Posted on 03/23/2017 10:08:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On January 20, the New York Times published a story on wiretapping of Trump insiders. In the print version, the headline was "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides," although you're going to have to squint to read the acknowledgment of the print headline at the bottom of the page.
Still, if you look through the actual article, you'll find this paragraph:
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
On March 4, Trump tweeted:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
This, of course, has been the subject of lots of Claude Rains since then, as reporters and politicians announce they're shocked, shocked at that accusation.
I've written about this before here and here, and I won't go through the whole argument again as I'm not paid by the word, but the really inescapable conclusion was that either the New York Times reporting was false, or Trump was justified. The real question was identifying who in the Obama administration (or in the upper-level civil service staff) had been responsible for leaking information that identified a "US Person" -- and would they be prosecuted for what appear to be felonious violations of 18USC793 and 50USC1801.
If anyone. We know from the Clinton email scandal that the Espionage Act has an unwritten "except for Democrat politicians" exception. So this morning, Charlie Savage tweeted a criticism of the Wall Street Journal's editorial:
Re "fake president" editorial, why can't WSJ ed board grasp that FBI wiretap targeted Russian ambassador, not Flynn? https://t.co/4Alc56JQGl pic.twitter.com/MlwkNqr0i9
— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) March 22, 2017
I thought this was a little odd, and followed up:
Why can't you grasp that NYT, WaPo reported multiple times on Trump-insider intercepts? Were they lying? https://t.co/f3LmOLh7Pf
— (((Charlie Martin))) (@chasrmartin) March 22, 2017
From which we got to this:
@chasrmartin A talks to B. B is a surveillance target. Govt ends up with intercept involving A, even though A was not targeted. Get it?
— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) March 22, 2017
This strikes me as silly and disingenuous: it's the same old "well, it wasn't really a wiretap and it wasn't really a wiretap of Trump" defense.
Now, after a lot of talk during hearings on Monday that no one saw evidence that Trump had been wiretapped, today Devin Nunes announced (quoting from his press release):
“Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower”
Does he won Trump Tower either through his corporation, partnership or LLC? If so, then all the wires are his.
See, it all depends on what the definition of “my ‘wires’” is.
won = own
The most concerning aspect was the facial expressions of Devin Nunes. It looked like he had just been to the scene of an accident and learned that loved ones had died.
The words are one thing, but the look on his face conveyed a message of grave concern.
The way he released the data got the information out in the wild before the media and Mr. Schiff had a chance to reformulate and discredit the report.
The “incidental” claim is a cover story.
Comey was surveiling Trump’s people for the Clintons. He did it with an oblique method that afforded plausible deniability.
Betcha.
Soon: “Dem operative caught on wiretap denying Trump was being wiretapped”.
The very people wiretapping him deny they wiretapped him.
And yet, if you listen carefully, they admit they “surveilled” him for months. And how do you do that?
Buried in the word salad is a complete admission that they wiretapped him, read his mail, listened to his calls, knew everything he did. They are just denying that they connected two alligator clips to two terminals.
And while you are listening, notice that while they accuse Putin of hacking the election, they make it plain that they themselves in fact were hacking the election. Unsuccessfully so, thank goodness, but not for lack of trying.
“The way he released the data got the information out in the wild before the media and Mr. Schiff had a chance to reformulate and discredit the report.”
IMHO Nunes did the right thing. I love the part where the information was given to the White House. Hehehehe. That drags Barry into this. Hahaha
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3537239/posts?page=236
Linking the repository thread here
The only people who will accept the progressive story are those that a hookah smoking caterpillar has given the call. Go ask Alice. I think she’ll know.
Basically a rehash of Bill Clinton's famous "She had sex with me, but I didn't have sex with her" line of reasoning.
Also remember "24 business hours" ? That was another explanation generated by a feckless, cornered liberal wise-ass loser.
Or could it have been concern that something might happen to him once he knew the truth?
Saying “wire-tapped” is much the same as saying: “filmed the incident” (when it was actually recorded digitally), or “videotape the show” (in lieu of “record the program on DVR). The tech has changed; but the purpose remains unchanged — and we all know what the speaker means.
Long ago, when I was in commercial radio communications work, I wanted one of those, what we called "buttinskis" or "butt-sets". It looked like a telephone handset with a dial (early ones had rotary, later ones could also do DTMF) with a belt clip and alligator clips to hook into the line pair.
Never got one. If I had one today, I'd need a time machine to go somewhere I could use it for anything but a table lamp.
Agreed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.