Trey Gowdy exposes wire tap - Comey squirms

I see it's a 20 minute video. Does the whole thing deal with this or is there a specific part that covers it? Want to see what's going on but not sure I have 20 minutes today.

Don't agree with the idea of prosecution of journalists, but good overall.

BTW, the NSA guy looks like a dog that is being scolded for peeing on the carpet.

LoAmmi said:

I see it's a 20 minute video. Does the whole thing deal with this or is there a specific part that covers it? Want to see what's going on but not sure I have 20 minutes today.

Click to expand...

The whole thing.

Ok, thanks. I'll try to get to it later tonight to see if it's as explosive as the YouTube title suggests.

Simply Put said:

This is about to blow up in someone's face.

It's worth watching.

Click to expand...

Wow! Trey Gowdy is good.

If the FBI and NSA follow through on the commitments given in their testimony, we should expect to see heads rolling ... up to and including Loretta Lynch.

Simply Put said:

The whole 20 min deals with wire tapping the President

Click to expand...

Hi SP,

Actually, 10 minutes in and not a word has been mentioned about wiretapping. The discussion is all about how the names of U.S. citizens became known to reporters who wrote articles in several newspapers. There is never any indication as to what types of surveillance brought these names to light in the investigations. However, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that it isn't telecommunication surveillance. It is fairly common knowledge that the Justice department does have means and methods to intercept nearly all cellular telephone conversations. They're just out there in the air to be plucked and we did, years and years ago, authorize that cellular telephone conversations could be gathered on a fairly large scale and listened to. There are programs that comb through these billions and billions of conversations for particular key words.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Amazing yet again. Can't see the manicured Hillary hand in the back of James head even now.
Great video. Definitely worth the time to watch. James is worth every dime that is sent to that offshore bank account.

Hi guys,

I think you guys have this all wrong about what you think Rep. Gowdy is saying. He opens up by admitting that the collection of information through whatever means the Justice department has is all perfectly legal. He puts it as a contract between the government and the people. That the people have given over to the Justice department these various tools though which they are absolutely legally allowed to gather information. Be it through emails, telephone conversations of cellular phones, written documents, etc. (The only means of surveillance for which a court order is necessary, on the federal level, is pretty much just physical wire taps to hard line telephone devices.) But, the other end of that contract is that such information must be protected as far as 'who' it is made known to.

All and every cellular telephone conversation is legally able to be intercepted. It was something that we gave up way back shortly after 9/11. There was a big stir and it went underground for the most part as far as information about the collection techniques being made public, but the government does have the legal ability to capture any and all digital communications. If you guys remember, this was what the brouhaha was about with some of the new cell phone technology that didn't allow for such surveillance.

Here's an article published in 2013 regarding the subject and the testimony of an agent who has some first hand knowledge of what goes on: Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government? | Glenn Greenwald

The federal government has basically determined that our ability to capture digital information as a method of securing our borders, outweighs any supposed privacy rights that 'we the people' feel we may be due. But, just as Mr. Gowdy points out, that information does have some fairly strict limitations as to 'how' it can be used and with 'whom' it may be shared. That's pretty much how Mr. Gowdy opens his questioning of Mr. Comey. Then the rest of the questioning deals primarily with 'how' names were named in the press. He just wants to know 'how' journalists got the names of the actual people who were being surveilled and not much is said about such surveillance being illegal or improper. Or, that the gathering of such information is against the law.

Further, a lot of the information gathered isn't done because anyone is necessarily interested in what the U.S. citizen had to say. A lot of it is gathered because the U.S. citizen is talking to someone that the government is concerned about. When President Putin calls someone in the U.S., whoever he calls should be well aware that the conversation is likely being listened to or intercepted because the U. S. government is interested in President Putin's call. When conversations between two or more parties are being intercepted, it isn't like the intercepting device only 'hears' one side of the conversation.

God bless
In Christ, ted

Simply Put said:

The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower—but not to spy on Trump

Here. Is another gem

Click to expand...

Completely agree - and it shows exactly what happens when you pal around with known criminals or foreign spies... you turn up on wiretaps or surveillance:

The FBI had a court-approved warrant to monitor mafia members running what prosecutors described as an “international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring,” ABC News reported.

Click to expand...

Simply Put said:

Gowdy is speaking specifically to the taped conversations of private citizens who by law are supposed to be protected by having their names masked.

He is referring directly to Mr Trump and some of his key people who were unmasked and then the transcripts given to the media.

Which is a felony.

Click to expand...

The latter part (giving to the media), not the unmasking part.

Simply Put said:

Then Hillary is on millions. They just were not publically released.

Click to expand...

I, for one, look forward to her being "unmasked".

NightHawkeye said:

I, for one, look forward to her being "unmasked".

Click to expand...

I'm not. Every time information about her is leaked, bodies start dropping like an outbreak of ebola.

Rion said:

I'm not. Every time information about her is leaked, bodies start dropping like an outbreak of ebola.

Click to expand...

Eek!

Good point. Letting her just fade away seems like the best course of action.

Simply Put said:

The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower—but not to spy on Trump

Here. Is another gem

Click to expand...

Why do you consider this info. a gem? It has absolutely nothing to do with wiretapping Trump or his concerns. Pres. Trump said that Obama wiretapped him, Trump.

The FBI has said it did wiretap Trump Tower, though its target was not the building’s owner. From 2011 to 2013, two years before Trump announced his presidential campaign, the bureau spied on a Russian crime organization operating on the tower’s 63rd floor.

The FBI had a court-approved warrant to monitor mafia members running what prosecutors described as an “international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring,” ABC News reported.

One of the mafia ring’s most senior figures, Vadim Trincher who, oversaw the laundering of tens of millions of dollars from the former Soviet Union through Cyprus and into the U.S, among other criminal activities, Haaretz reported.

The FBI’s findings led to a federal grand jury indicting more than 30 people in April 2013. Among the group was a Russian mafia boss named Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, who the U.S. attempted to extradite in 2002. That year, Italian officials arrested Tokhtakhounov over charges that he bribed judges during the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Italy refused the extradition request and Tokhtakhounov returned to Moscow. [emphasis mine]

Once this information was used to convict criminals that were operating out of Trump Tower, then business man Trump would have been aware of this surveillance. Do you believe that this is the surveillance that Pres. Trump is talking about?