We will see but that isn't the only difference between what Nunes said, and what Trump tweeted. There are far larger differences than that. The idea that it was criminal is number 1. The idea that Obama ordered it is number 2. Those are the reasons Trump's tweets made news and created a stir. Nothing Nunes says supports any of that.
That's what I mentioned previously. Nunes immediately backed down when asked questions. Nunes said zero that supported Trump's claims.
So, Nunes went to the subject of his committee's investigation with new and important "evidence" before sharing that "evidence" with members of his committee(including the co-lead). Without even getting into any discussion of the actual "evidence" he came across and discussed, you do not see the unethical action by Nunes? Or do you consider that simply another "clever" act by Nunes?
Nunes is just begging for independent counsel to be formed, maybe that was his plan all along (so he would not have to deal with this mess)?
I knew that meathead Nunes couldn't be trusted to investigate Trump. So, about Nunes' farce of a news conference. Monday, the FBI Director confirms what many of us suspected: the FBI is investigating Team Trump for collusion with the Russians during the election. The Republicans go into whirling-dervish spin mode: obfuscate, divert, confuse. Basically, it comes down to this: Nunes is Trump's towel boy and can't be trusted to serve on a committee that will investigate Trump (big surprise there). Ryan and/or Trump sent Nunes to fall on his own sword / squirt an ink cloud. Nunes offered three different answers to the same question (actually four, if you count the fact that he started at "yes", went to "no", then offered a "maybe, we'll know more on Friday", and came back around to "yes"), all the while unable to make eye contact with the reporters. So Schiff and the other Democrats on the same committee are appropriately outraged. John McCain says there should be an independent inquiry. The proceedings gets bogged down. Team Trump buys some time. Nunes might get a slap on the wrist somewhere but Trump probably told him, "I always remember those who are loyal to me. I especially remember those who are not."
I'm not really seeing how this is vindication for Trump's accusation that Obama ordered a wiretap on him. Didn't we already know that the FBI was investigating possible Russian interference in the election, and that Trump's people may have been tied up in that? Is this news? If Trump originally tweeted something like "FBI under Obama was irresponsibly leaking intel to make me look bad!", he'd have a better case to claim he was right. Is he still saying that the leaked intel is "fake"?
Bush invaded Iraq based off wrong evidence, leading to mass casualties and an expense of $2.4 trillion. Under Bush's watch, we had the biggest recession in a century, causing millions of people to lose jobs and wealth. I can't believe you think that Bush was better than Obama. I've always thought you were silly, but not this silly. Hopefully others take you less seriously now as well.
Felt this since the beginning, but recent events reinforce my conviction. Congress needs an independent investigator. I don't think he did everything he could and I'm disappointed he did not do more to flesh out this investigation before leaving office. I think he was too concerned about his own legacy and worried he would look like he was trying to influence the election and succession. In so doing, he potentially gave a foreign power access to the Oval Office. I can agree that Obama took steps to find out what Trump was up to because he was alarmed by what he'd seen. As you say we should be alarmed if the chairman of the intel committee is alarmed, we should be alarmed if the president is alarmed. We don't know the width and breadth of Trump's activity and where anything improper may have happened. And, aside from saying they weren't Russians on the other end of the line, Nunes wouldn't say anything about who Trump was talking to and what about. We know Trump people were "unmasked" but we don't know if the unmasking was improper or totally justified. So, there is still lots of room for Obama to have operated legally, ethically, and responsibly even in surveillance of non-Russian targets. You still have a long way to go to show otherwise. Sheep are blind?!? I would think so. Manafort hasn't rolled over on him yet. So either Putin or Trump has promised or threatened something to keep his mouth shut.
No its not. If anything its breathing more life into the Russian Scandal by putting on this show just to try and vindicate Trump for sending a compulsive tweet. If we find out that Trump himself was caught up in surveillance that Trump wants to dig into, it again will call into question as to who he was talking to, and the probable cause that the Federal Judge had for allowing a FISA warrant to tap that party. If they were allowed to "unmask" Trump or his associates and that was approved, it was approved for good reasons.... like why the hell is Trump talking to X person that he shouldn't be talking to. To put it simply... all this does is raise more questions at the end of the day after the Right Wing is done yelling about Obama. If there was a question about Trump secretly being a mastermind playing us all its completely obvious now that he's just a compulsive fool firing off bad idea after bad idea to cover his tracks and in the long run burying himself deeper and deeper.
Nunes... "my bad". Nunes apologizes to House Intel Committee, member says http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/devin-nunes-reaction-house-intelligence-committee-congress/
Trump was not the subject of any investigation. Wiretaps of Trump were the subject of the investigation. No special committee was established to perform any part of this investigation, as far as I know that is what Schiff and other Democrats wanted, no?
Sheep depend heavily on their vision. They have excellent peripheral vision and can see behind themselves without turning their heads. However, they have poor depth perception. They cannot see immediately in front of their noses. Some vertical vision may also have been sacrificed in order to have a wider field of vision. For example, it is doubtful that a sheep would be able to see something in a tree. Contrary to previous thought, sheep and other livestock perceive colors, though their color vision is not as well-developed as it is in humans. Sheep will react with fear to new colors. http://www.sheep101.info/senses.html I think Trumpers would greatly benefit -- and the rest of us along with them -- by having the peripheral vision of a sheep. However, their depth perception, their ability to see color, and their ability to see something right in front of their noses may sadly be on par with those of the sheep.
Seriously, your efforts to defend Trump are pretty silly... https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ble-connections-between-russia-trump-campaign
..."Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee had lost "the credibility to handle this alone." John McCain calls Devin Nunes' House Intelligence actions, meeting with Trump 'very disturbing' https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...tions-meeting-trump-very-disturbing/22008747/
Thanks for proving my point. Connections with "political campaigns" are merely part of the investigation. However, as you failed to notice, the subject is Russia's actions - not Trump.
