Saturday, April 1, 2017

Nunes has known about this information since January

Intelligence agencies are stonewalling. 
Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity. (link)
Order of events:
  • Nunes given information and specifics of the reports that would confirm in January. 
  • These reports have been requested from the intelligence agencie(s) that would have them.
  • The agencie(s) have not responded as of yet to requests.
  • Nunes gets clearance to view these reports through other means.

If all of this is true (and there is no reason not to suspect it is) than there is clearly a breach of law here. The reports apparently show that there was surveillance of Trump and members of his campaign going back to early 2016 and that this surveillance had nothing to do with Russia or anything else. There is also apparently evidence that the information was purposely released in order to cause political embarrassment for the incoming President. Lastly, it is said that the person ultimately responsible is high up in the intelligence community and not part of the FBI.

Meanwhile the Democrats would like the only member of the investigation committee that seems to be actually investigating to "step down". Why? Because he actually bothered to go get the information that the intelligence communities are stonewalling. Perfect.


Adam Schiff has also now seen the documents. In what appears to be a pretty solid political move, the White House has invited "all" of the ranking members of the intelligence committees investigating the matter to come view the same documents Nunes did. This certainly "should" (but probably won't) put an end to the concept that Nunes was doing something wrong by going around the Intelligence communities to see documents he has clearance, as well as every right, to see.

I believe it is telling that Schiff is "not" disputing what Nunes stated was in them. His only criticism at this point was the manner in which Nunes went about receiving and reporting on these documents. Schiff believes that Nunes went outside of normal procedure for pretty much no good reason. Although the "real" main issue for Schiff would likely be that Nunes went public.


James said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


Loretta Russo said...

"Meanwhile the Democrats would like the only member of the investigation committee that seems to be actually investigating to "step down". Why? Because he actually bothered to go get the information that the intelligence communities are stonewalling. Perfect."

They'll do anything to protect the two-bit community organizer.

Roger Amick said...

FBI probing whether Trump aides helped Russian intel in early 2016.

Despite his denials, investigators believe the operation was authorized by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself and it involved both cyberattacks and information warfare.

According to testimony on Friday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, 15,000 operatives worldwide participated in spreading false news stories and conspiracy theories online. Those activities are also part of the FBI’s investigation - including who paid for them.

Law enforcement sources say one theory is that Trump associates could have been motivated by money. But sources tell us the FBI wants to get the investigation absolutely right so that the public will trust the result, whatever that turns out to be.

Your Fox link didn't work.

Trump attacked Chuck Todd today. Todd tries to be non partisan, and even most conservatives don't think he's biased.

CH, I'm going to ask you a question that isn't loaded with partisanship.
Excluding the "I have other things to do".

Why does President Trump want to end the investigation into possible collusion with Putin, or his agents?

There isn't anything we have seen that they were working together. The FBI investigation is ongoing. We have the absolute right to know yes or no. The free press was meant to speak to power.

We all know that I despise the President, but he is our President, and it seems to me, that he is acting irresponsibly. Tweets?????? He is making a mistake, by surrounding himself with loyalists. I hope that he will learn how to run the most important and difficult job on the planet.

Roger Amick said...

Something else came out today, from the White House.

Michael Flynn Failed to Disclose Income From Russia-Linked Entities

Continue reading the main story

Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, in January. Mr. Flynn reported an income of $1.37 million to $1.47 million. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser who was forced out of the job in February, failed to list payments from Russia-linked entities on the first of two financial disclosure forms released Saturday by the Trump administration.

The first form, which he signed in February, does not directly mention a paid speech he gave in Moscow, as well as other payments from companies linked to Russia. The second, an amended version, lists the names of the companies that made the payments under a section for any nongovernment compensation that exceeds $5,000 “in a year.” That list appears to include all of the work that Mr. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general, has done since leaving the military in 2014, without providing compensation figures for any of it.

No reason was given for the discrepancy between the two forms.

The Russia-linked payments were detailed in a letter released in March by congressional investigators, and included a $45,000 speaking fee from RT, formerly known as Russia Today, a Kremlin-backed news network, for a speech in 2015 in Moscow. During the same trip, Mr. Flynn attended the network’s lavish anniversary dinner and was photographed sitting at the elbow of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Mr. Flynn has faced fierce criticism for the Moscow speech and for his lobbying efforts for Turkey. But the work paid well, and the disclosure forms showed income of nearly $1.5 million, a sizable amount for a man who left the military less than three years ago.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

Democrats Know the Election Was Legitimate but Persist in a Dangerous Fraud

So now, there is just one very inconvenient problem for the “Russia hacked the election” narrative, the tireless media-Democrat harangue since November 8: Everything of substance that is known to the U.S. government about Russian meddling was already known in those pre-election weeks when Clinton and the Democrats were hailing the legitimacy of the process.

They’ve changed their tune not because the facts changed, but because they lost.

And what’s their story now? It’s pretty much the same one they scalded Trump for telling. They peddle a three-part rigged election claim: (1) foreign interference, not by illegal aliens who may have voted but by Russians who did not affect the voting process; (2) one-sided press coverage — they mean the Russian propaganda press and the WikiLeaks release of DNC and John Podesta e-mails, which they’d now have you believe had more influence on Americans than did the Democrat-media complex and the grudging State Department release of Hillary Clinton’s own e-mails; and (3) the corruption that lifted a low-character candidate who should not have been allowed to run but who received extraordinary government assistance — not from the Obama Justice Department but from the Putin regime.

The story is never going to fly.

So Democrats are the real traitors of democracy. Not the mention;

Hypocrisy ---- Bedrock ---- Liberalism.

opie said...

No one is saying election totals were changed or hacked. But, I do recall trump imploring the russki's to find the emails and how he loved wikileaks, which very clearly had information from their hacking and dripping it out. I guess that shows to everyone but you menstral child, they were certainly trying to influence american thinking....the active fake news picked up and broadcast by trump, like the election was rigged tie directly to russian trolls, Sad you don't think it is important and again buy into the lies of trump.

wphamilton said...

The "hacking the election" narrative has some potential, because if there's any truth at all about collusion with Trump or his campaign aids it suddenly becomes a significant problem of national security.

Yet so far, that isn't happening. I think the reason is because the two prongs of the "attack" we're seeing - breaches of political communications, and political propaganda - are things that we're already accustomed to. The cyberattacks appear to have been limited to emails between DNC officials, and exposed high-level corruption and anti-democratic schemes. Deep down, Americans have to grudgingly accept that illegal or not, this great reveal can ultimately only strengthen our Democracy. So there is a legitimate question, does an illegal exposure of attempts by members of a political party to derail Democracy actually constitute an attack on our election, or is knowing the truth still the overriding principle?

Similarly, the ""fake news" propaganda doesn't have much traction because it's no more than what we've put up with by agents of Both parties in the recent past. I have an visceral dislike for Trump's policies, his apparent incompetence, lack of character, and on down the list of just about every priority I have for a US President, yet even I found the mainstream coverage of Trump to be absurd, including the frequent frankly moronic "fact checking" of everything Trump says. We've been inundated by "fake news" already, so it's hard to dredge up an outrage over another, relatively minor source of it.

So what accounts for the political impulse of this scandal? Since everything we know to date, even if ultimately proven, amounts to nothing earth shaking and possibly a net positive, I've got to think that it's a big fishing expedition. Hoping to find at least one guy getting a payoff or making promises in a quid pro quo. I wouldn't mind seeing it, but fishing expeditions don't have a good record of success lately. Sorry, loyal Democrats, but I call them as I see them.

rrb said...

from the "unexpectedly" files:

On Thursday we closed the book on the Obama economic “miracle” — and it’s a miracle we are not in a recession.

Last week the Commerce Department released its third revision for fourth-quarter 2016 gross domestic product. The number came in at a paltry 2.1 percent, meaning that growth during President Obama’s final year in office — the end of an “Error of Hope” — landed with a big thud at just 1.6 percent.

That low-water mark puts the Obama presidency in last place among all the post-World War II presidents when it comes to economic growth.

Myballs said...

The big media has been part of the problem for the last decade. Trump was elected in n part because of their arrogance and bias. And they still haven't learned.

Trump supporters absolutely believe hr is getting a raw deal from them. Most recently their obsession with​ finding collusion while ignoring the illegal surveillance and unmasking.

Get the media to fix themselves abd things will improve.

James said...

The question is not, IS Trump mentally ill?
The question is, HOW mentally ill is he?

Commonsense said...

Why the curious silence from Obama over tapped Trump Tower?

This passage has it exactly right:

This is no small thing we are talking about here. We are talking about a sitting president’s administration using the terrifying powers of espionage of the United States government to conduct an intelligence operation against a political opponent before, during and after that target was elected president of the United States.

So much for “peaceful transfer of power.”

This would be 10 times more serious than Watergate. We are talking a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen in modern times.

And all anybody around here seems to want to talk about is the exhaustively investigated — yet still unsubstantiated — conspiracy theories about Mr. Trump’s supposed ties to Russia.

James said...

Washington Times; "Yet, from media darling Barack Obama (about whom the accusations were made!)? Not a peep."

Not a peep? I guess a simple and dignified denial was too difficult for the Washington Times to understand.