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: 132
158
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

He also misspelled the word "tap" as "tapp."

What do you make of that, since everything he does is with the greatest intention and relevance?


have u ever tried using a smart phone for text msg's? if so youd know they are notorious for changing your words or just being a plain pain in the butt. on top of that u have a senior citizen trying to tap tiny lil icons on a phone. i screw stuff up all the time on text msgs, some my fault, others the phones, and i could care less about fixing it at this point.


Gosh, I hope he's more careful with the nuclear "football" when he decides to play with that.

I hadn't thought of him as a senior citizen until this moment though ... you know, you're right!


i think u need to take a step back to reality. i dont think anyone has ever equated a smart phone to the nuclear football and sounded sane


If he can't see small numbers, who's to say?

You're really familiar with the nuclear launch codes are you?


probly just as familiar as u are. my point being, its not rational to think of a smart phone in the same light as the nuclear football. your making a huge leap to think otherwise.




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Why do you lie about something so easily disproved?

Since you suddenly approve of Wikipedia:



ARMZ took complete control of Uranium One in January 2013[2] in a transaction which was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.[7]


Uranium One




The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, commonly pronounced "sifius") is an inter-agency committee of the United States Government that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments in U.S. companies or operations. Chaired by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, CFIUS includes representatives from 16 U.S. departments and agencies, including the Defense, State and Commerce departments, as well as (most recently) the Department of Homeland Security. CFIUS was established by President Gerald Ford's Executive Order 11858 in 1975. President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States with the Executive Order 12661 in 1988. This was in response to U.S. Congress giving authority to the President to review foreign investments, in the form of Exon-Florio Amendment.


Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
A humble attempt to refocus from thread drift.






posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

He also misspelled the word "tap" as "tapp."

What do you make of that, since everything he does is with the greatest intention and relevance?


have u ever tried using a smart phone for text msg's? if so youd know they are notorious for changing your words or just being a plain pain in the butt. on top of that u have a senior citizen trying to tap tiny lil icons on a phone. i screw stuff up all the time on text msgs, some my fault, others the phones, and i could care less about fixing it at this point.


Gosh, I hope he's more careful with the nuclear "football" when he decides to play with that.

I hadn't thought of him as a senior citizen until this moment though ... you know, you're right!


i think u need to take a step back to reality. i dont think anyone has ever equated a smart phone to the nuclear football and sounded sane


If he can't see small numbers, who's to say?

You're really familiar with the nuclear launch codes are you?


probly just as familiar as u are. my point being, its not rational to think of a smart phone in the same light as the nuclear football. your making a huge leap to think otherwise.


I wasn't comparing a smart phone to the nuclear "football" ... read more carefully ... I'm talking about his ability to see small things and the dexterity to manipulate small things.

Thanks for trying though.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No, you didn't miss it. I just didn't post it as most people it seems simply ignore them and create their own spin on the bits that someone posts instead.

However, here is the source link



Interesting.

If Trump's tweets stemmed from unverified claims that Breitbart picked up -- and I think it's very possible -- then something is rotten in Denmark, imo.

Looking back at Trump's tweets, I think he skirted any libel issues IF he turns out to be wrong and claims he read it at the 'very, very good and trustworthy' Breitbart.

Reread his tweets with that possibility in mind:



Note this one:
"Just out: Russian Ambassador Visited Obama at the White House 22 Times

That's a direct reference to a Brietbart article (linked above).

And I also think Trump has carefully worded the tweets to skirt any libel issues which are different for public officials:



Who is a public figure or public official?

A public official, according to the Supreme Court, is someone who has a substantial amount of control over governmental affairs. A public figure is either a celebrity whose name has become a household word or a person who has voluntarily stepped into a role of leadership in a particular controversy.

In the case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that in order for a public figure/official to prove libel, they must prove malicious intent. Malice is the idea that whoever published the libelous statement did so knowingly and intentionally or was reckless in fact-checking before publication.

But for private citizens - that is everyone who is not a public figure/official - they need only prove a reporter's negligence to prove libel.

Link

If Trump is wrong about the wire-tapping, and he was relying on Brietbart, then I think it can't be considered 'malicious.' But he will look like a dumb*ss (or worse) and it will make conservative news look 'fake.' The WaPo will emerge as a 'credible' news source.

Anyway, if that happens -- knowing Trump's relationship with Breitbart -- then I am going to suspect intentional self-sabotage. I already suspect that Trump, Obama, and Hillary are not the enemies they appear to be.
edit on 5-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

I'm sure Mr. T often spoke to his mentor Ray Cohn about McCarthyism.

Ah, nostalgia.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Why do you lie about something so easily disproved?


Because it's not a lie.



The Wall Street Journal’s report that, for over a year, the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling is, as Rich Lowry said Monday, a blockbuster Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Source

If that's all you got give it up.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No, you didn't miss it. I just didn't post it as most people it seems simply ignore them and create their own spin on the bits that someone posts instead.

However, here is the source link



Interesting.

If Trump's tweets stemmed from unverified claims that Breitbart picked up -- and I think it's very possible -- then something is rotten in Denmark, imo.

Looking back at Trump's tweets, I think he skirted any libel issues IF he turns out to be wrong and claims he read it at the 'very, very good and trustworthy' Breitbart.

Reread his tweets with that possibility in mind:



Note this one:
"Just out: Russian Ambassador Visited Obama at the White House 22 Times

That's a direct reference to a Brietbart article (linked above).

And I also think Trump has carefully worded the tweets to skirt any libel issues which are different for public officials:



Who is a public figure or public official?

A public official, according to the Supreme Court, is someone who has a substantial amount of control over governmental affairs. A public figure is either a celebrity whose name has become a household word or a person who has voluntarily stepped into a role of leadership in a particular controversy.

In the case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that in order for a public figure/official to prove libel, they must prove malicious intent. Malice is the idea that whoever published the libelous statement did so knowingly and intentionally or was reckless in fact-checking before publication.

But for private citizens - that is everyone who is not a public figure/official - they need only prove a reporter's negligence to prove libel.

Link

If Trump is wrong about the wire-tapping, and he was relying on Brietbart, then I think it can't be considered 'malicious.' But he will look like a dumb*ss (or worse) and it will make conservative news look 'fake.'

Anyway, if that happens -- knowing Trump's relationship with Breitbart -- then I am going to suspect intentional self-sabotage. I already suspect that Trump, Obama, and Hillary are not the enemies they appear to be.


That's an interesting take for sure, but as Obama is still a public figure, "libel" really doesn't factor into it.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

16 agencies.

So what you're saying is that Hillary Clinton didn't sell anything to anyone?

We agree.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




Why do you lie about something so easily disproved?


Because it's not a lie.



The Wall Street Journal’s report that, for over a year, the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling is, as Rich Lowry said Monday, a blockbuster Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Source

If that's all you got give it up.


It is a lie to claim that Hillary Clinton sold uranium to the Russians. It's such a blatant stupid lie that you're boring me to the point of just ignoring you again.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

He also misspelled the word "tap" as "tapp."

What do you make of that, since everything he does is with the greatest intention and relevance?


have u ever tried using a smart phone for text msg's? if so youd know they are notorious for changing your words or just being a plain pain in the butt. on top of that u have a senior citizen trying to tap tiny lil icons on a phone. i screw stuff up all the time on text msgs, some my fault, others the phones, and i could care less about fixing it at this point.


Gosh, I hope he's more careful with the nuclear "football" when he decides to play with that.

I hadn't thought of him as a senior citizen until this moment though ... you know, you're right!


i think u need to take a step back to reality. i dont think anyone has ever equated a smart phone to the nuclear football and sounded sane


If he can't see small numbers, who's to say?

You're really familiar with the nuclear launch codes are you?


probly just as familiar as u are. my point being, its not rational to think of a smart phone in the same light as the nuclear football. your making a huge leap to think otherwise.


I wasn't comparing a smart phone to the nuclear "football" ... read more carefully ... I'm talking about his ability to see small things and the dexterity to manipulate small things.

Thanks for trying though.


ok so your worried hed input the nuclear code wrong? if so then you need to rethink that situation through. if u input the wrong code nothing happens. u cant launch, u dont pass go, u dont collect 100 dollars. so what are u worried about then? besides when they set the nuclear code as 0000000 its kinda hard to mess up. again though your equating the importance of a text with the inputing of the nuclear launch code.
edit on 5-3-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The media has been reporting about the surveilance of Trump for months.

Even the "paper of record" is on record reporting the wiretaps as fact.




We all know that the globalist media is amnesiac if nothing else.

Is there a pill for that yet?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What the EFF do you think that means ?



the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling is


CLinton was the middle man.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No, you didn't miss it. I just didn't post it as most people it seems simply ignore them and create their own spin on the bits that someone posts instead.

However, here is the source link



Interesting.

If Trump's tweets stemmed from unverified claims that Breitbart picked up -- and I think it's very possible -- then something is rotten in Denmark, imo.

Looking back at Trump's tweets, I think he skirted any libel issues IF he turns out to be wrong and claims he read it at the 'very, very good and trustworthy' Breitbart.

Reread his tweets with that possibility in mind:



Note this one:
"Just out: Russian Ambassador Visited Obama at the White House 22 Times

That's a direct reference to a Brietbart article (linked above).

And I also think Trump has carefully worded the tweets to skirt any libel issues which are different for public officials:



Who is a public figure or public official?

A public official, according to the Supreme Court, is someone who has a substantial amount of control over governmental affairs. A public figure is either a celebrity whose name has become a household word or a person who has voluntarily stepped into a role of leadership in a particular controversy.

In the case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that in order for a public figure/official to prove libel, they must prove malicious intent. Malice is the idea that whoever published the libelous statement did so knowingly and intentionally or was reckless in fact-checking before publication.

But for private citizens - that is everyone who is not a public figure/official - they need only prove a reporter's negligence to prove libel.

Link

If Trump is wrong about the wire-tapping, and he was relying on Brietbart, then I think it can't be considered 'malicious.' But he will look like a dumb*ss (or worse) and it will make conservative news look 'fake.'

Anyway, if that happens -- knowing Trump's relationship with Breitbart -- then I am going to suspect intentional self-sabotage. I already suspect that Trump, Obama, and Hillary are not the enemies they appear to be.


That's an interesting take for sure, but as Obama is still a public figure, "libel" really doesn't factor into it.


Which is actually the point I was trying to make. It would hard for Obama to prove libel because he is a hugely public figure. I think Trump carefully worded his tweets so that he stepped up to the line, but didn't cross it...IF he is wrong.

I will not be surprised if he is or isn't.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Where there is smoke......

twitter.com...

If "they" had the goods on Trump they would have used it, guess they found nothing actionable.

edit on 5-3-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Excellent observations.

Nothing is what it seems to be, but to your credit, you've never wavered in your statements on this issue.

I for one appreciate that.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No, you didn't miss it. I just didn't post it as most people it seems simply ignore them and create their own spin on the bits that someone posts instead.

However, here is the source link



Interesting.

If Trump's tweets stemmed from unverified claims that Breitbart picked up -- and I think it's very possible -- then something is rotten in Denmark, imo.

Looking back at Trump's tweets, I think he skirted any libel issues IF he turns out to be wrong and claims he read it at the 'very, very good and trustworthy' Breitbart.

Reread his tweets with that possibility in mind:



Note this one:
"Just out: Russian Ambassador Visited Obama at the White House 22 Times

That's a direct reference to a Brietbart article (linked above).

And I also think Trump has carefully worded the tweets to skirt any libel issues which are different for public officials:



Who is a public figure or public official?

A public official, according to the Supreme Court, is someone who has a substantial amount of control over governmental affairs. A public figure is either a celebrity whose name has become a household word or a person who has voluntarily stepped into a role of leadership in a particular controversy.

In the case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that in order for a public figure/official to prove libel, they must prove malicious intent. Malice is the idea that whoever published the libelous statement did so knowingly and intentionally or was reckless in fact-checking before publication.

But for private citizens - that is everyone who is not a public figure/official - they need only prove a reporter's negligence to prove libel.

Link

If Trump is wrong about the wire-tapping, and he was relying on Brietbart, then I think it can't be considered 'malicious.' But he will look like a dumb*ss (or worse) and it will make conservative news look 'fake.'

Anyway, if that happens -- knowing Trump's relationship with Breitbart -- then I am going to suspect intentional self-sabotage. I already suspect that Trump, Obama, and Hillary are not the enemies they appear to be.


That's an interesting take for sure, but as Obama is still a public figure, "libel" really doesn't factor into it.


Which is actually the point I was trying to make. It would hard for Obama to prove libel because he is a hugely public figure. I think Trump carefully worded his tweets so that he stepped up to the line, but didn't cross it...IF he is wrong.

I will not be surprised if he is or isn't.


Right on!



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

He also misspelled the word "tap" as "tapp."

What do you make of that, since everything he does is with the greatest intention and relevance?


have u ever tried using a smart phone for text msg's? if so youd know they are notorious for changing your words or just being a plain pain in the butt. on top of that u have a senior citizen trying to tap tiny lil icons on a phone. i screw stuff up all the time on text msgs, some my fault, others the phones, and i could care less about fixing it at this point.


Gosh, I hope he's more careful with the nuclear "football" when he decides to play with that.

I hadn't thought of him as a senior citizen until this moment though ... you know, you're right!


i think u need to take a step back to reality. i dont think anyone has ever equated a smart phone to the nuclear football and sounded sane


If he can't see small numbers, who's to say?

You're really familiar with the nuclear launch codes are you?


probly just as familiar as u are. my point being, its not rational to think of a smart phone in the same light as the nuclear football. your making a huge leap to think otherwise.


I wasn't comparing a smart phone to the nuclear "football" ... read more carefully ... I'm talking about his ability to see small things and the dexterity to manipulate small things.

Thanks for trying though.


ok so your worried hed input the nuclear code wrong? if so then you need to rethink that situation through. if u input the wrong code nothing happens. u cant launch, u dont pass go, u dont collect 100 dollars. so what are u worried about then? besides when they set the nuclear code as 0000000 its kinda hard to mess up. again though your equating the importance of a text with the inputing of the nuclear launch code.


Nope, still not.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Where there is smoke......

twitter.com...

If "they" had the goods on Trump they would have used it, guess they found nothing actionable.


I scrolled down reading all the comments, especially the ones by a Phil Kerpen. Twitter gold!!



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join