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.

 

America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



It had also been reported that Flynn did not lie to the FBI.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



Did I say Mr. Flynn did anything illegal?

He lied to the public and his bosses about his activity (apparently).

He got canned.

Next?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.
edit on 15-2-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Flynn has been in intelligence over 30 years. He knows the ropes. He was not blindsided, imo. There is more going on here than any of us know right now. Methinks, the swamp is being drained!!

This is not someone that screwed up, imo.

For heaven's sake! Obama appointed him director of DIA! Prior to that, "he served as the director of intelligence, United States Central Command from June 2007 to July 2008, as the director of intelligence, Joint Staff from July 2008 to June 2009, then the director of intelligence, International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan from June 2009 to October 2010". [1][22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



There have always been leaks of information, sometimes classified, to the press.

How is that evidence of a collusion between "the deep state" (what is that by the way, outside of a right-wing PC term?) and "the media" (all media? including that which is routinely favorable to the President as I noted above?)?

Your statement is evolving to be off-topic in my opinion.

Suffice it to say that "mainstream media" includes bias off all sorts, economic and political.


There have always been murders too but that doesn't make murder any less nefarious nor illegal.

Unelected, unnamed and faceless bureaucrats are leaking classified information to the press in order to undermine an elected president. The media (humans use general terms when they speak) has already been exposed as colluding with the DNC. The media (again a general term, and general term does not mean "all media") has thrown journalistic ethics to the wind by their own admission in order to stop Trump.

Sorry it is not off topic, because this is what is deeply worrying about the scenario.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.


OK. Here's the thing -- There is NO transcript of this call that we have been allowed to see. So all we have to go on are what we are being told second, third, fourth-hand and selectively.

Until we know exactly what was said, by whom, to whom, all of this is just speculation, but I would think lawyers would know, since they HAVE seen the call transcripts.

There are contexts in which the sanctions can be brought up that aren't illegal to discuss. What would be illegal to discuss would be quid pro quo style conversation about them. This did not happen.

It was the misleading of the vice president that was the determinant of whether Flynn stayed or left, not anything else.

And, of course, now every other Russian rumor is being pulled out. Of course, even the NYT has to admit NOTHING illegal has been found in those contacts, either.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




Ah.

Your source is your own opinion. Are you saying your opinion is unsubstantiated by facts that you can reference?


Is it true or false that unnamed, unelected and faceless bureaucrats are leaking classified information to the press?


There have always been leaks of information, sometimes classified, to the press.

How is that evidence of a collusion between "the deep state" (what is that by the way, outside of a generic theortical term?) and "the media" (all media? including that which is routinely favorable to the President as I noted above?)?

Your statement is evolving to be off-topic in my opinion.

Suffice it to say that "mainstream media" includes bias off all sorts, economic and political.



Maybe because the three most famous/infamous sources of similar leaks whose identities became known are confined to an Ecuadorian embassy, sentenced to hard time in Leavenworth before being pardoned, and hiding out in Russia?
edit on 15-2-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: odzeandennz

It's really amazing how you guys were crying that the Russian's were "tempering" with the elections, by allegedly leaking the DNC hacks to Wikileaks, and your refusal to this day to recognize what was leaked, but you mind when some of us are questioning who's the source of this treasonous action?

Why aren't you questioning source know?


See how that turned out.
Those emails that were obtained illegally spawned the current investigation.

All last summer they were lauded as a revelation into the dirty closet of the DNC and the source wasn't a concern.
You guys told the left that our focus on the fact that the information was illegally obtained was obfuscation. A smoke screen so that our secrets wouldn't be revealed. back then the source was second only to the damage the emails could do.

But that turned into a double edged sword, an athame of sorts and it carried with it a heavy price.
Because the precious emails sparked the interest of our intelligence agencies as any hack into the government computer system would. They of course started with Wikileaks who was responsible for bringing them to the fore.
I won't pretend to know how but over the summer and early fall they investigated Assange, guccifer 2, and the source of the stories about Hillary's health and other disparaging stories clogging social media. Their investigation led them to Russia. Both as the source of the hacked emails and the fake news stories.
At the same time the FBI was also looking into Paul Manifort and his known Russian history. Russia's assumed attempt to aid trump and trumps constant praise of Putin led them to investigate all of his team.

Now the source of the disparaging information is the only concern.

Is the hypocrisy in this not getting through?

This is the ultimate what goes around comes around.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


OK. Here's the thing


Oh, I know what the "thing" is.

There is no public transcript because it's an ongoing investigation.


What would be illegal to discuss would be quid pro quo style conversation about them. This did not happen.


How do you "know" this did not happen if you haven't seen a transcript or listened to recordings?

Presume much? Or you trust your own sources but not the others?


There is NO transcript of this call that we have been allowed to see. So all we have to go on are what we are being told second, third, fourth-hand and selectively.


You admit this. Make up your mind.

Fact is, he likely discussed sanctions; the extent of those conversations we don't yet know, or they are as of yet unknown.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
You have to love the commitment, guy literally fired for talking to Russia, and still Trump supporters deny Russia even exists.

Such dedication.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Я уверен, что россияне также сердитесь американскими шпионами для записи телефонного звонка своего посла.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Isn't it illegal to comment publically on an ongoing investigation like this?

Hmmm?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
You have to love the commitment, guy literally fired for talking to Russia, and still Trump supporters deny Russia even exists.

Such dedication.


We do?

Whatever happened to the favorite jokes of the left?

"The 1980s called. It wants its foreign policy back." Obama in response to Mitt Romney calling Russia the biggest security threat in 2012 debate.

"I can see Russia from my house!" Tina Fey lampooning Sarah Palin and now most on the left think Sarah Palin actually said that.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Isn't it illegal to comment publically on an ongoing investigation like this?

Hmmm?

*publicly

Do you have a point in there somewhere?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Everything the government does is documented. I'm sure there's a record of her approaching the administration with important security information. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Did you look to see if there was proof?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: neo96
It doesn't matter whether or not people like Trump or not.
When government agencies are undermining the US GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
A big one.

...and what was your response when it was reported that foreign intelligence services were meddling in the recent election, and that Trump himself was encouraging them to do so?


Trump didn't "encourage" them to do anything. He was talking tongue-in-cheek


Ah that old defense. He said it but he didn't mean it.
Laughable.


Remember that all last summer?
Forget what he said let me tell you what he meant...



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.


The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Everything the government does is documented. I'm sure there's a record of her approaching the administration with important security information. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Did you look to see if there was proof?


There is no proof at all anywhere.

The whole thing was manufactured by the MSM/BS complex.




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.



It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.


The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.
Which must be why he was #canned.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join