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.

 

Trumps Press conference, January 11 2017

page: 14
41
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seeker1963



The same Intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that you and your kind went nuts over when the truth came out Bush was wrong or a liar?


Actually, it was the intel community who argued against weapons of mass destruction, and Valerie Plame paid the price. History shows that it was the Bush administration that lied to and misrepresented the intel to Congress and the American people, not the intelligence community.
George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie


Umm, your link shows a member of the CIA saying they lied about WMD's.

This somehow is proof that we should now trust the CIA?




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON


None of this makes sense, at all, please explain.




If the point is to call a source 'anonymous' this IMPLIES that direct accusation would be rebutted with a lie if by chance correct.

If you're a boss at a job, and someone is caught stealing by another employee, and the thief asks you if it was "Sally" and it WAS, do you LIE, or do you tell him "the truth" and let him track down the nark? Obviously you lie, so a 'track record' of lying or truth is irrelevant.

So it doesn't make logical sense eliminate Russia.
The last paragraph wasn't attempting to be too technical, I'll try again.
Even if the 'location of the computer' is in Russia, it can be 'remote controlled' from anywhere in the world, doesn't this change the idea of 'intent' slightly, despite the physical address of the hack?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Djarums

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: jimmyx

Okay, so anyone with businesses need to fire sale them to do politics.

Anyone with money need not apply to politics.

Only career politicians can do politics (despite the fact they get rich in the process).

Did I miss anything here?


Nope. You pretty much word for word stated the position of CNN analyst Larry Noble, given immediately after the press conference. The panel went through various alternative methods Trump could have taken and Noble dismissed each one as "not being good enough" to the point where we are left believing that no one but a career politician should ever again aspire to the office of President.


I saw that - it was a ridiculous commentary, one in which Rick Santorum could be seen just shaking his head before stating that the conflict of interest law doesn't actually apply to Trump.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
More bad news for CNN. Even MSNBC are bailing on this story...and confirming their information that the briefing was not actually given to Trump after all.


On Wednesday’s “MSNBC Live,” NBC News Senior Investigative and Legal Correspondent Cynthia McFadden reported that a senior US intelligence official told them “the president-elect was not briefed on this so-called two-page addendum of these allegations against him, that it was part of the briefing materials available to the briefers, but it was not included because they believed it to be true. … It was included should they feel they needed to explain to Mr. Trump the difference between analyzed intelligence, and what they’re calling unvetted disinformation, that it was available for that purpose, and that it never came up.

edit on 11/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON


None of this makes sense, at all, please explain.




If the point is to call a source 'anonymous' this IMPLIES that direct accusation would be rebutted with a lie if by chance correct.

If you're a boss at a job, and someone is caught stealing by another employee, and the thief asks you if it was "Sally" and it WAS, do you LIE, or do you tell him "the truth" and let him track down the nark? Obviously you lie, so a 'track record' of lying or truth is irrelevant.

So it doesn't make logical sense eliminate Russia.
The last paragraph wasn't attempting to be too technical, I'll try again.
Even if the 'location of the computer' is in Russia, it can be 'remote controlled' from anywhere in the world, doesn't this change the idea of 'intent' slightly, despite the physical address of the hack?


What you would say is "I am not going to say who it was".

You don't say, "I will not tell you who it was, but I will tell you it wasn't Sally"

Assange has made it clear that he won't out his sources, but he took it a step further in saying it wasn't Russian state actors.

This is a big risk for him if he is lying. He gains nothing by the lie when he could have just stuck with saying he will give no info on sources, but if he lying he risks the only thing that makes wikileaks powerful; credibility.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON




Even if the 'location of the computer' is in Russia, it can be 'remote controlled' from anywhere in the world, doesn't this change the idea of 'intent' slightly, despite the physical address of the hack?


Yes...I mean really. Facts are facts and the fact is that anything could be anything...



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'll accept that point, but I maintain my stance that 'additional comments' cannot be used as evidence for finding an anonymous source, made anonymous by the person you are asking.

While your point is true, it could be an effort to be continually misleading. It should just be taken as nothing.

If you promised someone anonymity, and they were discovered, that would be bad.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

When did I ever claimed that the Secret Service rebelled against Pres. GW Bush?

Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA agent, because she refused to back the "yellow cake" story.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 11-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Jonjonj

When did I ever claimed that the Secret Service rebelled against Pres. GW Bush?

Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA agent, because she refused to back the "yellow cake" story.

en.wikipedia.org...



This is ATS, there is no need to put a /s after sarcasm



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
He was laughably awful. Utterly terrible from start to finish. Petulant and evasive.

Are none of you Trumplets at all suspicious about how utterly shady he is about his tax returns? If you think he has nothing to hide then why would he not share them?

Oh and it's funny how insistent you all were that Russia weren't hacking, and now even Donnie admits it.
edit on 11-1-2017 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

What's your point?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Russia has been hacking American infrastructure for 8 years. What has Obama done about it? Nada.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
He was laughably awful. Utterly terrible from start to finish. Petulant and evasive.

Are none of you Trumplets at all suspicious about how utterly shady he is about his tax returns? If you think he has nothing to hide then why would he not share them?

Oh and it's funny how insistent you all were that Russia weren't hacking, and now even Donnie admits it.


If you want to see his tax returns, go hack it.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Jonjonj

What's your point?



No point at all I suppose, let the thread decide what the point is.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It's pretty well know that the intel didn't match the administration's story of weapons of mass destruction. There were 2 committees that studied the issue. The lies didn't come from the intel community, they came from the Bush Administration.



The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Jay Rockefeller, stated in press release of report's publication“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
..............

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrumpFan
Russia has been hacking American infrastructure for 8 years. What has Obama done about it? Nada.


Are you people capable of replying without deflecting to Obama or hillary? Answer the question please.

If you think they weren't hacking during the bush era then you're deluded.
edit on 11-1-2017 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

...It's hard to believe the Left is really this moderate verses the radical Right...


Wait... what? Were we even watching the same election?

Who the hell ever thought the Left were moderate? The only things they've ever treated with moderation is "truth, justice, and the American way."



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Donald says he turned over full ownership of the Trump organization to Donald and Eric. Does this mean he will no longer own the DC hotel which forbids an elected official from leasing it?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrumpFan

I guess not considering he said that any money received from renting rooms and hosting events for foreign dignitaries would be given to the Federal Treasury, whatever that means!


edit on 11-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
What about the DC hotel? Who is leasing that? Donald Jr. and Eric?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join