflix and chill to Jim Carrey’s “The Mask.”
Before we grab our torches and pitchforks to storm the FBI and NSA… what is actually known about the report that Nunes claims to have, and what does it say about who was unmasked?
Everything he’s said so far about what’s in the report sounds very meta.
To say nothing of the fact that Nunes is a treacherous rat-fink snitch with not an ounce of integrity.
I can’t remember if it was in this thread or somewhere else that I read:
The house is on fire, Trump is running around with a lighter, and the Republicans are demanding to know who called the fire department.
It sure does sound like what’s going on in this thread recently.
Sorry, I’m no longer engaging with you until you admit that your statement that Trump or his campaign were under surveillance was wrong.
It wasn’t wrong. Since Trump or his aides’ private conversations were disseminated widely under their names, yes, he was under surveillance. Weaselly semantics notwithstanding.
No. Various foreign agents were under surveillance. If Trump & his minions called up to chat, too bad.
That’s not what the rules say, according to Woodward as I quoted:
"During an interview on Fox News, Woodward said that if that information about the unmasking is true, “it is a gross violation.”
…
He noted that there are about 20 people in the intelligence community who, for intelligence reasons, can order this “minimization” be removed.
“But the idea that there was intelligence value here is really thin,” Woodward said. “It’s, again, down the middle, it is not what Trump said, but this could be criminal on the part of people who decided, oh, let’s name these people.”
He drove the point home, adding that “under the rules, that name is supposed to be blanked out, and so you’ve got a real serious problem potentially of people in the Obama administration passing around this highly classified gossip.”