Once again, this is from Reuters:
“U.S. to disclose estimate of number of Americans under surveillance”
Those are not “targets of surveillance”. They are “under surveillance”. People at Reuters know English, right?
Here are some more examples:
That doesn’t match your made up definition.
The Rueters article says nothing about transcripts being disseminated.
When a court authorizes the interception and recording of all your communications, you become a “target of surveillance”. You are then placed “under surveillance”.
Nothing in the process at this point involves your name with the transcripts of your conversations being disseminated in intelligence community.
At any rate, anyone you talk to is neither “under surveillance” nor are they a “target of surveillance”. This is incidental contact. However, if you’re discussing criminal activity, then they are subject to arrest just like you.
My definition was not all inclusive. There are other ways to be “under surveillance” and still not be “target of surveillance”.
But these articles definitely are counter to your “made up” equivalence of “target of surveillance” and “under surveillance” aren’t they? All the people discussed in all those articles are “under surveillance” - but not “targets of surveillance”.
I read these posts, it took me five minutes. Give them back!
Why twist words into pretzels just to defend an ill advised and baseless tweet from the president? He said it because someone on Fox said it. He even admitted that’s why he said it.
Let me guess - the “intelligence source” who “isn’t a Trump person” is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the NSC’s director for intelligence, who is a protege of Flynn’s. Nunes already claimed he wasn’t a White House source or a Trump staffer.
Seriously, I will bet anyone $100 on this.
Geez, offering “Trump and his people were in routine contact with a bunch of shady Russian Mafiya characters and got their conversations overheard as part of the Russian Mafiya investigations.” as a defense of Trumpelthinskin’s Twitter tantrum is even funnier than getting his peanut gallery to wave Russian flags at his speech.
I’m confused by this whole thing with Nunes. If some folks in the White House wanted to slip him some intelligence, why the part where he then briefs the president on it? Wouldn’t the shady folks brief the president directly or the president already know? It sounds circular, and at the same the intelligence is not that important for Nunes to run around like his hair was on fire
'Cause then (assuming it wasn’t found out that he found it at the WH) he can turn around and tell the President, and the President can say “see? The Intel committee found secret info that supports me!” It was a scheme to try and make the President’s silly bullshit look like less-silly bullshit.
So what led to need for the “other surveillance”? Just someone’s name appears somewhere and it leads to a warrant? Does the content of surveillance weigh on this?
You know talking to russian mobsters/spies/oligarchs is a voluntary activity?
You know that according to Nunes (and Schiff after seeing the documents didn’t contradict him) the reports have nothing to do with Russia?
The elephant in the room is avoided still I see.
So if the wiretapping was not because of Russia what was then about? There are then many other possibilities then that are not related to the Russian meddling in the election, could be plain old tax evasion, or illegal funding from other sources other than Russia* to just plain old fashion espionage designed to be used for black mail.
- Even here Russia can be an issue as there are reports of possible Russian connections transferring money via third parties to help people like Manafort to influence not only the campaign of Trump, but also the lobbies working to push the Russian case about Ukraine in the US Congress.
Whose “tax evasion”? Illegal funding of whom? You have to decide, really - you’re implying that Trump was the target of the court-ordered surveillance due to “tax evasion” etc. Yet others in this thread insist that he wasn’t. Which is it?
Do you truly not understand that GIGO was asking you what the reason for Trump’s surveillance was? GIGO wasn’t implying anything; he was asking you what you were implying.
You still are missing the point. Trump and/or his team were not under surveillance.
Trump and/or his team were talking to criminals and spies.
The criminals and spies that Trump and/or his team were talking to were under surveillance.
If it comes out that the what Nunes said was true, and the criminals and spies that Trump and/or his team were talking to were not connected to Russia, then that does nothing to distance Trump and/or his team from the russian issues, as there are several other points of connection there. It just means that in addition to Russian spies, there were other criminals or spies that Trump and/or his team were talking to.
If you say so. How well do you know everyone you talk to? Are you sure none of them are criminals or spies?
I already showed above that under Reuters’ and other news sources’ definition of the concept, yes, they were under surveillance.
What’s that got to do with Trump’s uninformed claim?
It is legal to talk to spies and criminals. It’s what you talk about that can get you in trouble.
Yep, and based on the latest replies, Okrahoma still does not get it.