Several news reports said that the intercepts were “primarily” ambassadors talking to foreign officials about Trump aides. Furthermore, Nunes has said many times that Trump people were not “wiretappped,” and I take that to mean any type of intentional collection.
How can someone not be “wiretapppped” but under surveillance?
Nope, the point made was that that the scandal is that names were unmasked. The logic is simple, but it can never be accepted by partisans, that is clear.
IMHO the whole narrative would not had talked at all about masking if people like Trump had been under surveillance. But Nunes point was that the agents or other sources told him that the names that were supposed to be masked (again telling us that that originally and supposedly they were not under surveillance) were not masked.
This actually points to a scandal for sure, as in agencies that are leaking like a colander, and telling others how some groups were not masking people properly.
What I can deduce here is that either the people were under surveillance and the points about masking are asinine, useless because there was never any idea to not have Trump or his administration under surveillance. Or they were indeed not under surveillance and the talk of unmasking is in reality a scandal but not for Obama but for the people that should know better who should never had unmasked names, but did so either by incompetency or to undermine the investigation.
It is, as I showed with numerous cites from news sources above.
The “several news reports” have no idea what was in the intercepts because no one except Nunes and intelligence agencies he requested the exact intercepts from knew which intercepts those were - until this Friday when it was shown to Schiff et al.
You may “take that” but Nunes explicitly said he was referring to physical collection of data. As in (quote from Nunes’ press conference) "There was not a physical wiretap of Trump Tower.”
Like Reuters?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-report-idUSKBN1712QV
Reuters also reported that in essence Trump and others were swept by the surveillance of others. That is why their names were supposed to be masked. We need to find who were the people that decided to unmask the names of the ones that indeed were not under surveilance.
May I suggest a change in nomenclature? Instead of “target of surveillance”, let’s try “target of an investigation”.
This way, per Okrahoma’s evident wishes, we can refer to Trump as “not explicitly and publicly named as the target of an investigation” without violating the sacrosanctity of “surveillance”.
Yes like Reuters:
U.S. to disclose estimate of number of Americans under surveillance
Note the “under surveillance” part. Again.
An article from December, and not to the point. I already knew the unfocused cites you made, this one does not counter the point that I was making: Reuters in the latest reports does not follow your sorry definition. And they reported that Trump was swept incidentally, not a target, therefore he or others in his admin were supposed to be masked.
Again, I would take you seriously if Nunes and others would not had talked about masking. There would had been no need if Trump or staff had been a target **because then no masking whatsoever was ever needed or done ever. **
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
An article from December, and not to the point.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, since English language has changed since December.
As I pointed out upthread, there is a difference between being “under surveillance” and being “target of surveillance”.
No, you didn’t show that at all. You barfed up some news stories that used surveillance, that doesn’t mean they support anything you’ve written.
Wait - why are you allowed to use Nunes’ vague accounts of what was in the reports, but when the press provides more specificity that fits in perfectly with Nunes’ vague reports, you reject it?
And no, Nunes said many, many times that Trump’s tweets were wrong. Trump and Spicer have said many times that wiretapppping was put in quotes so as to encompass more than a physical tap on telephone lines. For you to be correct, one party must be lying. Which one, Trumo/Spicer or Nunes?
I would like to point out an absolutely horrifying statement made in the comments section:
He continues:
While I know that the quoted author of those statements doesn’t speak for all conservatives, it’s still a terrifyingly egregious example of “party over country.”
First of all, Okrahoma is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to agree that Trump wasn’t under surveillance. So, you’re all wasting your time there.
Second of all, if these reports that Nunes has seen are from high level people in the intelligence community, who were already on the White House grounds, why wouldn’t they just share their information with the administration? Did they forget who was president? If you have information that would benefit the president and his narrative, you would just give it to him, he can redact it as necessary, and release the facts that agree with his claims.
High level sources meeting with congressmen secretly makes a lot more sense if what they have goes against the administration. Woodward and Bernstein needed Deep Throat because what he had was damning to the administration. Nunes sources apparently boost the administrations story.
I had another thread that quickly died asking whether an administration has ever asked congress to investigate the executive branch. I asked that because the administration has access to all the high level people in the NSA, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and doesn’t even need subpoena power to get what it needs.
Oh, it isn’t a waste of time. Because this thread is sort of like the old TV show, Kids Say the Darndest Things. If you ask a kid how babies are made, you might get a rediculous answer. But the entertainment is getting them to defend their thesis in more and more elaborate ways. The last thing you want a toddler to say is the correct answer. That’s no fun at all!
That’s a good question. Got a link to that thread?
This is just nonsense here. Again, it is clear that the nanosecond the agents or Nunes or Trump mentioned that the names were supposed to be “masked” it follows that the agencies considered those subjects to not be part of the investigation.
And in plain English, Trump was neither under surveillance nor the target of the surveillance.
As pointed before, there is a scandal alright, but it is about agents who favor Trump or White House staffers that leaked like colanders about names being unmasked, the problem here is that AFAIK someone complained that names of people that were not under surveillance and less of a target were unmasked when they should had not.
He was not target of surveillance. But the article you cited says nothing about him or his team not being under surveillance.
You understand that unmasking people that should not have been unmasked is a crime, right? So yes, if “someone complained” about a crime being committed - that’s called a “whistleblower”.
Here’s the thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=820954
Like I said, it didn’t get much interest and, given how this current thread has moved, you could probably just discuss it here.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=VOX]
The first is “incidentally collected.” In intelligence jargon,** that means the Trump officials were not the target of surveillance **— that what they said was “incidentally” picked up by surveillance intentionally targeting someone else.
The second is “legally collected foreign intelligence.” What Nunes meant here is that the communications were between Trump officials and a foreign national, under surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows secret courts to issue surveillance warrants for non-Americans.
[/QUOTE]
You are just speculating, but I already did say that it is a scandal indeed. For all we know; the agents, the trump staffers that had clearance or Trump himself were the ones that did the unmasking.
You should also understand that all this talk about unmasking once again points to Trump and others in his administration as not being targets of the surveillance nor being under surveillance.
And yet you quote, again, “that means the Trump officials were not the target of surveillance” with which I already agreed. But that doesn’t mean that they were not under surveillance. There is a difference, which I already explained (and documented with numerous cites).
We are all under surveillance as you use the term, so who gives a shit? On your terms, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.