Nunez: Trump was wrong on Obama wiretap claims

[leibowde84]

Nunez's claims of incidental collections is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a distraction. There is nothing new here. We already knew that legal incidental collections of conversations took place. When someone talks to a representative of an adversarial nation, the intelligence community is going to listen in ... and, thank God that is the case.

I hope that the media continues to try to hold Trump accountable for his actual accusations rather than allowing him to change "what he meant" retroactively, letting him off the hook.

Let's just remember Trump's claims:

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

Important points:

1. Obama ordered surveillance of Trump - FALSE (incidental surveillance does not constitute ordered surveillance by Obama ... even if it wasn't an actual wiretap, he specifically claimed it a "fact" that Obama ordered it directly.)
2. The surveillance was illegal - FALSE (the incidental collection was not illegal. There is absolutely no evidence that any "illegal" surveillance took place at Trump Tower.)
3. Trump Tower in NYC was surveilled - FALSE (Trump Tower had nothing to do with it ... there was no surveillance setup on the premises ... at least there is no evidence of it.)
4. Obama was directly responsible and is a "bad (or sick) guy" for doing so - FALSE (the collections were incidental, meaning that no one ordered them directly.)

We cannot let our President get away with this. It's up to us citizens to not let this go. We have to keep pushing Trump until he can be held accountable.

And, enough with these ludicrous demands from Trump to prove negatives. His strategy seems to be just to throw unsubstantiated accusations out there, and hide behind the logically fallacious argument that he is right because we can't prove that they didn't happen.

Any elected official who makes criminal allegations without any supporting evidence should be ridiculed, end of story.

 

[Quetzal]

Is the "wiretapping" going to be the new "emails"?

 

[metis]

Nunez's claims of incidental collections is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a distraction.

He has made a complete fool of himself, and even some of the Republicans can't believe what he did yesterday. Also, it appears that he may have publicly and illegally released confidential information when he cited there were FISA applications that may collaterally implicate some in the Trump camp on what is an on-going investigation.

McCain said this morning that he has never seen anything like what Nunes did, namely to not show the ranking member of the other party what he found, and then running and supplying what was supposedly found to Trump, whose actions are apparently being looked into as part of this investigation.

And then Nunes gave four different "answers" when asked by reporters whether there was any evidence that the Trump camp was being investigated in the possible Russian connection through a spin-off through the FISA investigation of Russian involvement. He responded yes, no, maybe, and yes-- in that order.

And Paul Ryan doesn't come off too good in this either as he named Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence Committee even though Nunes had not only no experience whatsoever in the intelligence nor military fields.

 

[leibowde84]

Is the "wiretapping" going to be the new "emails"?

I don't think so. The "wiretapping" never actually happened. The email issue was real, but just not that important.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think so. The "wiretapping" never actually happened. The email issue was real, but just not that important.

My understanding is that "wiretapping" is an old-fashioned term which doesn't even describe exactly what they do. In the old days, they'd have to physically insert some sort of wire or gadget into the phone line at the actual location. Nowadays, they can do it remotely from a central office and listen in and record any phone conversation they wish. I don't know if there's any computer record or any residual evidence of such. I remember there was a scandal a while back when someone got hold of some celebrity sexting photos by tapping into their phones.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm actually fine if we allow Obama to sue Trump in a civil case. I mean, how embarrassing is that for the president of the US to lose a civil case concerning false claims. I mean, here is a man with all the resources allocated to one of the most powerful position in the world, to lose such a trivial case. Man... What is wrong with this?!?!

 

[leibowde84]

My understanding is that "wiretapping" is an old-fashioned term which doesn't even describe exactly what they do. In the old days, they'd have to physically insert some sort of wire or gadget into the phone line at the actual location. Nowadays, they can do it remotely from a central office and listen in and record any phone conversation they wish. I don't know if there's any computer record or any residual evidence of such. I remember there was a scandal a while back when someone got hold of some celebrity sexting photos by tapping into their phones.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Obama ordered any kind of surveillance of Trump Tower during the campaign. So, Trump is either stupid or he lied.

 

[Nous]

My understanding is that "wiretapping" is an old-fashioned term which doesn't even describe exactly what they do. In the old days, they'd have to physically insert some sort of wire or gadget into the phone line at the actual location. Nowadays, they can do it remotely from a central office and listen in and record any phone conversation they wish. I don't know if there's any computer record or any residual evidence of such.

If Obama had "ordered" a wiretap of Trump's phones, he (the DOJ) would have had to get an order from FISA court, which, because such Fourth Amendment violations are not granted against US citizens except under extraordinary circumstances, would have required a very strong reason. If there had been such an order, there would be a record of it. These are the records that Lindsey Graham sought, and there is no such record of a court order. The whole thing is just Trump's big delusional lie.

 

[metis]

There are some who are now questioning whether the actual "leak" may have actually been submitted from the Trump camp itself. There's also some questions dealing with what exactly did Paul Ryan do and why, especially since Nunes went to him first? Ryan is not on the Intelligence Committee even though he does appoint the chairperson.

Some of the people who were professionally involved with intelligence gathering feel that what we're now seeing in only the tip of the iceberg and that there's likely far more to come just on this narrow issue alone. Lots of questions here, and they seem to be confident that we will eventually see some real answers.

But let's not get so lost in the trees that we forget to take a step back and look at the forest. Why is it that Nunes is unwilling, even though many of his fellow Republicans are not at all happy with what he did, to turn over what he supposedly was provided, not only to the ranking Democrat (Schiff), but also even to his own party members on the committee??? And if the Trump camp did nothing illegal, then why is this being withheld even from their own fellow Republicans on the committee?

 

[Mister_T]

Nunes has shown he can't be impartial. Giving him a good tongue-lashing is fine and dandy, but he needs to be completely removed from any further investigations immediately.