WhatFinger


The shifting definition of 'incidental'

Report: Unmasked intel reports were like 'private investigator files' filled with 'personal information.'



From the beginning of the Trump/spy scandal, we've been fed the story that any surveillance involving Trump-related U.S citizens was the result of "incidental" intel collection. The real targets were foreigners, and Trumpers just happened to be snagged in a wide-cast net. It's the "we didn't do anything, this is all perfectly normal, shut up you racist" version of events. It's also smelling fishier and fishier by the minute. A new report suggests that not only were Trump associates targeted, the surveillance dug down into their personal lives and their day-to-day activities.
From Fox:
The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents. "This is information about their everyday lives," Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. "Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.” On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines. Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow.

Support Canada Free Press


OK, first things first. I'm no fan of Pete King. As far as I'm concerned, he's part of the "Republican problem" that gave us almost 30 years of conservative failure. We should take everything he says with a grain of salt big enough to melt your driveway in February. That said, we've been told that all the data regarding U.S. citizens who were surveilled came from "incidental" intel collection. Meaning, they were on the other end of a phone conversation or internet connection that just happened to be recorded. Supposedly, they were not the target of the surveillance. It seems pretty clear that, if Pete King is right, that wasn't the case. If the files contain what King claims they contain, these people were obviously being watched, tracked, and surveilled. Finding out what a person does "from morning until night" means they were the subject. ...And there might even have been legitimate reasons to do so.

However, once again, we've been told this didn't happen. So, "legitimate reasons" would not explain why Democrats, their media allies, and members of the former administration would have been lying about the surveillance for months. It also wouldn't explain why none of the material - if it's so damning - has ever been revealed. If the surveillance was legit, and they had the goods, why weren't we told before the election? Answer: either the surveillance was illegal, or it was unmasked and distributed illegally, or it revealed absolutely nothing useful.


View Comments

Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Sponsored