It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Trump be investigated for High Treason?

page: 4
124
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


One sided.

GOP not squeaky clean - - - omission.


You do realize that the GOP establishment is publicly criticizing Trump for not accepting the 'reality' that Russia is interfering with our election.

They (the GOP) is probably going on the same facts that Hillary is citing.

I.E. Bullsh*t.




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: QuietSpeech
a reply to: WilburnRoach

A member since August 31st, 25 Threads all centered around the election and favoring one side heavily. Fixate on Trump much?


It's kind of one side or the other.

Isn't it.

Guess you're on the Trump side.


There are actually third parties in America.

If people weren't so hellbent on defending and promoting criminals, perhaps they could open their perspective a little to realize that.

It is absolutely Not one side or the other, and there is no valid excuse.


Are you voting 3rd party?

What has Wikeleaks released on a third party candidate? In CURRENT election.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Annee


One sided.

GOP not squeaky clean - - - omission.


You do realize that the GOP establishment is publicly criticizing Trump for not accepting the 'reality' that Russia is interfering with our election.

They (the GOP) is probably going on the same facts that Hillary is citing.

I.E. Bullsh*t.


And that has what to do with Wikileaks only targeting Hillary?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Please don't forget to answer my previous question, Annee.


Hillary touted this list of 17 agencies at the last debate but have you looked at that list? One of the agencies was the friggin' Coast Guard for crying out loud.

Let me ask you Annee, what resources does the US Coast Guard have to investigate a cyber attack? Can you even find an instance where they've ever investigated a cyber attack before this (alleged) one?


I eagerly anticipate your response.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
russia this, russia that..

this isnt the 50s anymore.... gtfo with the fear of russia already.... god..



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

well the one side looks pretty bad regardless of what you Speculate the other side contains



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


And that has what to do with Wikileaks only targeting Hillary?


How do you know they're only targeting Hillary?

How do you know they have dirt on Trump and are refusing to release it?

Oh wait, 'no evidence to support that there is no evidence' will be your response I'm sure.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: network dude

I am investigation, as are a growing number of others. These questions need to be asked and answered.

OH Not voting for Hillary, ever!!! I have no idea what her talking points are, don't care.

Just don't want the republican party or trump to sell us out to russia, this would be bad.


Maybe it's just me, but I think an internal failure such as Clinton or TPTB having so much control over the parts of the government we assume are there to protect us, and them being 100% compromised is a much, much bigger issue than worrying about if Russia wants to disrupt our corrupt election process. In fact, I could save everyone some time and say YES, with almost certainty, that Russia does in fact want to influence our corrupt election process. Now, knowing that, what are we going to do about it? Continue to ignore the massive problem of having a compromised government, or worry about our enemies not liking us?

The fact that so many people would ignore the issue of a corrupt government just to pacify their ego is way past sad, it's like pathetic cubed.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Annee


And that has what to do with Wikileaks only targeting Hillary?


How do you know they're only targeting Hillary?

How do you know they have dirt on Trump and are refusing to release it?

Oh wait, 'no evidence to support that there is no evidence' will be your response I'm sure.


it is so odd, all they are sent are a million boring emails from or to John Podesta?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: WilburnRoach

That is an excellent question.


No it really isnt.


LOL

I think that was the master shill number 2.

soulwaxer



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

They do actually... CGI is a thing and remember the CG falls under the DHS now. CGI stills works with DoD a lot though.

What is the CGI?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perjury
russia this, russia that..

this isnt the 50s anymore.... gtfo with the fear of russia already.... god..




in reality, we do have some serious issues with Russia and our current strategy in the ME. And I sure hope that whomever sucks the least in this fine election process can find a way to not be a giant douche and drag our weakened military into yet another war. But all that will have to wait until we can get the current idiot out of the White house so a new idiot can take a seat at that fine desk.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: WilburnRoach

That is an excellent question.


No it really isnt.


LOL

I think that was the master shill number 2.

soulwaxer


Questions have been asked. Your way of combating these questions is to label members as shrills....

Trump supporter right?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Have you ever considered the possibility that:

A. Trump's IT managers for his campaign are much better at protecting their content from cyberattacks than the dems.

or

B. That Trump's campaign servers and those that work for him have ALREADY been hacked and were found to have nothing incriminating.

?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra

Have you ever considered the possibility that:

A. Trump's IT managers for his campaign are much better at protecting their content from cyberattacks than the dems.

or

B. That Trump's campaign servers and those that work for him have ALREADY been hacked and were found to have nothing incriminating.

?


No. Especially B.
edit on 24-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So what you're telling me is that - you are ignoring possibilities.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

From CGI's wikipedia:


CGCIS is charged with shielding Coast Guard operations, personnel, systems, facilities and information from foreign intelligence and security services, non-state actors, and the insider threat. CGCIS confronts these various threats by leveraging investigations, operations, collections, analysis, cyber support, and appropriate partnerships in the intelligence and law enforcement communities.[5]


Cyber support is kind of vague. I'd like to know more about what cyber support means to the Coast Guard Intelligence.

And I would also still like to know of an instance where CGI has been involved in an investigation of a cyber attack.

And I would also still like to know why these high ranking officials in these agencies won't speak for themselves and are letting HRC speak for them.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra

So what you're telling me is that - you are ignoring possibilities.


I just hadn't considered it. Trump's employees seem to be fairly unorganized.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Now I'm sure you know I've opposed many "Republican" positions extremely strongly in the past years here...

But these "Democrats" this year are so unbelievably arrogant and inundated in so much bs, they are so vehemently in deep denial, their arguments are failing so bad in such an legendary way, that even I, Muzzleflash, am mind blown.

I just can't believe it. My jaw hits the floor so hard when I read these posts and contemplate the sheer audacity of it all.

Something about "Trump" has trolled them so badly that they are willing to break any moral or rule to oppose him that they become monsters.

Now look, I've heard their reasons and even investigated honestly to substantiate them, considered the weight of their reasoning as sincerely as I could...

But none of it adds up. None of it is solid. They are seemingly knowingly exaggerating to the extreme and purposely ignoring reality.

I know both parties do that. I fully understand that. But the Democrats this year are worse than anything I've ever seen, the levels they are stooping to, I just don't get it. It's unfathomable to me. It's horrifying and unprecedented in my lifetime.

I know it'll only get worse. America ain't gonna suddenly get better. We are going down the toilet so hard and fast now...

They are hellbent. There's no easy solution. We're screwed...



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra

So what you're telling me is that - you are ignoring possibilities.


I just hadn't considered it. Trump's employees seem to be fairly unorganized.


Just because management is unorganized doesnt mean the worker bee's are... look at DoD for a prime example of the workers getting it done despite their incompetent leadership.




top topics



 
124
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join