Nunes Met Surveillance Source at the White House

[JohnnyApplesack]

Corrupt to the very core ....

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee met at the White House complex with the source of documents detailing the intelligence community's incidental collection of communications involving associates of President Trump, the chairman's top aide confirmed Monday.

The source of the intelligence reports cited by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has been a matter of increasing speculation, as the chairman declined to inform Democratic members of the existence of intelligence reports before briefing reporters and the president the day following his mysterious White House meeting.

Democrats, including the panel's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have asserted that Nunes sought to provide political cover to the president, who falsely claimed that the Obama administration wiretapped his New York offices in advance of the 2016 election.

Monday's disclosure, though, only raised more questions about Nunes' actions last week and his committee's ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Intel chair Nunes met source of new surveillance documents at White House

Nunes is so worried about White House leaks, he's leaking information from the White House

 

[Siete]

Corrupt to the very core ....

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee met at the White House complex with the source of documents detailing the intelligence community's incidental collection of communications involving associates of President Trump, the chairman's top aide confirmed Monday.

The source of the intelligence reports cited by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has been a matter of increasing speculation, as the chairman declined to inform Democratic members of the existence of intelligence reports before briefing reporters and the president the day following his mysterious White House meeting.

Democrats, including the panel's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have asserted that Nunes sought to provide political cover to the president, who falsely claimed that the Obama administration wiretapped his New York offices in advance of the 2016 election.

Monday's disclosure, though, only raised more questions about Nunes' actions last week and his committee's ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Intel chair Nunes met source of new surveillance documents at White House

Nunes is so worried about White House leaks, he's leaking information from the White House

sure he is .... do think RussianWingers even notice mush less care?

not a chance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nothing showed Slick tried to influence Lynch. He didn't have to actually because she was in Hillary's camp all along. It was stupid for Slick to do that, in I think it was the ultimate reason she lost 200K votes in Pa Mich and Wisc

The question remains why team Trump has Russian ties. I'm not really sure what Nunez is up to ... beyond covering Trump's strangely large ass. He shouldn't be doing that if he's the chairman of the committee, but obviously the gop doesn't want to lose their president. And there may be something nefarious in leaking the names of the Trump people. But there shouldn't be any covering up of Trump's ties to Putin ... whatever they may be.

The question remains why team Trump has Russian ties....actually Putin has Trump ties

Well, Manaforts made millions and Flynn less. IF Roger Stone really had a internet connection to Gucifiers ..... that's not good.

LOL

Lunatic

 

[Care4all]

Corrupt you say? I don't remember ANYONE on the left having this position when Lynch met Bill on the plane and Bill's wife was being investigated by Lynch. Is Nunes investigating Trump or his wife criminally?

BIG DIFFERENCE..... the Year long FBI investigation, was over two weeks earlier.....IT was announced in the news two weeks earlier, and while I agree it looked just plain wrong, it could not have changed the results of the investigation....lynch was not doing the investigation, nor was she the prosecutor involved handling the investigation with the FBI.

NUNES was the head of this investigation of the presidents team, the watchdog checks and balance on the Whitehouse early in the investigation, notifying the people being investigated on something he never informed the senators on his team investigating.....


HIGHLY UNETHICAL and shows he is not being an investigator but a surrogate of those being investigated.

No difference. Corruption is corruption and that is easily provable. So what's the proof?

Same proof You claim was unethical with lynch, though lynch was the equivalent of meeting with a Paul Ryan.....Lynch was the head of the justice dept, not the investigator.....Ryan is the head of Congress and appointed Nunes as the investigator but he was not the investigator.....would you be upset if Trump`s team or Trump meeting with Ryan? No one would be upset with that, however it was the Investigator head, Nunes, advising and conferring with those being investigated,passing information he gathered, to them, verses his own investigative team.

You seem to be pulling some whacko partisan inverted card, trying to claim they are the same.....when they are CLEARLY NOT the same circumstances.

 

[bendog]

Nothing showed Slick tried to influence Lynch. He didn't have to actually because she was in Hillary's camp all along. It was stupid for Slick to do that, in I think it was the ultimate reason she lost 200K votes in Pa Mich and Wisc

The question remains why team Trump has Russian ties. I'm not really sure what Nunez is up to ... beyond covering Trump's strangely large ass. He shouldn't be doing that if he's the chairman of the committee, but obviously the gop doesn't want to lose their president. And there may be something nefarious in leaking the names of the Trump people. But there shouldn't be any covering up of Trump's ties to Putin ... whatever they may be.

The question remains why team Trump has Russian ties....actually Putin has Trump ties

Well, Manaforts made millions and Flynn less. IF Roger Stone really had a internet connection to Gucifiers ..... that's not good.

LOL

Lunatic

LOL. From you. That's rich ... richer than Manafort even.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let's not forget that there has been a counter intelligence investigation regarding Russian interference and the Trump campaign members since July.
It's not a stretch of logic to think that names are unmasked and added to inter agency reports as a part of that investigation.

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum.

LMAO. The FBI is conducting the investigation, they would be the only possible agency with a need to know. And all this sharing of unmasked information occurred prior to the EO allowing unfettered dissemination.

That's not true. Comey testified that the investigation into Russian interference was a counter intelligence investigation that relies on inter agency information. Director Rogers confirmed that. What EO are you referring to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...tude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

Is that what Nunes is referring to? You have no idea of what communications from what agency he's even talking about. The only thing you know is that it was incidental.

And they had nothing to do with the Russia investigation, you regressives always forget that point for some reason.

No one knows. Nunes changes his position daily with this BS.

 

[Care4all]

No one has demonstrated anything that shows this to be corrupt. Simply saying so does not make it so.

I can't believe that you'd say that after "saying so to make it so" for the entire Hillary campaign

You seem to be forgetting Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence against the hildabitch. And then went down a laundry list of her lies under oath, in testimony before congress. So far all you got is supposition and speculation about Trump, Nunes or anyone else.

Clinton isn't on anyone's radar. That crap is over.

Really, I ask my congressmans office for an update on the congressional perjury referral every week. And I encourage everyone else to do so. That criminal ***** shouldn't be allowed to just walk away.

the repub congress critters have done nothing on the perjury claim...

DRUM ROLL............

because it was NOT perjury and they could not establish that it was perjury.

 

[OKTexas]

LMAO. The FBI is conducting the investigation, they would be the only possible agency with a need to know. And all this sharing of unmasked information occurred prior to the EO allowing unfettered dissemination.

That's not true. Comey testified that the investigation into Russian interference was a counter intelligence investigation that relies on inter agency information. Director Rogers confirmed that. What EO are you referring to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...tude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

Is that what Nunes is referring to? You have no idea of what communications from what agency he's even talking about. The only thing you know is that it was incidental.

And they had nothing to do with the Russia investigation, you regressives always forget that point for some reason.

No one knows. Nunes changes his position daily with this BS.

Never heard him back track on that.

 

[OKTexas]

No one has demonstrated anything that shows this to be corrupt. Simply saying so does not make it so.

I can't believe that you'd say that after "saying so to make it so" for the entire Hillary campaign

You seem to be forgetting Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence against the hildabitch. And then went down a laundry list of her lies under oath, in testimony before congress. So far all you got is supposition and speculation about Trump, Nunes or anyone else.

Clinton isn't on anyone's radar. That crap is over.

Really, I ask my congressmans office for an update on the congressional perjury referral every week. And I encourage everyone else to do so. That criminal ***** shouldn't be allowed to just walk away.

the repub congress critters have done nothing on the perjury claim...

DRUM ROLL............

because it was NOT perjury and they could not establish that it was perjury.

Link please.

 

[theHawk]

Corrupt to the very core ....

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee met at the White House complex with the source of documents detailing the intelligence community's incidental collection of communications involving associates of President Trump, the chairman's top aide confirmed Monday.

The source of the intelligence reports cited by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has been a matter of increasing speculation, as the chairman declined to inform Democratic members of the existence of intelligence reports before briefing reporters and the president the day following his mysterious White House meeting.

Democrats, including the panel's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have asserted that Nunes sought to provide political cover to the president, who falsely claimed that the Obama administration wiretapped his New York offices in advance of the 2016 election.

Monday's disclosure, though, only raised more questions about Nunes' actions last week and his committee's ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Intel chair Nunes met source of new surveillance documents at White House

Well you Dems have been saying that the FBI were the ones tapping the Russians, so all the evidence gathered is legit and legal, right? So what are you afraid of?

Let's not forget that there has been a counter intelligence investigation regarding Russian interference and the Trump campaign members since July.
It's not a stretch of logic to think that names are unmasked and added to inter agency reports as a part of that investigation.

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum.

Except Comey has stated that unmaking was a felony.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Corrupt to the very core ....

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee met at the White House complex with the source of documents detailing the intelligence community's incidental collection of communications involving associates of President Trump, the chairman's top aide confirmed Monday.

The source of the intelligence reports cited by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has been a matter of increasing speculation, as the chairman declined to inform Democratic members of the existence of intelligence reports before briefing reporters and the president the day following his mysterious White House meeting.

Democrats, including the panel's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have asserted that Nunes sought to provide political cover to the president, who falsely claimed that the Obama administration wiretapped his New York offices in advance of the 2016 election.

Monday's disclosure, though, only raised more questions about Nunes' actions last week and his committee's ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Intel chair Nunes met source of new surveillance documents at White House

Well you Dems have been saying that the FBI were the ones tapping the Russians, so all the evidence gathered is legit and legal, right? So what are you afraid of?

Let's not forget that there has been a counter intelligence investigation regarding Russian interference and the Trump campaign members since July.
It's not a stretch of logic to think that names are unmasked and added to inter agency reports as a part of that investigation.

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum.

Except Comey has stated that unmaking was a felony.

I believe he was referring to the way Flynn's name was leaked.

 

[radical right]

It's not a stretch of logic to think that names are unmasked and added to inter agency reports as a part of that investigation.

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum.

Except Comey has stated that unmaking was a felony.

I think you confuse what Comey actually testified to.

Rep Trey Gowdy grills FBI's Comey on wiretapping, Russia

South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy grilled FBI Director James Comey on Monday.

Comey: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information. And so, if Mike Rogers' folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says, "U.S. person number one," and it's important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA, but they can't on their — they don't on their own collect, so they can't on their own unmask. [To person offscreen] I got that about right?

Unknown person offscreen: Yeah, that's correct.

Gowdy: So I guess what I'm getting at, Director Comey, is you say it's vital, you say it's critical, you say it's indispensable. We both know it's a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later on this fall, and oh, by the way, it's also a felony punishable by up to 10 years. So, how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen's name appeared in the Washington Post and The New York Times unlawfully? Where would you begin that investigation?

Comey: Well, I'm not going to talk about any particular investigation —

Comey: I can't, but I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information, but I don't want to confirm it by saying we're investigating it, and I'm sorry I have to draw that line. I just think that's the right way to be.

Gowdy: Well, I'm not going to argue with you, Director Comey, but it is — you know, we're going to discuss a lot of important things today, whether Russia attempted to influence our democratic process is incredibly important. Whether they sought to influence it is a separate analysis, incredibly important. The motive behind that interference and influence, incredibly important. Our U.S. response, incredibly important. Some of that may rise to the level of a crime. Some of it does not rise to the level of a crime. One thing you and I agree on is the felonious dissemination of classified material most definitely is a crime. So, I would ask you, and I understand some of the procedures that you are up against — I would humbly ask you to seek authority from whomever you need to seek authority from. Because I'm going to finish the same way I started. This is an agreement between the American people and its government. We are going to — we, the American people, give certain powers to government to keep us safe, and when those powers are misused and the motive is not criminal investigations or national security, then I'll bet you my fellow citizens are rethinking their side of the equation. Because that U. S. citizen could be them next time. It could be you. It could be me. It could be anyone until we start seriously investigating and prosecuting what Congress thought was serious enough to attach a 10-year felony to. With that, I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe you can find Comey saying unmasking was a felony, but I can only find Gowdy making that claim.