Reply to #Towergate WILL be investigated

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "#Towergate WILL be investigated"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the allegations will become part of his panel's investigation. The committee 'will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates,' Nunes' statement read.

While on the Senate side, Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said 'I’m sure that this matter will be a part of that inquiry,' during a discussion on Fox News Sunday.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4283584/White-House-asks-Congress-look-wire-tapping-claims.html#ixzz4aU6umnHM 
[/quote]

Things are not looking good for Barack Obama.
 [/quote]

Things are not looking good for someone, that's for sure. Can you guess who?[/quote]

The question is not whether the wiretaps were legal. The question is whether or not they continued to tape even when they found nothing. [b]What's damning is Obama relaxing the rules on how the information can be viewed and used two weeks before he left office.[/b]

Dems are walking back their statements to keep themselves from being caught in the web. Interesting times.[/quote]

I listened to Clapper on MTP yesterday and what I heard him saying was that the rules were relaxed so that intelligence already gathered could be shared in investigation.  The concern was that if only one entity had the intelligence, it could easily disappear after Trump was sworn in.  The word he used when talking about relaxing the rules on collected intelligence was [i]preserve[/i].

I also heard him say that evidence of collusion was not included in his report to Obama and Trump in January.  I'll have to go back and listen to it again, but I could swear he said it twice:  [b][i]not included in his report[/i][/b].  That doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

So what's damning is Trump's concern about surveillance of his Tower of Sauron. [b] Clapper stated it plainly several times:  there was no FISA warrant. [/b] If Trump heard the report that there was Russian interference, but no evidence of his campaign's involvement, why would he be so worried as to make an unfounded claim that his offices had been under surveillance?[/quote]
You know Clapper denied the existence of FISA warrants, right?[/quote]

Yes.  Go back and read the bolded in my post.  Chuck Todd asked him more than once and he said it emphatically.  No FISA warrant while he was in charge.

He also said his report included no evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with Russians.  So why would Trump be worried that there was surveillance - legal or otherwise?[/quote]

Clasper said that he hoped he would be aware of any such warrant or order and that to the best of his knowledge there was no warrant or order.

That is not the same as definitively stating that no warrant or order existed. Period. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics