What is "spying"?

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
From the way the left is losing it, to them it must mean watching someone ILLEGALLY. Why? Because it keeps being responded with how the surveillance was sanctioned by the FISA court.

When I look up the meaning of the word, legal or illegal plays no part in the definition. It just means secretly observing. Period.
If the FBI is listening on your phone, and they are legally allowed - it's still spying. It's only NOT spying if they are in your home with their tracking devices
trying to locate the origin of the call (a la television, which I understand is utter bullshit - they don't need to complete a trace by you keeping them on the line).

If you hire a P.I. to track down a cheating spouse - it's spying. If you're peeking in the neighbor's windows or your sister's keyhole - it's spying.
One definition said "to observe furtively" - so I had to learn a new word.

It does not anywhere imply or mean an illegal or unethical or in any way criminal behavior.

So why is the left and their friends in the media so enraged at the suggestion that they were "spying" on Trump?
A year or so ago, they were mocking him when he said they were. NOW they admit they were - but it's not "spying".
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Thinking its meaning is the unauthorized recording of conversations, email capturing, etc. Let's call it, unauthorized-spying. Maybe just treasonous surveillance. Don't think there is another word, by itself, in the English language to define what it is.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
I'm thinking Watergate - illegally spying on your political opponent. And from my understanding, this is exactly what we're talking about - the Democrats had the FBI spy on Trump's campaign for political purposes.

So why is the left and their friends in the media so enraged at the suggestion that they were "spying" on Trump?
Because people who get busted do that. In fact they were spying on Trump. They're just pissed that they got caught and are now trying to cover it up with outrage. "How DARE he!!!"
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So why is the left and their friends in the media so enraged at the suggestion that they were "spying" on Trump?


while you are accurate in your analysis and definition ....

I think the connotation of 'spying' is more one of illegality or something nefarious .... CIA or NSA Spying on Persons
Opposed to 'legal' wiring taping, survailanvce by FBI Agents in Unmarked Vans, Confidential Informants ..... etc
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
while you are accurate in your analysis and definition ....

I think the connotation of 'spying' is more one of illegality or something nefarious ....
Well that's what their outrage is, but the only leg they have to stand on is, it wasn't strictly illegal.
And that's what Barr was VERY SPECIFIC in saying, because there was "surveillance" heretofore known as "spying" -
because the word does NOT MEAN illegal surveillance, just secret. He wanted to investigate whether or not there
was any kind of legal grounds for doing so, because of this -

We know that the FISA warrant was groundless - even STEELE couldn't verify that the material was true, and that's the nature
of any warrant - you don't go to a judge or court and say, hey, we think this could be true but we have like, ZERO proof, but can
we do it anyway? No, somewhere along the line, someone whose job it was to verify its accuracy had to go on record as saying it
was - when we now know, it wasn't. And you don't get away with some chain of ignorance saying, well the guy who gave it to ME
said it was good, so as far as I know it is. No - it was unlawfully obtained. That'a the whole "predicated" part - it's like buying a car
with counterfeit cash - you might SAY it was a legal transaction - but it wasn't. The law may be a mess, but you don't get to break
the spirit of the law with the letter of the law.

And Barr has every right to investigate that, and people who know him have said, he's been attorney general before and he
doesn't say stuff like that unless he has the goods. They better shout him down, because if they don't, they're going to switching
seats soon.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
That'a the whole "predicated" part

the FBI justified the FISA warrants by stating the accusation had been PUBLISHED in yahoo News ?

A Media Leak the FBI fomented there by justifying their request to the court
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Since you are not paying attention, that is exactly how AG Barr and President Trump used the word.

Were you paying attention when he said that what he need to find out is what predicated that spying, to see if it was legal or not?

Barr said he wanted to assemble a team to investigate the actions surrounding the genesis of the counterintelligence investigation that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and other matters.

"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It's a big deal," Barr said Wednesday. "I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it's important to look at that.”
He said right there that he's NOT saying it was illegal, but rather he was going to see if it was. It's this cool new thing where you gather evidence, examine evidence, then come to a conclusion. Not as fast and cool as say, I dunno, coming to a conclusion, then looking for stuff to bolster that conclusion......
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
If Barr didn’t mean illegal ‘spying’ what is he planning on looking into? If it was just legal surveillance there is nothing to look in to.

In any case, Barr clearly said he had no evidence of either
 

glhs837

Power with Control
If Barr didn’t mean illegal ‘spying’ what is he planning on looking into? If it was just legal surveillance there is nothing to look in to.

In any case, Barr clearly said he had no evidence of either
Christ, this isnt hard. He's looking to see if it was or was not, he said quiet clearly he doesn't know. but that we need to know.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Christ, this isnt hard. He's looking to see if it was or was not, he said quiet clearly he doesn't know. but that we need to know.
:killingme


Wouldn’t all that be in the mueller report? But he still hasn’t seen anything that indicates spying on the trump campaign.....
 

glhs837

Power with Control
The Mueller report might not speak to sources and reasons. Cant say, can we. But he can, and evidently he feels it's not sufficiently detailed in that regard. Whats that old saw? Just let the investigation run it's course? Yeah, lets do that......
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The Mueller report might not speak to sources and reasons. Cant say, can we. But he can, and evidently he feels it's not sufficiently detailed in that regard. Whats that old saw? Just let the investigation run it's course? Yeah, lets do that......
I’m all for it. Let the investigations roll.

But doesn’t that mean we are back to spying being ‘illegal surveillance’?
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Surveillance, legal or illegal, is the spying on someone without them knowing. Tiresome how the left wants to nitpick every choice of words, besides the fact that Barr said he wanted to looking into whether it was above board or not.
 
Top