http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-tru...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-...
Obvious hyperbole. They monitored everyone that communicated with foreign nationals, which Trump's aides were doing. They used the word "incidental collection" in that article for a reason.
> Nunes suggested this unmasking might have been done for political reasons, saying the evidence he had seen had been widely disseminated across the intelligence community and had "little or no apparent intelligence value."
We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.
And political allies too. That's how dragnet surveillance works. What's your point?
> We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.
I agree, so stop wasting your time on conspiracy theories like this and look at Obama's actual questionable actions.
It's ok to spy on your political enemies as long as you spy on everyone else too? Will you feel so charitable when Trump does the same?
> look at Obama's actual questionable actions.
His known and proven questionable actions, you mean? Tip of the iceberg, certainly.
Watergate itself was nothing more than a conspiracy theory at one time.
But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.
The real issue is whether it's ok to spy on everyone. Spying on everyone means spying on your political enemies too, and your specific focus on the political enemies is ignoring the important debate. You're effectively arguing that spying on everyone isn't important, as long as you don't spy on your political enemies.
> But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.
And waste time and resources on a completely stupid premise. Spend your political capital more wisely.
Not many seem to care, frankly, that the government is spying on them. I have some hope that they might care about America turning into a dictatorship where elections are decided by abuse of power.
On the other hand, I also see many reasons to fear that they won't care, as long as "their side" wins.
1) free from bias, prejudice, or malice 2) indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception
It would be biased bullshit anyway. If they had any examples of real attacks being thwarted, they would have presented this evidence just to stop the criticisms. The surveillance is effective for political and economic reasons, and possibly for law enforcement's domestic use, which is borderline unconstitutional.