Breaking: Confirmation that trump team was spied on

[satimy]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...623616/video/1


This is some big and scary news, I'm surprised it didn't get brought up yesterday

[NYC17]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...623616/video/1


This is some big and scary news, I'm surprised it didn't get brought up yesterday

It's really not. Nunes himself called it normal and "probably fine".

Stop.

[satimy]

That doesn't sound normal

[Varitok]

It's really not. Nunes himself called it normal and "probably fine".

Stop.

I mean, if a republican isn't decrying it, It probably really isn't anything.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't sound normal

Just because you say something doesn't sound normal, Doesn't make it not normal. This dude is a republican and he would be flipping his lid if this was actually not normal.

[Sunseeker]

No, it isn't. The the government has a vested interest in ensuring the incoming administration has the nation's best interests at heart.

It would be stupid to not keep an eye on candidates and their teams.

[LaserSharkDFB]

They were not 'spied on', in the same way that a security camera that catches a crime in progress is not a 'sting operation'. Incidental collection means they were surveilling someone else, and someone on the Trump team contacted that person. If you think that's in any way improper, you don't actually want the IC to find out American citizens are working with hostile/rival forces.

[BrerBear]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...623616/video/1


This is some big and scary news, I'm surprised it didn't get brought up yesterday

Thread title is a lie.
Do you not know what the word "incidentally" means?

"...on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition."

We already know this was done. That's how Flynn got caught. The intelligence community taps foreign sources and criminal suspects, and that's how they found out that Flynn was communicating with the Russians.

It does not say that:
1) Obama ordered anything
2) The Trump team was targeted

Nunes ran to brief the White House about this information before even informing his committee. This was a big no-no by Nunes. It is not going to end well for him.

[Deleted]

No, it isn't. The the government has a vested interest in ensuring the incoming administration has the nation's best interests at heart.

It would be stupid to not keep an eye on candidates and their teams.

Probably but in essence, he was spied on?

I mean, it sounds like Trump is largely correct on this issue.

[Varitok]

They were not 'spied on', in the same way that a security camera that catches a crime in progress is not a 'sting operation'. Incidental collection means they were surveilling someone else, and someone on the Trump team contacted that person. If you think that's in any way improper, you don't actually want the IC to find out American citizens are working with hostile/rival forces.

It's trump supporters for the most part, They are desperate to grasp at straws to prove that he isn't completely insane.

[BrerBear]

Oh, and P.S. The reason Nunes is providing this cover for the White House -- he was himself part of Trump's transition team -- is that they are counting on rubes to not understand the details of what he is saying and assume this will vindicate Trump.

Sound like anyone we know, OP?

[Kasierith]

Probably but in essence, he was spied on?

I mean, it sounds like Trump is largely correct on this issue.

In about the same way that you're spied upon if you walk into a store that has security cameras in it.

[BrerBear]

Probably but in essence, he was spied on?

I mean, it sounds like Trump is largely correct on this issue.

Case in point.

[Deleted]

Case in point.

Well I am not going to shirk the notion that I might be uninformed, because I probably am.

However the way he worded it, it sounds (to me) that there was surveillance going on, targetting the Trump campaign/transition team.

I don't know though, you're free (and I welcome you) to show me how I am incorrect.

[Narwal]

They were not 'spied on', in the same way that a security camera that catches a crime in progress is not a 'sting operation'. Incidental collection means they were surveilling someone else, and someone on the Trump team contacted that person. If you think that's in any way improper, you don't actually want the IC to find out American citizens are working with hostile/rival forces.

If a person is incidentally captured by the NSA, and the data is then put away and not used, it's incidental data. If someone then pulls that incidental data out from the backroom and starts using it against someone, you're spying on them. Sure, the method of the data collected is incidental, but if you use the data, you're then spying on them. In this case, data collected incidentally, was then used in intelligence reports, with the names exposed. This means someone "ordered" the security apparatus to get and use the incidental data on someone specifically (because the names were exposed, something a higher up has to order), thus becoming spying.

If the incidental data that was exposing other staffers names, was not specifically recorded during spying on Russian diplomats, then it will become very clear that the Security apparatus was not "just spying on the russians", which is how they claim they've come up with all their data on the Trump team. If the data instead is shown to be gathered via other channels, then Trump will have been right, they're spying on his team.

The first rule of spy club, is deny everything. If you believe our spy agencies are going to tell us when they spy on us, even if you straight up ask them, you're naive. Remember when one of the directors was asked by congress if they were collecting data on US citizens, and he said "no"? Do you then remember Edward Snowden exposing that they actually were collecting all of our "meta data"? Yea... you don't become the best spy agency in the world by telling people what you're doing.

[NYC17]

That doesn't sound normal

You're literally arguing with the guy whose video you posted and used as proof of something which you clearly do not understand. Your ability to comprehend normal and not normal may be compromised.

[Sunseeker]

Probably but in essence, he was spied on?

I mean, it sounds like Trump is largely correct on this issue.

"Spied on" as in: did the government keep an eye on him and his compatriots activities without their knowledge? Again: if the government didn't, they would be idiots. The same applies to Hillary, Bernie and everyone else who ran. Hell GWB JR probably spied on Obama, and I wouldn't blame him for it.

You realize the government has a legal right to do this?

There's a difference between "keeping an eye on people to ensure they're not dangerous elements" and "using that information to your advantage against them". People are only making a big deal out of this to distract from real problems.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Oh, and here's the thing: Nunes still hasn't provided those intercepts to the Committee on Intelligence, though he gave it to the White House:


Seriously, WTF.

[Deleted]

Remember how Flynn was caught because he decided to call the Russian ambassador, who was obviously tapped? I suspect this is the same sort of thing. They were in contact with people who were tapped. That'd explain the 'incidental' aspect of it, at least.

[Noxx79]

Well I am not going to shirk the notion that I might be uninformed, because I probably am.

However the way he worded it, it sounds (to me) that there was surveillance going on, targetting the Trump campaign/transition team.

I don't know though, you're free (and I welcome you) to show me how I am incorrect.

The bold is where you're incorrect, especially the underlined word.

Look up the definition of Incidentally

[PACOX]

Thats not what he said at all, not even close.

In fact he said the names incidentally came up in a legal operation. Partisan BS aside, the key issue is why those names were included a latter report, not that they happen to be part of a legal operation.

Its like if the FBI was doing surveillance on a dope house and a pizza man ended up named in one of their reports because he delivered pizza to the house. Assuming the pizza man wasn't part of the dope ring, he name should never be revealed an any of the FBI reports.

Back to the real world situation, the people named in the reports should not have been unmasked...assuming they did nothing wrong. That is a fair assessment to make but we'll have to wait to see, AS NUNES SAID, despite some of the partisan BS.

If they caught because someone else was being investigated then tough chimichangas.