GoBills808 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 If only there was a way I could grow, gather and store my own food inexpensively. I hear ya. Unfortunately we live in a society that does not value food self sufficiency.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 What FISA orders? He wasn't wiretapped, remember? I don't know how the left handles the cognitive dissonance of this whole thing. I find it acutely painful. It's a gift
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 It's a gift I miss the good old days when they just parroted empty, meaningless slogans like "It's Bush's fault!" and "Republicans want to kill grandma," and didn't even bother trying to rationalize them.
HappyDays Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Then maybe you can explain the legality of this incidental capture of communications between two US citizens, and exactly how Trump's communications fall under FISA orders? You would have to ask the NSA. If you're asking me to elaborate on spying laws, I can't even begin to. But incidental communications get picked up, that is what Rep. Nunes was referring to.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 You would have to ask the NSA. If you're asking me to elaborate on spying laws, I can't even begin to. But incidental communications get picked up, that is what Rep. Nunes was referring to. Considering that this is critical to the debate at hand, maybe you should elaborate, or stay out of the conversation?
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 But incidental communications get picked up Yeah...in third-period study hall. When's the last time you ever heard "incidental communications" referenced in counter-espionage investigation?
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 When's the last time you ever heard "incidental communications" referenced in counter-espionage investigation? I usually only hear that phrase in the "Hot for Teacher" stories.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Yeah...in third-period study hall. When's the last time you ever heard "incidental communications" referenced in counter-espionage investigation? Part of the dissonance. It's ok to use third-grade analogies, except when it comes to trump and then it's a crisis
Nanker Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Yep. If Scooter Libby went to jail, a lot of Dems are going to join him in orange jumpsuits.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Yep. If Scooter Libby went to jail, a lot of Dems are going to join him in orange jumpsuits. Except there's one critical difference: there's no Democrat who's a grown adult going by the name "Scooter."
HappyDays Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Yeah...in third-period study hall. When's the last time you ever heard "incidental communications" referenced in counter-espionage investigation? I haven't heard ANY of this stuff ever, it is all very unique. It's clear you want to go on believing that there was some nefarious plot by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump for, well, that part isn't clear. Going by the available evidence including Nunes's comments today that is obviously not what happened. What Nunes said is that members of Trump's team were being recorded as part of an investigation, and whenever Trump spoke to them his comments of course would be recorded too. That is the "incidental communication." As to how legal it would be to use those conversations in court, I have no clue and probably most legal experts would tell you there is not a clear answer. But regardless, Trump's accusations were wrong. Considering that this is critical to the debate at hand, maybe you should elaborate, or stay out of the conversation? Ridiculous, no one at our level knows the laws. A lot of this stuff is literally handled by secret courts, that is what the Snowden leak revealed. But the legality doesn't matter. What Trump said was wrong - Obama did not order wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on Trump, and this was confirmed by Nunes today. Everything else just confirms what we already knew, which is that Trump and his associates are being investigated by the FBI for potential espionage with Russia. I'm sure Trump feels "somewhat vindicated" but if there was more to this he'd be bragging about it endlessly.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I haven't heard ANY of this stuff ever, it is all very unique. It's clear you want to go on believing that there was some nefarious plot by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump for, well, that part isn't clear. Going by the available evidence including Nunes's comments today that is obviously not what happened. What Nunes said is that members of Trump's team were being recorded as part of an investigation, and whenever Trump spoke to them his comments of course would be recorded too. That is the "incidental communication." As to how legal it would be to use those conversations in court, I have no clue and probably most legal experts would tell you there is not a clear answer. But regardless, Trump's accusations were wrong. Ridiculous, no one at our level knows the laws. A lot of this stuff is literally handled by secret courts, that is what the Snowden leak revealed. But the legality doesn't matter. What Trump said was wrong - Obama did not order wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on Trump, and this was confirmed by Nunes today. Everything else just confirms what we already knew, which is that Trump and his associates are being investigated by the FBI for potential espionage with Russia. I'm sure Trump feels "somewhat vindicated" but if there was more to this he'd be bragging about it endlessly. Let me get this straight. Trump's juvenile comments about being wiretapped are cause for alarm, but evidence that his communications may have been illegally obtained is no big deal. Does that sum up your point?
Nanker Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Except there's one critical difference: there's no Democrat who's a grown adult going by the name "Scooter." Or a Nerd Badge - bow tie.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Ridiculous, no one at our level knows the laws. A lot of this stuff is literally handled by secret courts, that is what the Snowden leak revealed. What's ridiculous is your statement. No one at "our level" knows the laws?? So, you're outraged over Trump's tweets but not outraged at all that you think we live in a democratic republic where the people aren't allowed to know the laws that affect their constitutional rights to due process and privacy?? This might be a blue ribbon winner for stupidiest and saddest post of the month.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I haven't heard ANY of this stuff ever, it is all very unique. It's clear you want to go on believing that there was some nefarious plot by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump for, well, that part isn't clear. I don't "believe" anything. I've read the stories about the FISA warrants being sought for Trump Tower based on electronic communications with Russia from BEFORE THE ELECTION. There is no nefarious plot: the FBI was seeking warrants as early as July to perform surveillance on the Trump campaign. That was reported by the same media that's now reporting that it never happened. Going by the available evidence including Nunes's comments today that is obviously not what happened. What Nunes said is that members of Trump's team were being recorded as part of an investigation, and whenever Trump spoke to them his comments of course would be recorded too. That is the "incidental communication." That's not "incidental communication," that's intercepted communication under the very surveillance warrants that everyone denies exists. And it's Nunes being an !@#$, playing political theater trying to admit the evidence captured as a result of surveillance while denying the very existence of the surveillance that captured the evidence. Again, the cognitive dissonance is absolutely astounding. You're using the mere existence of an investigation, that by the investigator's own admission hasn't found anything, as evidence that there's something to find, based on evidence that wouldn't exist unless something happened as it was reported to happen did happen despite now being reported to not have happened by the very same parties that six months ago reported it did happen. Do any of you exercise any sort of structured, rational thought? Or do you just swallow every damn thing you hear unquestioningly? This is more convoluted than the Clinton investigation by Starr, which was grade-A bull ****.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I can't believe I'm on Greggy's side of this ridiculous argument.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 ...but if there was more to this he'd be bragging about it endlessly. Like, maybe, fundraising off it?
HappyDays Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Goddamnit I typed a reply and deleted the whole thing. To sum it up quickly, I am very concerned that intelligence agencies can gather "incidental communications" like this regularly, and I said as much in my first post. But Trump isn't going to stop that. He wants Snowden arrested and executed for treason. He isn't on your side with this, he's on his own side as usual.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 He isn't on your side with this, he's on his own side as usual. No ****. I think the point, more than anything, is that this whole thing is a Charlie Fox. It's political theater as written by Eugene Ionesco.
HappyDays Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Like, maybe, fundraising off it? Asking for money from his most loyal supporters is not evidence of anything, come on. Does Trump strike you as the type of person that says he feels "somewhat vindicated?" If his accusations were supported, he would be shouting all over Twitter about how BIGLY this is.
Recommended Posts