Originally posted here

 

The New York Times believes that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes received U.S. surveillance for President Trump from an unfortunate source.  This source asserts claims of collusion between Nunes and Trump.  If these accusations are true, what is Nunes’ motivation.

Nunes has been accused of colluding with the White House to give Trump political cover for his unfounded claim that he was wiretapped.  President’s do not typically make accusations, then form an investigation.  In fact, the reverse is true.  As the chief executor, President Trump should ensure that there is a complete investigation before a claim in made against a suspect.

Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, has called on Nunes to step aside.  He does not trust that Nunes and Trump are being completely honest on the matter.  But, the presidential administration has invited Schiff to look at the documents concerning the election.

In a normal investigation there is a claim of unlawful activity.  Either someone has witnessed a crime, or that person suspects there is a crime.  But, there is always an investigation.

The case of Nunes appears to be post-positive.  That is the president hoped that there was a crime.  Therefore, he asked if anyone had seen a crime.  Then, witnesses came forward that they they heard a crime may have been committed.

Who does the surveillance?

Situations like this are deemed circumstantial.  But, circumstantial evidence may be enough to charge a person with a crime.  However, that only occurs with a “preponderance of evidence.”  One or two people claiming that something happened when no one was deemed injured, no intent for injury was found, and no means of injury was available do constitute a preponderance.

It is for this reason that media outlets like the New York Times are seeking more information.  The chief executive is accusing Barack Obama, the previous president, of a crime.  But, there is no evidence to support this.

However, just for fun, let’s explore this possibility.  If there had been a wire tap, what information was obtained?  Was it disclosed to the public to humiliate the president?  Were adds placed that showed the president in awkward conversations?  Did the presidential staffers block Trump rallies from taking place?  What injury did Donald Trump face?

What would be the purpose of this surveillance?

More plausible about the “so called wiretaps” is the idea that the FBI or the NSA or the CIA realized that an unprecedented number of calls were flowing through Trump Tower to and from Russian agents.  Therefore, one or more of our security teams thought is necessary to conduct surveillance on these occurrences.  Donald Trump, not familiar with politics, government, or reading did not think that there would be such a watch dog.

“Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?”

In the end, President Trump learned that several of his top advisers were guilty of potential crimes.  The members resigned.  He asked his aids to research how the American people knew so much about what he was keeping hidden.  They discovered the surveillance.  And, he blamed it on Obama.

That is right!  According to Trump, Barack Obama is the reason why we do not have Michael Flynn or any other unauthorized informant-turned correspondent supplanting our government.  Or, better and more planning put, is it the fault of our government fail-safes.  When corrupt individuals take office, we investigate them?

Originally posted here.  More from this author here.  And more from this news source if you like.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/Newsy-politics?format=xml