Nunes does 180: Trump Team under surveillance. Not connected to Russia. All names revealed.

[jem]

I heard on the radio this morning...

the loudmouth democrat Schiff on the committee is refusing to go see the evidence although it is available to him.

If that is true... than what Schiff and Schumer are doing and saying is worse than fake news.
They should just go and view the evidence then make comments based on knowledge.

Interesting development:

Devin Nunes Vows To 'Never' Reveal Source Of White House Surveillance Claims

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3728532f-c09f-3a5f-b823-db1358a1a96b/devin-nunes-vows-to.html

It actually could have been just a lie. pathetic

 

[smallStops]

So people do not like being spied upon in their place of work, nor private property?

 

[jem]

how so? what was the twist? I thought what she said was pretty damning against the Administration.

She admitted they tried to get leaks to the hill.
That is a smoking gun.

fhl,

Did you even watch the video, lol? Talk about twisting what was said with your above points (1.2 lies).

 

[RedDuke]

No, she said that there is evidence (collection method not specified) and she wants it to be preserves and not trashed. That is all.

Then the full propaganda machine is twisting the facts.

 

[RedDuke]

I heard on the radio this morning...

the loudmouth democrat Schiff on the committee is refusing to go see the evidence although it is available to him.

If that is true... than what Schiff and Schumer are doing and saying is worse than fake news.
They should just go and view the evidence then make comments based on knowledge.

That's exactly why Nunes cancelled the hearings and refuses to disclose where and what info he saw. Are you guys totally in alternate reality????

 

[jem]

lets stick to the facts of what I said.

I said I heard on the radio this morning a commentator state Schiff has refused to go see the evidence. then I said if that is true... then what they are doing is worse then fake news.

So, please explain can Schiff go see the evidence or not?
The issue for cancelling the hearing may not even be relevant. I also heard on the radio yesterday the hearing was about the testimony of a lady dealing with Russian evidence... not this issue.

So, you might be correct... and the radio commentator incorrect... but I would like to see what you have so I can evaluate. Maybe there were 2 issues for teh hearing?

But I still want to know if it is true or false that Schiff can see the evidence Nunes saw?

That's exactly why Nunes cancelled the hearings and refuses to disclose where and what info he saw. Are you guys totally in alternate reality????

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Good question:

If Evelyn Farkas Resigned in 2015, How Did She Have Access to Trump-Russian Intelligence?
Dr. Fly Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:50pm EST 12 Comments

2622


This was making waves yesterday, after Evelyn Farkas admitted to Mika from The Morning Joe show that she strongly advised people ‘on the hill’ and in our intelligence agencies to tuck away intelligence regarding Russo-Trump ties for the sake of preservation, in an effort to protect it from the onerous bureaucracy she obviously finds to be deplorable.



“Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,” said Farkas in an interview yesterday on MSNBC.

She was afraid the Trump people would gain access to their intelligence and whisk it away — because they’re all Russian spies, obviously.

Aside from what appears to be a brazen confirmation of spying on the Trump team, the bigger red flag here is Dr. Farkas wasn’t employed by the Obama administration at the time the Russian allegations arose.

According to Pentagon records, Dr. Farkas resigned in September of 2015.

So how did this non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, gain knowledge of intelligence regarding members of Trump’s team and their relations with Russia, when she was the senior foreign policy advisor for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

Farkas was the prime driver behind the anti-Russia phobia inside the Pentagon during the Obama years — shilling hard for the Ukraine — requesting that the President send them anti-tank missiles — which, essentially, would mean outright war with Russia.

Back to the interview with Mika Brzezinski. Dr. Farkas said ‘we’ had good intel on Russia. Who does she refer to when she says ‘we?’

Professional Deep Stater, Dr. Evelyn Farkas, Globalist Shill

Here’s Mark Levin’s take on this scandal.

Perhaps someone inside the Obama government was leaking to the Hillary campaign?

I think we all know what the answer is to the rhetorical question.

http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2017/0...igned-2015-access-trump-russian-intelligence/

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter

 

[jem]

no... that is not all...
she said she wanted to get this info to the hill...
Press the button... then watch the context.

No, she said that there is evidence (collection method not specified) and she wants it to be preserves and not trashed. That is all.

Then the full propaganda machine is twisting the facts.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

No, she said that there is evidence (collection method not specified) and she wants it to be preserves and not trashed. That is all.

Then the full propaganda machine is twisting the facts.

Her story is obvious BS. The "intell" was in NSA servers, etc. Destroying it would have been beyond Trump's team's capability and would have been criminal.

The true objective was to give as many Obama imbeds and democrat political hitmen access to it as possible to facilitate leaking. Anyone who knows anything about how Washington works understood that. That's what she meant by getting it to "the Hill", ie Capitol Hill. The intell committees already had access to it, so she was talking about wider distribution.

And what business did she, a Clinton campaign official, have getting involved anyway? These people have a disturbing tendency to view political office as an entitlement that they are justified in using any means to retain.

 

[RedDuke]

lets stick to the facts of what I said.

I said I heard on the radio this morning a commentator state Schiff has refused to go see the evidence. then I said if that is true... then what they are doing is worse then fake news.
......

You heard commentator, and this automatically becomes a fact??? Was it
Breitbart?