Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign

[Nadiru]

They were watching the Russians. We've known about this for months.

I mean the specifics, in this case. Who ordered what surveillance when, because in this case it kinda matters, not regarding the validity of the evidence but whether or not the CIA overstepped boundaries. As important as it is to not have a Manchurian Candidate, it's equally vital to not have a spy network doing things it oughtn't.

[Wyrt]

I mean the specifics, in this case. Who ordered what surveillance when, because in this case it kinda matters, not regarding the validity of the evidence but whether or not the CIA overstepped boundaries. As important as it is to not have a Manchurian Candidate, it's equally vital to not have a spy network doing things it oughtn't.

Pretty sure the CIA is always watching the Russians.

[Edge-]

I mean the specifics, in this case. Who ordered what surveillance when, because in this case it kinda matters, not regarding the validity of the evidence but whether or not the CIA overstepped boundaries. As important as it is to not have a Manchurian Candidate, it's equally vital to not have a spy network doing things it oughtn't.

Assuming I'm not getting things jumbled in my head (which at this point int he day is very likely), the surveillance on the Russians was largely routine, though there were legal FISA warrants involved in it (can't remember if they were specific to the requests related to the Americans caught up in the communications or not). The request to unseal the names of the Americans was also lawful.

Everything I've seen related to this is well above board. Contrary to Trump's claims, Obama did not "wire tap" him, and last I recall wasn't even involved in this until after the communications started raising red flags.

[Somewhatconcerned]

But



her



emails

[Nadiru]

Assuming I'm not getting things jumbled in my head (which at this point int he day is very likely), the surveillance on the Russians was largely routine, though there were legal FISA warrants involved in it (can't remember if they were specific to the requests related to the Americans caught up in the communications or not). The request to unseal the names of the Americans was also lawful.

Everything I've seen related to this is well above board. Contrary to Trump's claims, Obama did not "wire tap" him, and last I recall wasn't even involved in this until after the communications started raising red flags.

I mean, FISA warrants are never legal if targeted at a domestic citizen, hence the name: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Trump communications were even incidentally collected and then used as evidence, that may also constitute a pretty severe breach of FISA minimization procedures.

[Edge-]

I mean, FISA warrants are never legal if targeted at a domestic citizen, hence the name: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Trump communications were even incidentally collected and then used as evidence, that may also constitute a pretty severe breach of FISA minimization procedures.

They were incidentally collected, but all the names were masked as they are legally supposed to be. The unmasking request that was apparently made was lawful (my memory is muddy on if the FISA courts were needed for that or not, but I know they had legal authority from FISA courts to spy on the Russians) as well, despite attempts from Trump and conservatives to initially make it appear unlawful.

Everything worked as it was supposed to, the Trump administration and conservatives/conservative media have just been gaslighting like mad so it's sometimes difficult to try to mentally sort through what actually happened and what were the 20 "alternate theories" proposed by those folks.

[Nadiru]

They were incidentally collected, but all the names were masked as they are legally supposed to be. The unmasking request that was apparently made was lawful (my memory is muddy on if the FISA courts were needed for that or not, but I know they had legal authority from FISA courts to spy on the Russians) as well, despite attempts from Trump and conservatives to initially make it appear unlawful.

Everything worked as it was supposed to, the Trump administration and conservatives/conservative media have just been gaslighting like mad so it's sometimes difficult to try to mentally sort through what actually happened and what were the 20 "alternate theories" proposed by those folks.

Maybe, but also maybe not. It's one of those weird things where if a court clears Trump of any wrongdoing (even if his subordinates are convicted) then one can argue that the CIA violated minimization procedures because you're only allowed to even keep but not use that information if there is further evidence of a crime being committed, and any incidentals collected which aren't relevant to a crime are only allowed to be held for 72 hours. I think that's where the real legal defense shows up, because these incidentals were collected and held for months prior to their revealing, when they should have only been held there for, at most, days.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

"Former CIA Director John Brennan told House Russia investigators Tuesday that Russia "brazenly interfered" in US elections"

Then

"I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion,"

Trying to make Russia the culprit still isn't working. Frankly, this line is old, deprecated and meaningless. It seems like every day, there's another unknown tidbit about Russia. But that's simply not real. Reality is that beside strong Democrats who wish to overthrow the Republicans, people don't care about Russia. In fact, it's grotesque and fed ad nauseum.

It's absolutely impossible for something that is so blown up like this to actually hold in front of a rigorous, transparent scrutiny. I mean, I'd love this to be true, because I really wish the US would tighten their restrictions and consequences on Russia (and Saudi Arabia). But it's not. Since the beginning, it's an amalgamation of hearsay, opinions and overblown facts. You know, when you really want something to be true, you'll see what you want to see.

[Edge-]

Maybe, but also maybe not.

And maybe it's all martians! If we're going to levy claims like "The surveillance on the Russians was illegal!" without even a shred of evidence to start with, then go big with the claims.

It's one of those weird things where if a court clears Trump of any wrongdoing (even if his subordinates are convicted) then one can argue that the CIA violated minimization procedures because you're only allowed to even keep but not use that information if there is further evidence of a crime being committed, and any incidentals collected which aren't relevant to a crime are only allowed to be held for 72 hours.

If it remained relevant to an ongoing investigation, then the investigation leading to someone being cleared doesn't retroactively make their actions illegal. What kind of nonsense is this?

I think that's where the real legal defense shows up, because these incidentals were collected and held for months prior to their revealing, when they should have only been held there for, at most, days.

During which time an investigation was ongoing.

This is some real low quality gaslighting, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

Then



Trying to make Russia the culprit still isn't working. Frankly, this line is old, deprecated and meaningless.

Those are not mutually exclusive statements...you realize that, right?

[Rukh]

They were incidentally collected, but all the names were masked as they are legally supposed to be. The unmasking request that was apparently made was lawful (my memory is muddy on if the FISA courts were needed for that or not, but I know they had legal authority from FISA courts to spy on the Russians) as well, despite attempts from Trump and conservatives to initially make it appear unlawful.

Everything worked as it was supposed to, the Trump administration and conservatives/conservative media have just been gaslighting like mad so it's sometimes difficult to try to mentally sort through what actually happened and what were the 20 "alternate theories" proposed by those folks.

Essentially yes, The data was collected because we're always spying on the Russians, just like they're always spying on us and everybody on everybody. To comply with US rules, names of US citizens were masked. Through different (classified so no idea) means, the CIA also got probable cause that the Trump campaign was up to no good and told the FBI, the FBI got a warrant to obtain information and therefore unmasked the people who were communicating with the Russians.

[yoma]

Then



Trying to make Russia the culprit still isn't working. Frankly, this line is old, deprecated and meaningless. It seems like every day, there's another unknown tidbit about Russia. But that's simply not real. Reality is that beside strong Democrats who wish to overthrow the Republicans, people don't care about Russia. In fact, it's grotesque and fed ad nauseum.

It's absolutely impossible for something that is so blown up like this to actually hold in front of a rigorous, transparent scrutiny. I mean, I'd love this to be true, because I really wish the US would tighten their restrictions and consequences on Russia (and Saudi Arabia). But it's not. Since the beginning, it's an amalgamation of hearsay, opinions and overblown facts. You know, when you really want something to be true, you'll see what you want to see.

So when you really want Trump to be innocent and Russia to be a non-issue, that's what you see? I suppose your theory holds water. An ocean's worth.

[Burgerberg]

I find it highly amusing people are willing to believe an ex-CIA chief.

The CIA are an organisation built on deception. Now I'm not saying that Russia didn't interfere with anything, I just don't believe a word this man is saying.

[Mormolyce]

Then



Trying to make Russia the culprit still isn't working. Frankly, this line is old, deprecated and meaningless. It seems like every day, there's another unknown tidbit about Russia. But that's simply not real. Reality is that beside strong Democrats who wish to overthrow the Republicans, people don't care about Russia. In fact, it's grotesque and fed ad nauseum.

It's absolutely impossible for something that is so blown up like this to actually hold in front of a rigorous, transparent scrutiny. I mean, I'd love this to be true, because I really wish the US would tighten their restrictions and consequences on Russia (and Saudi Arabia). But it's not. Since the beginning, it's an amalgamation of hearsay, opinions and overblown facts. You know, when you really want something to be true, you'll see what you want to see.

You are of course aware that Russia interfering in the election and Trump colluding are two different things? The former is well established. The latter is unproven.

We know that the campaign had inappropriate contact with Russia, and the circumstances are highly suspicious. But who knew what and when is yet to be established. That's what the investigation is for.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, FISA warrants are never legal if targeted at a domestic citizen, hence the name: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Trump communications were even incidentally collected and then used as evidence, that may also constitute a pretty severe breach of FISA minimization procedures.

The purpose of FISA warrants is to surveil foreign powers or agents of foreign powers, but obviously those people under surveillance may contact Americans. Especially if said Americans are, you know, spies or crooks. Incidental surveillance is legal, and unmasking the names of suspects of collusion by the appropriate authorities is also:

“The identities of US persons may be released under two circumstances: 1) the identity is needed to make sense of the intercept; 2) if a crime is involved in the conversation,” said Robert Deitz, a former senior counselor to the CIA director and former general counsel at the National Security Agency.

“Any senior official who receives the underlying intelligence may request these identities,” Deitz said, noting that while “the bar for obtaining the identity is not particularly high, it must come from a senior official, and the reason cannot simply be raw curiosity.”

Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA and former executive assistant to the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence, said Rice’s unmasking requests could likely be viewed as routine and expected of high-level intelligence officials.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/s...17-4?r=US&IR=T

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then



Trying to make Russia the culprit still isn't working. Frankly, this line is old, deprecated and meaningless. It seems like every day, there's another unknown tidbit about Russia. But that's simply not real. Reality is that beside strong Democrats who wish to overthrow the Republicans, people don't care about Russia. In fact, it's grotesque and fed ad nauseum.

It's absolutely impossible for something that is so blown up like this to actually hold in front of a rigorous, transparent scrutiny. I mean, I'd love this to be true, because I really wish the US would tighten their restrictions and consequences on Russia (and Saudi Arabia). But it's not. Since the beginning, it's an amalgamation of hearsay, opinions and overblown facts. You know, when you really want something to be true, you'll see what you want to see.

Nobody cares about Russia? That's exactly why the majority of the nation (I can rip up the poll that's been linked a hundred times in other threads if you want) want Trump investigated for possible collusion with the Russians? As in, nearly all Democrats and a large portion of Republicans.

But at this point we don't even need collusion proven, as obstruction of justice is an incredibly serious crime in and of itself.

It seems you're committing the usual fallacy that many Republicans do, that they project their own feelings, opinions, and views onto the populace as a whole.

[Edge-]

I find it highly amusing people are willing to believe an ex-CIA chief.

The CIA are an organisation built on deception. Now I'm not saying that Russia didn't interfere with anything, I just don't believe a word this man is saying.

Because that's a great position to be in - to not believe the words of the very people risk their lives working for a department whose sole purpose is to ensure the protection of America and American interests. They're engaged in shady shit, but they're god-damn Americans, and many of them willing to (and have) risk their lives and die for.

[Orbitus]

I find it highly amusing people are willing to believe an ex-CIA chief.

The CIA are an organisation built on deception. Now I'm not saying that Russia didn't interfere with anything, I just don't believe a word this man is saying.

Compared to Trump? Yeah I will listen to Brennan over the orangutan any fucking day.

[Deja Thoris]

I find it highly amusing people are willing to believe an ex-CIA chief.

The CIA are an organisation built on deception. Now I'm not saying that Russia didn't interfere with anything, I just don't believe a word this man is saying.

The logic on these forums is impeccable as usual.

[Deleted]

I find it highly amusing people are willing to believe an ex-CIA chief.

The CIA are an organisation built on deception. Now I'm not saying that Russia didn't interfere with anything, I just don't believe a word this man is saying.

You should blindly follow the CIA. Saddam has WMDs, lets go start a war

[Wyrt]

You should blindly follow the CIA. Saddam has WMDs, lets go start a war

Most of that was the Bush Admin lying to the American people and then later blaming the CIA for it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You should blindly follow the CIA. Saddam has WMDs, lets go start a war

- Bush announced the WMD findings against the advice of the CIA, since they were not entirely sure at the time. But he needed fuel to go to war. Fear is a powerful motivator for Republicans. So rather than call Bush a liar and tarnish the US, they went along with it.

- These findings that the Trump campaign not only contacted Russia, but tried to obstruct justice, are coming from multiple sources both inside and outside of the CIA, FBI and NSA.

- The CIA of 16 years ago and today, run by entirely different people and staffed by entirely different people.

Pointing to the WMD thing as some kind of mark against the findings of the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY is pants-on-head level.