buchanan | Two days after FBI Director James Comey assured us there was no truth
to President Trump’s tweet about being wiretapped by Barack Obama, the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Trump may have had
more than just a small point.
The U.S. intelligence community, says Nunes, during surveillance of
legitimate targets, picked up the names of Trump transition officials
during surveillance of targets, “unmasked” their identity, and spread
their names around, virtually assuring they would be leaked.
If true, this has the look and smell of a conspiracy to sabotage the Trump presidency, before it began.
Comey readily confirmed there was no evidence to back up the Trump
tweet. But when it came to electronic surveillance of Trump and his
campaign, Comey, somehow, could not comment on that.
Which raises the question: What is the real scandal here?
Is it that Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails and handed them off to WikiLeaks? We have heard that since June.
Is it that Trump officials may have colluded with the Russians?
But former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and ex-CIA
Director Mike Morrell have both said they saw no evidence of this.
This March, Sen. Chris Coons walked back his stunning declaration
about transcripts showing a Russia-Trump collusion, confessing, “I have
no hard evidence of collusion.”
But if Clapper and Morrell saw no Russia-Trump collusion, what were
they looking at during all those months to make them so conclude?
Was it “FBI transcripts,” as Sen. Coons blurted out?
If so, who intercepted and transcribed the conversations? If it was
intel agencies engaged in surveillance, who authorized that? How
extensive was it? Against whom? Is it still going on?
And if today, after eight months, the intel agencies cannot tell us
whether or not any member of the Trump team colluded with the Russians,
what does that say of their competence?
0 comments:
Post a Comment