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.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wiretapping Trump residence.

page: 104
158
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Berns23
Clapper denied there ever was a FISA warrant. The plot thickens.

That means it was warrantless
only one person can approve that


But .. the only "proof" that Levin and Breitbart have is the FISA warrant ...

Geez, if they don't even have that, what do they have?




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

I think it depends on whether or not those citizens were in fact engaged in criminal activities, in cahoots with foreign entities.


FISA approved a very narrow request.

I know it is no fun thinking that all other surveillance would be tossed
and illegal, but that is the facts. Unless another warrant was obtained....

Its like how the Democrats have protected their favorite Pedophile
Wiener and his wife Huma...Remember how the FBI had to obtain
permission to look at all of Hillary's Secretary of State classified emails
stored on the Wieners laptop?

Remember?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[5] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[6] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...

Whose trolling who?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

You can't just up and arrest a former president. The case has to be made publicly. Can you imagine the outrage if the headline was: Trump Administration Indicts Former President Barack Obama.

The screams of fascism and nazism would be endless. Even if there was a real reason for said indictment. Trump has to get the public primed for it and move from there.


We are not better informed by the President of the US tweeting like damn child.

He should have put his case together and handled this like a professional.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I've read that out of 35000+ FISA warrants only about 12 were denied.

That record indicates near perfection by government (doubtful) or court takes governments word at face value clear majority of time (probale)

Attempting to insinuate some form of guilt by having a warrant issued by a court that rubber stamps virtually all requests is a far far stretch.

On the otherhand it is quite easy to say Obama Administration used the "rubber stamp" method once they redacted Trumps name for sole purpose of political campaign spying because they knew it would go through on thinnist made up reasons.

I don't think there's much value to had by hanging on this line of thinking.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're posting Wikipedia pages to me.

Any proof regarding this matter we're discussing or not?

What's next, recipes from Food Network?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's not a link to my thread. That's a link to the original comment that you took exception to. It's a link to the New York Times and an EO number. All the evidence is there.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Berns23
I'm just curious. The president is the FBI's boss. How can the FBI tap someone without the boss knowing about it?


The go-between was Loretta Lynch.

They had their "Orderz"






posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



FISA approved a very narrow request. I know it is no fun thinking that all other surveillance would be tossed and illegal, but that is the facts. Unless another warrant was obtained...


Was another warrant obtained?



Remember?


Sure. There is a process that must be ran through to get things done. At this point, we don't know much in this case to say anything definitively.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's not a link to my thread. That's a link to the original comment that you took exception to. It's a link to the New York Times and an EO number. All the evidence is there.


What's the topic of your thread again?

Yes, I know you linked to the New York Times ... I just wonder, if I can mention that to you in the future when you refer to it as fake news ...

Would that be okay with you?

PS, gesturing to a news article and saying "See!" proves precisely squat.

The only thing you're doing is demonstrating that, as I said, you have no evidence to back up your claim.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

You're posting Wikipedia pages to me.

Any proof regarding this matter we're discussing or not?

What's next, recipes from Food Network?



Yeah, he should post some Gryphon type high standards of proof!

You know, like your belief that Trumps tweet about him being wiretapped PROVES he is guilty of treason!

Hahaha!



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Obama and other NSA defenders insist there are robust limitations on surveillance but the documents show otherwise




Top secret documents obtained by the Guardian illustrate what the Fisa court actually does – and does not do – when purporting to engage in "oversight" over the NSA's domestic spying. That process lacks many of the safeguards that Obama, the House GOP, and various media defenders of the NSA are trying to lead the public to believe exist.




Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic.But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance.




As a result, under the FAA, the NSA frequently eavesdrops on Americans' calls and reads their emails without any individualized warrants – exactly that which NSA defenders, including Obama, are trying to make Americans believe does not take place. As Yale Law professor Jack Balkin explained back in 2009:




The Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President - now President Obama - the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New Fisa no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be 'vacuum cleaner' programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) without any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no US person is directly targeted as the object of the program. . .


Source

For those that think Trump is making snip up.

He isn't.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

You're posting Wikipedia pages to me.

Any proof regarding this matter we're discussing or not?

What's next, recipes from Food Network?



Yeah, he should post some Gryphon type high standards of proof!

You know, like your belief that Trumps tweet about him being wiretapped PROVES he is guilty of treason!

Hahaha!


We're going to have Gryph T-shirts and coffee mugs soon, Grambler.

I know you'll want to pre-order.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

correct
if they are not engaged in criminal activity SPECIFIC TO THE WARRANT
the fisa warrant is not a fishing expedition
in fact when asking for such a warrant there is an expectation of having some actual evidence

this is VERY black and white
if a warrant was issued I doubt it was against an american citizen and the desimination of the info is a crime
if a warrant was not "needed" the former potus is in deep trouble



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
You guys can't have it both ways. If there was suspicion of the Trump Campaign colluding with the Russians, and people like Flynn were monitored and listened to, then it becomes ridiculous to claim there is nothing to Trump's claim. I mean there is all this suspicion, and they are going to great lengths to connect the dots, but they leave Trump out? Come on, who believes that for a second. How likely would it be for him not to be monitored in such a case? The real question here is what evidence did they really have to start this Russian narrative and to keep it floating, who is behind the leaks, and the leaking of the obviously fake Dossier?

To me the real story here is, there has been this concerted effort by leaders of other countries (who made comments during the campaign) by many in the political field, to delegitimize the President and the Media has been *in* on this as well. Recall, CNN with "election hacked" whereas it was the DNC that was supposedly hacked.

The Russian narrative is one that is contrived for a purpose, as all nations listen in and hack each other. Obama had Merkel bugged. So using the Russian narrative is for the purpose of creating doubt about this Presidency.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I have a hunch that Trump has held back on this issue until he had an excuse to request a Congressional investigation as opposed to his own DOJ. As this would be campaign-related, Sessions has already recused himself.

Trump knows that once Congress starts digging into Obama, there are any number of places that investigation could lead, while at the same time, keeping Trump's own hands clean.

That way Congress could request Trump issue an EO revoking the first EO (13489) Obama signed after being sworn in that sealed all his records.

Yes, that is the way Trump's mind works! Everything is strategic and value-added in nature.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The UK Guardian knows more about American law than you do?

Shocking, that. Rather.

Do they have the proof that Obama tapped Trump?

Or not? Because that's what Mr. Trump claimed.

We'll wait.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

So you're glad that a President wants to use Congress as a proxy to go on a fishing expedition against a former President because his Administration is too incompetent to do so?

Wow, so much for the American way, eh?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't ad hominem sources. But how about next time, you provide me with a right wing source to justify your claims.

I have exactly the same amount of evidence as the new york times. If you'd like to rebut their article, feel free. Until then, you'll just have to admit to losing. It was a good fight, even if you were a pushover.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

You're posting Wikipedia pages to me.

Any proof regarding this matter we're discussing or not?

What's next, recipes from Food Network?



Yeah, he should post some Gryphon type high standards of proof!

You know, like your belief that Trumps tweet about him being wiretapped PROVES he is guilty of treason!

Hahaha!


We're going to have Gryph T-shirts and coffee mugs soon, Grambler.

I know you'll want to pre-order.


I can't wait!

They can include a top ten list of all of the hypocritical statements you have made!

With such great hits as "Trumps tweet about wiretapping prove he is guilty of treason because of my feelings, and yet I demand absolute written proof from a source that I deem worthy for any claim anyone who disagrees with me makes"

Or the ever popular "Please stop pointing out my hypocrisy and focus on the thread, meanwhile I will spend all of my time focusing on individual members instead of the thread"

Put me down for a pre order!




top topics



 
158
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join