Whoops: Did we just see the beans spilled?
- Thread starter Hoosier in Mad Town
- Start date
We know that US intel does spy on Russian officials. So yes, if Trump or someone on Trump's team called a Russian official, the data would be grabbed. That explains absolutely everything here. We also spy on Russian officials when they talk to each other, so if they discussed Trump or a Trump surrogate, that data would be collected. My guess is as members of the intel community hear Trump or Trump surrogates talking to Russians or Russians talking about doing business with them, that information stuck. Intel people are trained to seek patterns, and they may have.
I have no idea what was found, but if it is above I don't see a problem. Sure, in my non-FISA world we wouldn't be allowed to spy at all once an American was found involved. But that isn't the rule.
I have no idea what was found, but if it is above I don't see a problem. Sure, in my non-FISA world we wouldn't be allowed to spy at all once an American was found involved. But that isn't the rule.
I wonder if you could quote exactly what she said that you think constitutes some kind of bean spill.
OK.
“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said.
“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”
Which of course can go back to spying on the Russians which just happens to collect Americans in its net. That appears to be what happened with Flynn, and perhaps others. I don't know that IF that is the case it constitutes spying on Trump or his minions.
Good Lord.
And do you want to address the fact that the YouTube channel you linked to is insane?
The tip of the iceberg exposed. Small number of beans spilled. Many more to be spilled.
I didn't even look at the channel.
I try to focus on the facts here ,and the facts are her words.
Did you look at her actual words and what those words mean when put together in a sentence in they way they were? That's often helpful.
You're right. And it will end up with many more Trump administration fired or behind bars.
How is that a bean spill? The fact that we spy on the Russians is common sense. The fact that our spying has resulted in some intelligence about Russians communicating with at least some Trump people in some capacity has been widely reported already.
Not yet . . . when Trump discloses his tax returns and a full and impartial investigation is complete, then we'll be on the right path to see the real beans spilled. Until then, Americans are getting hosed by Trump and every apologist who defends him.
She knows about it.
She called it "intelligence".
She knew Trump staffers were involved.
She was concerned the intelligence would be hidden by the Trump team and it needed to be distributed.
She was concerned about the Trump team learning of their means and methods of collection and would take steps to avoid the snooping.
She said she knows there is more intelligence.that needs to be distributed.
She talked about it on network TV.
In the relevant time period, Obama issued orders materially expanding the distribution list to political people to see this the intelligence.
This stinks.
Edited and made better.
Last edited:
What do you think we have more concerete evidence proving:
- Trump colluded with Russia?
- The governement has actively pursued aparatus to violate our rights?
Absolutely. Dodging the question doesn't do anything to move the discussion forward.
What laws do you think were broken? Let me put it this way, if you happen to come across Vladimir Putin's cell phone number (say, on the ground outside Trump Tower) and you call him from home just to chat, do you believe that it would be illegal for the U.S. government to intercept that call? Does that mean the feds are actively spying on you or that they have "wire tapped" your home? Would you even expect them not to intercept that call if they could?
Concrete evidence? Neither.
You aren't looking at/for facts. You are looking for people to tell you what you want to hear and take what the Global News Network tells you people have said as "fact" instead of actually looking at the actual words she said.
Huh? You might have edited that, but it still doesn't make any sense. Please provide direct quotes from her comments, and explain what stinks about them.
If you think we have neither, you are literally not paying any attention.
https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/12/us-surveillance-practices-violate-rights
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/world/europe/wikileaks-cia-hacking.html?_r=0
No. You can listen to the audio. If you don't know what stinks about this I can't help you, all you want to do is argue.
Someone just has to say this, feel free to choose from choice A or choice B.
A) His head is exploding.
B) Nothingburger
Based on the very limited knowledge we have, I don't see anything. I suspect if Nunes had trusted his info he would be pursuing what he had more vigorously. There may be some issue. But at the moment everything is explained by surveillance of the Russians discovering American contacts. About 20 people are allowed to see data unmasked. More can see, particularly from the FBI, if the FBI requests it as part of an investigation and completes whatever former request procedure there is and it is approved. At the moment, we have no idea that this isn't what happened. We know the FBI IS investigating, Comey said so. Maybe people in the Obama administration requested that, I have no idea. But the point is that everything may be exactly by the book. I disagree with the book, but that doesn't mean it isn't by the book.
nunes doesn't want a real investigation... Him and his trump cronies would be facing the firing squad for treason if there is a serious investigation that goes public. The level of corruption here is on par with Ukraine. Insane.
If you don't see the huge problem with i what you said, you need to understand more about FISA. You do know what the "F" stands for, don't you?
recall Nunes said everything was legal. Do you think he was lying to cover, the GOP head of an Intel Committee?
Added on edit:
As I understand it all that is required if an American is talking to a foreign agent is to get the FISA Court to OK. And the FISA court ALWAYS says OK. If I recall, you backed FISA in the day?
And if they did get a FISA court order, how is it worse than this?
Look, I think to spy on Americans should require the exact same burden of proof as it would if we were after a drug dealer or any other criminal. We make it WAY too easy, and I am disappointed in that.
Good info on FISA.
Last edited:
What's the difference between "literally not paying any attention" and just normal old "not paying any attention"? It sure seems like I've been paying attention because I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and member of Human Rights Watch and I've read all about the wikileaks CIA release.
What rights does this "bean spilling" provide concrete evidence of our government violating?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That's a very nice way of saying that. I'd prefer to explain that he's a bad American.
Gathering the intel is not the issue Marv. The issue is identifying the Americans, distributing the raw data to White House political operatives, distributing the intel to other people not authorized to have it, and finally somebody leaking that info to the public.
I did listen to it, as I watched it. And I think your interpretation is bunk. Now I am asking you to defend your interpretation with actual quotations from her comments.
they should at least be able to sell any and all data collected to advertisers.
to not allow this, would be stifling innovation.
