Breaking: Confirmation that trump team was spied on

[NYC17]

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.

Yea no. Even Nunes has said this is all probably fine and that it just "bothers" him. He's basically using a guise of "transparency" as a way of muddying the waters to not make Trump's claims look quite so baseless. That's what he means when he qualifies it with this is all normal and "probably fine".

You're making leaps based on your incorrect understanding of what he's actually saying.

[Aggrophobic]

No, it's not "confirmation".

[Bullettime]

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.

Considering there was investigations into Russian money laundering and mob activity, including involving residents of Trump Tower itself, it's no surprise that they picked up something.

[NYC17]

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.

Yea, I can't imagine why a member of the Trump transition team would do such a thing. This whole situation is so fucked.

[LaserSharkDFB]

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.

Yeah, no. That is not how spying works. Spying is how you get information, and has nothing to do with what you do with it afterwards. The subject of their investigation was not a US citizen and their data collection was lawful. And again, what you're basically saying is that it's okay by you if Americans work with rival forces, since there's no way to find out about it unless they mention it publicly.

[Soeroah]

No, it's not "confirmation".

It's also not "spied on", and it's hardly even "breaking".

The most outrageous, shocking thing about this is that some people seem to think it's good for presidential candidates to make it all the way to the White House without basic background checks. And even then, that doesn't seem to be the case of what's happened here, what with it being "incidental".

For clarification, OP, "incidental" does not mean "targeted" or that they were the subject of surveillance. It means they were tangentially related to something or someone that was being surveilled, and their names popped up on a system meant to collect data. It isn't, as Trump wants to portray it as, a cloaked Barack Obama having the FBI and CIA pour over every phone call related to Trump during the election and handing what he found over to Hillary Clinton to help the democrats win.

It's essentially "huh, that guy who called this guy is three people removed from a Trump campaign manager, weird" which may now be more relevant with the Russian investigation going on.

[Deleted]

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

Look up the definition of Incidentally

I focused mostly on that these incidental information gathering reports were then as the man speaking puts it "widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting", this tells me that they were looking for information. My mastery of the english language is probably why I am failing to understand you though...

"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?

I'm sorry, I don't realize this. I am not a US law scholar by any means. You are free to clarify what you mean though.

[gyrados]

well my my my my guess he was spied on i guess

[Noxx79]

well my my my my guess he was spied on i guess

You guess wrong.

[Narwal]

"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.

They actually don't. It's against the law to be recording data on Americans. You HAVE to have a court order to do this. All of our spy agencies are only supposed to be collecting data on foreigners, unless you have a court order to do so.

[Bullettime]

well my my my my guess he was spied on i guess

He hasn't shared the information he claims to have with his own congressional committee which is sending up some flags. But the claim is incidental evidence, meaning they were spying on others and Trump or Trump's people happened to phone in and get picked up.

There's been claims of an ongoing investigation into Russian mob based money laundering operations that happen to involve people who live in Trump Tower. Chances are, those suspects were being spied on and members of Trump's team like say Manafort or Page were recorded calling a tapped party. Flynn was likely busted this exact same way.

[Deleted]

lol now its been confirmed the lefts response is oh well its normal.

no amount of evidence will make a lefty consider being rational in thinking.

Infracted

[NYC17]

They actually don't. It's against the law to be recording data on Americans. You HAVE to have a court order to do this. All of our spy agencies are only supposed to be collecting data on foreigners, unless you have a court order to do so.

Which brings us back to the incidental data collection, which doesn't fall under whatever argument you're trying to make.

Just to be clear, you know who called this incidental collection? Devin Nunes.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Why, it's almost as though Trump might know that he and/or his people had illegal dealings with spied-upon Russians...

[Narwal]

Yeah, no. That is not how spying works. Spying is how you get information, and has nothing to do with what you do with it afterwards. The subject of their investigation was not a US citizen and their data collection was lawful. And again, what you're basically saying is that it's okay by you if Americans work with rival forces, since there's no way to find out about it unless they mention it publicly.

In this case, there are new documents that show more Trump names were exposed based on incidental data, that this republican is saying "was not related to the russians in anyway". That means his claim is that the target of the data collection was an American. Which makes it unlawful as spying on an American.

[NYC17]

lol now its been confirmed the lefts response is oh well its normal.

no amount of evidence will make a lefty consider being rational in thinking.

That's not "the left's response. That is literally Nunes' own description of it.

lol indeed.

[Bullettime]

lol now its been confirmed the lefts response is oh well its normal.

no amount of evidence will make a lefty consider being rational in thinking.

And it's like people on the right can't read. They're not saying Trump was directly spied on. They're saying Trump's team were recorded incidentally, meaning they weren't being spied on but were having contact with people who were actually being tapped.

[NYC17]

In this case, there are new documents that show more Trump names were exposed based on incidental data, that this republican is saying "was not related to the russians in anyway". That means his claim is that the target of the data collection was an American. Which makes it unlawful as spying on an American.

No. That's not what it means. It could mean that, but Nunes himself didn't even make that claim.

Just stop it. Seriously..haha.

[Deleted]

That's not "the left's response. That is literally Nunes' own description of it.

lol indeed.

And it's like people on the right can't read. They're not saying Trump was directly spied on. They're saying Trump's team were recorded incidentally, meaning they weren't being spied on but were having contact with people who were actually being tapped.

interesting spins on the facts that are available for all to see.

[Narwal]

Which brings us back to the incidental data collection, which doesn't fall under whatever argument you're trying to make.

Just to be clear, you know who called this incidental collection? Devin Nunes.

He also said it was not incidental data related to spying on Russia. So we will have to wait and see how it was "incidentally" retrieved. If it wasn't incidentally retrieved when spying on Russians, then where did it come from? And why was it making it with names exposed onto security reports?