UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

"Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications..."

Do you understand boy? Do ya? Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?

"Incidental" surveillance can such a convenient excuse to spy, don't you think?

The former is deliberate and intentional targeting. The latter is routine, and NOT targeted at a person or location.

…it was deliberate.

I am not trying to defend Trump, but it is laughable the hoops the intelligence community, and its defenders in Congress are trying to go through to cover up the extent of the NSA's spying capabilities is fun to watch.

(no message)

Not to mention the deliberate and intentional use of foreign intelligence as part of a domestic investigation for which there was apparently no probable cause because there was no domestic surveillance (as the anti-Trumpers have repeatedly stated, if only just because Trump said there was surveillance, and they have to disagree with him no matter what).

(no message)

(no message)

regularly decry.

uses stories with "unnamed sources" as the underpinnings for most of his beliefs is criticizing others unmade sources?

I suspect that the Obama/Clinton puppeteers of the Left put up the fake Russia conspiracy smokescreen to fatigue the public and cover for what is starting to come out now.
But let's wait and see. I have time. But
You calling anyone else a bot is comical

Also the Rosen report, and the Nunez comments support that.

Besides, you are telling me that they did this intentionally.

You have nothing right now.

I am saying who did what intentionally? What Nunes said he found had nothing to do with Russia or an investigation of it.

MAke sense man.

And that the investigation involved illegally culling foreign intelligence reports for information, and unmasking the US citizen data when that data was useful to attack Trump, but not unmasking it when it wasn't useful to attack Trump. Are you now saying that did not happen?

I think you are getting lost in the facts...but you have your conclusion all sewn up, so it doesn't slow you down.

(no message)

The investigation of the Trump campaign was confirmed by Comey. He and Rogers confirmed there was no surveillance of the Orangetan or his Tower. Nunes said that he saw information lawfully collected incidental to lawful surveillance of foreigners that wasn't related to Russia. That's what I'm saying because that's what is known. Any surveillance as part of that investigation was of foreigners based on what we know.

Now who surveilled who in your fantasy realm?

What names were discovered and were unmasked?

Who collected the information, did the unmasking and disseminated it?

Evidence please

You claim an investigation that had no legal, direct surveillance (because that might bolster Trump, so you can't admit that)...which is a weird investigation, if you ask me. You claim the intentional investigation was actually an intentional (and illegal) review, aggregation and unmasking of previously incidentally gathered foreign intelligence. The unofficially leaked information which you call evidence for your position was either (1) intentionally unmasked intelligence in violation of the law on the one hand, or (2) unmasked through loosened policies allowed by Obama in a scandal of epic proportions. You believe this "evidence" helps you, but it actually makes Trump the victim, and strengthens him, because it proves that he was being spied upon by the Obama administration.

This information you claim as evidence is leaked through unofficial channels, but when people you disagree with claim the same type of evidence, you attack them for having unreliable sources. That is very funny.

You said, "Any surveillance as part of that investigation was of foreigners.... Now who surveilled who in your fantasy realm?" I ask the same of you.

"What names were discovered and were unmasked?" I ask the same of you. If there were US civilians (e.g., people in the Trump campaign or Trump himself) named in the evidence that you base your opinions on, then there is your answer.

"Who collected the information, did the unmasking and disseminated it?" I'm assuming it was Obama appointees or agents left behind in the Trump administration, but it could be anyone who wants to weaken Trumps presidency. But please, why don't you tell me. You are the one who is claiming to have the only valid evidence.

"Evidence please" Give me your evidence. Then, I will point out my evidence among your evidence. That may be the easiest way to go here.

Quite simple Neddy. That is what we know about the Russian hacking and release of the hacked emails and the investigation into alleged collusion with the Trump campaign. The three things we know that are noteable are that the Russian hacking and release to help Trump has been established, the FBI has enough evidene to support an ongoing investigation into collusion, and that neither Trump or his building were easdropped upon. Nunes publicly stated that he obtained information from an unnamedsource that was lawfully collected and not related to the investigation. The rest is speculation and un named source reporting.

Yours, you have nothing, you can't answer any of those questions.

You are blinded by irrational anti-Trump bias, so you cannot draw rational conclusions from the evidence, or even recognize that not all the evidence is in before you draw your conclusions. (There is rational anti-Trumpism...but you are beyond that.) You can't see that you are, possibly, being manipulated. Indeed, you are so committed to your cause, that you can't possibly admit that you could be wrong.

I am not so committed. I'm willing to let this play out. I'm willing to support impeachment of Trump if the evidence plays out to justify that. In the meantime, I'm attacking your irrationality. I'm mostly worried that our democracy will be lost not to the Russians (a foe I am confident will not take over the US government), but by people like you, who would rather chase the puppets than the puppet masters. You say you worry about nationalism, but your anti-Trumpism is a form of nationalism, in that you would rather chase the external threat of the boogey-man Russians (the outside influence created for your benefit) than chase the people who are illegally using the intelligence community to point you to the Russians to distract you from their attempt to undermine an elected president.

Looking forward to your next thread about treason in the Trump administration. Keep chasing the boogey-man they created for you. I'm sure they will pat you on the head when they are done.

If it's developed then it should be investigated as this is being investigated.

There is proof of Russia attempting to influence the election to favor Trump. That in and of itself should be a problem to any rational American. There is also evidence of Manafort being paid millions by Russian interests and Flynn being a foriegn agent of Turkey and lying about his contact with the ambassador. That should bother any rational American. Finally there is evidence to support an ongoing FBI probe into whether these stooges and others colluded with the Russian govt on the release of the hacked emails. That should clearly bother any rational American. There is also evidence of the platform change at the RNC to favor Russia that the campaign initially lied that they weren't involved with. I have never said Trump was involved or knew, but excuse me if I don't believe the same about his campaign, and yes that is traitorous. I have said at this point there isn't hard proof of it, but what there is hard proof of is bad enough.

Clear enough for you?

Happily for me, I'm willing to eat popcorn and watch this develop. I don't feel compelled to hurl accusations of treason yet.

the campaign and Russia collusion. There is no evidence to prove intentional surveillance by Obama of Trump. If that comes forward it should be investigated.

It's not the evidence that I'm criticising. It's the fact that it doesn't establish your conclusion.

And don't say, "From incidental collection of foreign intelligence." If that is your answer, then I understand that you are being hyper-technical and intentionally dense about this topic.

Analogy: I'm sitting in traffic, watching the car behind me through my rear view mirror. I say, "I'm watching that car behind me." And you say, "No you aren't, numbnuts! You are watching your mirror." OK. Whatever.

(no message)

Are you asking me to describe the mirror? Or the image reflected in the mirror?

Something tells me that unless Obama pulled out a wire stripper, and personally wound the tap wires on a twisted pair phone line inside of Trump Towers, you are going to say that Trump's tweet was a lie.

Let's do a real Neddy hair splitter to see if you will answer.

You seem to be claiming that there was an intentional effort by Obama or his administration to surveill Trump and his top associates, yes or no?

If yes, what specific leaks that have been reported on do you attribute to those efforts?

Understandable?

You are the one splitting hairs between investigation and surveillance, between Trump and Trump Campaign, and between Obama and Obama administration, and between FBI 2016 and FBI 2017. Seems like your terms change meaning every post.

Anyway, you asked: "You seem to be claiming that there was an intentional effort by Obama or his administration to surveil Trump and his top associates, yes or no?" Starting to appear that way. Comey testified that there was. Nunes said there was. You seem to think that there was. We'll see. (Or, I will see...you will draw your conclusions right now, and insist that everyone else do so now as well.) Now, if you want to split hairs between an investigation and surveillance, or directly putting wires together to gather information, as opposed to combing through data already collected by other means, go right ahead. But YOU are the one splitting hairs and drawing fine distinctions, not me.

"If yes, what specific leaks that have been reported on do you attribute to those efforts?" All of them. All of the ones you are using, whatever they hell they are. That has been my point all along. You are using the leaks from an investigation/surveillance/data gathering to justify your position, while denying that the investigation/surveillance/data gathering took place. That is just bizarre to me. If there is public information which supports all the collusion and treason allegations against Trump that you are making, then there is public information that supports Trump's contention that he was investigated.

[By the way, I may be off the board for a couple days. I'll check in if I can. I would like to see your answer.]

First of all I'm not claiming that Obama intentionally surveilled Trump or his top associates. There was a properly authorized FBI investigation of his campaign. Comey said that involved no surveillance of Trump or his building. Where did Nunes say this happened?

Also, none of the evidence I cite to comes from leaked sources. Clapper and Rogers testified to the Russian hack and release. Comey and Rogers testified to the FBI investigation. The info on Manafort and Flynns nefarious money deals came from Flynn's filing and the AP investigation of Manafort.

Name the alleged leaks YOU are referring to that were obtained by Obama or his administration's alleged surveillance of Trump or his top associates. If you are including the FBI investigation in that so indicate.

…before you claim Comey to be neutral because he attacked both party's members, don't forget that Obama dislikes Hillary also. Comey has been very loyal to Obama.

You do not compute.

(no message)

(no message)

Trump, I will place some credence in it. Or when there is credible proof of important facts like the Russians publishing the hacked emails to help Trump that lends credibility to the allegations, I will similarly give it more credence.

And if there is sufficient evidence by all means it should be investigated.

How about a special prosecutor for each of the investigations?

(no message)

(no message)

so they didn't surveil Trump. Instead, they sifted through intelligence collected through normal foreign intelligence gathering which didn't require probable cause. Then, they unmasked the US citizens mentioned in that intelligence...and then just leaked it to the press rather than pressed charges because there were no charges to be pressed.

There are so many levels of illegality and scandal in that, and yet you delude yourself into thinking that the facts help you in anti-Trump-bot behavior......Numbnuts.

I can only say that I hope you are right, because if you are, Trump will be vindicated, and high level Obama appointees will be facing indictments.

Now, if the fact that Obama administration loosened up the unmasking rules a week before the inauguration allows this formerly illegal behavior to be done without the Obama operatives being indicted, then maybe, just maybe, you have a plain old ordinary scandal on the level of Watergate.

Either way, Trump is exonerated.

You are so invested in this, you can't back down. But, you might want to take a step back, and objectively review this stuff. I'm willing to wait; are you? Can you go 5 days without accusing Trump people of treason?

according to the director. As part of that investigation Trump and his fortress were not wiretapped or surveilled again according to the director and the NSA director.

Trump and or his minions were incidentally picked up as part of normal surveillance according to Nunes. That did not relate to Russia. That's what's known.

What other facts do you have other than your beliefs?

I'm just pointing out that it is your desire to be correct that gives you certainty, not the evidence that is public so far.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

I never said you started this thread or every thread. I congratulate you on finding one you didn't start, but that does not refute anything I said. Your statement does continue the pattern I see in your analysis of Trump, though. You believe something, therefore it must be true.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)