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: 174
158
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
What the media is not covering this morning.

House Democrats are attempting to block White House Counsel
Don McGahn's request to the Department of Justice for the FISA order.


thehill.com...

So the Democrats do not want the FISA order released,
predictable but guilty!

Hypocrites.


I thought the president could just order that it be released! How are Democrats blocking this?

I was under the impression, also, that the president has the power to declassify a FISA order.
edit on 6-3-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: mOjOm




But if there was a FISA warrant then Obama or his Admin still did nothing illegal.

Other than use the us ic against a political opponent during a potus campaign...............


Nope...at this point they're a suspected criminal and that's it, being a political figure simply does not matter.


Thats a terrible standard.

Again, the Fisa courts approve almost every warrant. So all that is needed is an accusation.

Mark my words, if political groups are allowed to use Fisa courts against there political opponents and it just considered going after a "suspected criminal" things will get out of hand quickly.

You will be screaming if Trump does this in 4 years to his opponents.

In fact, I heard Hillary and Obama and many on the DNC had connections to Russia, Hamas, the Muslim bortherhood, Bill Ayers, and other extreme groups. So perhaps Trumps should just taap the all now.

Is that the standard you want?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
SO...

In answer to my question about where it says a President MUST sign a FISA warrant...You provide a long list of people OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT who can sign a FISA warrant????




(6) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—



And in response to my question about where it says a FISA warrant can target US Citizens...
YOU provide a link to the part of the law that PROHIBITS it being targeted at US Citizens..



50 U.S. Code § 1805 - Issuance of order

FISA warrants are valid for 90 days or the length established by a judge, whichever is less


WOW...Ideological retardation to some kind of reverso world level.



Such a warrant would only have been granted if the FBI—not the Obama administration—was able to convince a judge that the Trump campaign had credible links to a foreign power.

fortune.com...
edit on 6-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Because I'm not Leading the Nation!!!!! I'm not President!!!! When will you people understand that having some basic run of the mill person heading the Highest most powerful position in the nation, possibly world, is a stupid idea.


So your saying you can do it because your not a President? What an irresponsible attitude to controlling yourself. Maybe I will use that excuse when I do something wrong.




Do you bet you money on the average player in sports or do you bet on the exceptional guy?? Do you want the guy who gets C's in school to run the business or the guy who got straight A's??


I want to get the guy that can actually run the business. Grades don't matter. It is all about skill.



These people have been given power over your lives. They should be better than most people in as many ways as possible.


Yes he was better than any of the other's running for the Presidency.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

IMO Nobody is supposed to be above the law. Period. That is how it's supposed to be. So across the board if anyone can be proven to be guilty of breaking the law then then that's it.

You should presume innocence until proven guilty.

Ethically, I'd be more concerned about what is considered illegal and why. We have laws that allow serious offenses that get a slap on the wrist and others that hurt nobody and land you in jail for 25 years.

As far as leaks go. I have no problem with leaks when they expose corruption and criminal activity. I don't have any problem with exposing people who break the law in most cases. If the law is just and reasonable then those who break it should be exposed for it.


I agree with you that our legal system is a joke.

I also think leaks can be good in exposing widespread corruption.

But selectively releasing leaks based on surveilling your political opponent, that sounds like a dictatorial nightmare.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.”


lidblog.com...

That was an awesome find.

And Obama was out on the campaign trail on Clintons behalf.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


thehill.com...

The signatories — including Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Ted Deutch (Fla.), Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.), Ted Lieu (Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.) — point out that “no substantiation was offered for this accusation.”


That pretty much sums up everything the Dems have been doing
for years now. "No Substantiation for this accusation".



edit on 6-3-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

But they still have to find something.

Just getting a warrant doesn't do anything.

How can you damage your opponent without finding anything???



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet


SAME NY Times Reporter Said Trump Team Was Wiretapped In Jan., But Said TRUMP Lacked Evidence In March


Thank you, this heading say it all, nothing but a witch hunt all along been wagged to Trump and now his administration

And this not the only one for months since June it was all kind of headlines talking about Trump been wiretapped and secretly investigated.

But hell now is not true, how convenient.

Anybody that Reads the NY times should get a disclaimer first.


edit on 6-3-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




Nope...at this point they're a suspected criminal and that's it, being a political figure simply does not matter.

Perhaps in your version of reality.
I would love to see you try to justify flynn as a target of a fisa warrant.
There is a reason for fisa laws. Perhaps you should brush up on that.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
What the media is not covering this morning.

House Democrats are attempting to block White House Counsel
Don McGahn's request to the Department of Justice for the FISA order.


thehill.com...

So the Democrats do not want the FISA order released,
predictable but guilty!

Hypocrites.


Would Boente be the one in charge of releasing the FISA order? If Jeff Sessions has recused himself regarding all matters related to the campaign, it would have to be Dana Boente, the acting AG on this matter. But, I don't think even he can refuse a presidential order to release it.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Used to be? If you support trump in any way you still are. Hey you said it. Me I'm sixty years old and educated and experienced in the world. I grew up in NYC i was a business owner. I'm not naive.


And you still fell for Hillary. Well if your not naive that only leaves a few other really bad words.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
What the media is not covering this morning.

House Democrats are attempting to block White House Counsel
Don McGahn's request to the Department of Justice for the FISA order.


thehill.com...

So the Democrats do not want the FISA order released,
predictable but guilty!

Hypocrites.



HOLY #...

NONE of what you claim is in that article????????????

The House Democrats are asking WH Counsel to disclose it's communications with the FBI...
Cuz Trump's people have been trying to get the FBI to publicly say there is no evidence of Trump teams collusion with Russia..
An illegal and unethical act by the WH BTW...Interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation..
AND interestingly...a request that the FBI REFUSED...
edit on 6-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The President or his designee.. What part of that confuses you? It means a person, either the President or a person the President assigns to represent him.

As for US citizens you failed to read the statute I provided... Try again.


(e) Emergency orders
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if the Attorney General—
(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;
(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such electronic surveillance exists;
(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance; and
(D) makes an application in accordance with this subchapter to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.
(2) If the Attorney General authorizes the emergency employment of electronic surveillance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.
(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.
(4) A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
(5) In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(6) The Attorney General shall assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph (5).


the next section deals with non US citizens.

A US citizen can be surveilled if they are part of the foreign surveillance target. Any information about the US citizen is restricted and cannot be disclosed. A law that was violated by the info released about Flynn and Sessions.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You noticed that too huh.

I just finished reading that article and none of that is in there at all.

Talk about your fake news.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

I thought the president could just order that it be released! How are Democrats blocking this?


It appears the Dems are concerned that The White House Counsel will
obtain the FISA documents, and are playing offensive to try anything.

Obviously, the letter is unsubstantiated accusation, and an attempt
to thwart any effort.


I was under the impression, also, that the president has the power to declassify a FISA order.


Fairly certain proper protocol would need to be followed before released
to the public. This looks more like the Dems are scared that he many indeed
already have it? Just guessing on that one.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I actually trust Breitbart more than the NYT or WaPo these days. Breitbart is actually becoming an excellent investigative journal, although I usually try to follow any story up with at least one or two collaborating pieces.

But, Trey Gowdy came out this week warning us to be cautious of what the media is putting out for public consumption. Then, this weekend, we heard the same from Sen. Tom Cotton on the Intelligence committee.


edit on 6-3-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

edit on 6-3-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
let post all the headlines that were talking that Trump was been wiretapped prior to becoming president.

Mark Levin Destroys Obama on Wiretapping and Abuse of Power


As Levin explains, “The evidence is overwhelming.” Obama’s White House has been shown through public records and mainstream media reporting to have obtained a FISA court warrant to surveil Donald Trump’s presidential campaign last year.

Now, it’s up to the Trump White House to release the details from the Obama administration’s FISA court warrants detailing the applications of those warrants. And Congress has the power to review Obama’s daily intelligence briefing during the politically motivated surveillance of Trump’s campaign.

As Levin explained, this is government corruption at the highest level. If criminal, Nixonian tactics were used, likely in a last-minute attempt to save Hillary Clinton’s failing presidential campaign, someone must be held accountable.


thepoliticalinsider.com...

Yes spying agencies in the nation can and deny that they are spying until their information is declassified



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, if you read that they write a letter full of unsubstantiated accusations.

hahahaha....

great tactic, pot meet kettle.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join