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: 191
158
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think your missing the first point. The first request where the Obama admin was shut down was for Trump and not a Russian bank.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

That last sentence is a bombshell!



The level of corruption being uncovered right now will rock the nation.


Guys like Bannon don't make statements like that casually.


They're gonna expose the entire Obama scorched earth agenda before they're done.

And all the left-over department operatives with him.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think your missing the first point. The first request where the Obama admin was shut down was for Trump and not a Russian bank.


Nope, I'm not missing the point....I'm clarifying that it wasn't attempted to be procured because he is/was a political opponent. The obvious assumption was that Trump or his employees were in some way colluding with Russian banks, that's a given.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
End of Day 3 -- Obamagate.

So far, evidence the Obama Regime targeted the Trump Campaign and/or Trump himself for electronic surveillance is overwhelming.

What evidence is that?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Well it was attempted and the court denied the warrant request.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

Well it was attempted and the court denied the warrant request.


Which is precisely what I said, is there some point beyond that?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Im sorry you said -


originally posted by: alphabetaone
Nope, I'm not missing the point....I'm clarifying that it wasn't attempted to be procured because he is/was a political opponent. The obvious assumption was that Trump or his employees were in some way colluding with Russian banks, that's a given.


I took that as you saying the first FISA request was never submitted.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep


We are absolutely positive Obama wire-tapped us during the election. We are absolutely not going to reveal our sources and methods for how we discovered this, not only would it put lives in danger but it would give up the upper hand we currently have in this situation.


Link

So Bannon is stating that there is no way they will provide evidence as to their allegation?

Nice.
edit on 19Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:04:40 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep

We are absolutely positive Obama wire-tapped us during the election. We are absolutely not going to reveal our sources and methods for how we discovered this, not only would it put lives in danger but it would give up the upper hand we currently have in this situation.

Link

Bannon also posted this to his FB yesterday. Maybe a hint of things to come?


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



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

You know, once upon a time, it was against T&C to make such outlandish accusations.

If you think I'm a computer program, you're further gone than I thought.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Grambler

Did you catch that she said Comey asked for the first FISA request that had named Trump directly and subsequently was denied ? Maybe shedding more light on Comey's discomfort.


Yep, this in its own right is damning. I created a thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Wookiep


We are absolutely positive Obama wire-tapped us during the election. We are absolutely not going to reveal our sources and methods for how we discovered this, not only would it put lives in danger but it would give up the upper hand we currently have in this situation.


Link

So Bannon is stating that there is no way they will provide evidence as to their allegation?

Nice.


Sounds like there is a valid reason. Keep reading, he states the Trump admin would give up the upper hand, currently if they provide it right now.

The other really telling part is that he said lives would be in danger. That shows the scope of the level of corruption if even the POTUS can't reveal how they discovered the wire tapping without lives being in danger.

Holy smokes. I think this is a HUGE deal.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think your missing the first point. The first request where the Obama admin was shut down was for Trump and not a Russian bank.


Nope, I'm not missing the point....I'm clarifying that it wasn't attempted to be procured because he is/was a political opponent. The obvious assumption was that Trump or his employees were in some way colluding with Russian banks, that's a given.



Wow, so these dummies mis-filed and should have mentioned the banks the first time around?

lol.

"oh, what if we say we want to tap the banks instead of Trump? think they'd buy that?"

"it might take months to find an idiot FISA judge to sign it so we better start now"




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Yup, they got the dirt on Holder.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: The GUT

Yup, they got the dirt on Holder.



Mofo is still in contempt of congress.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Justoneman

You know, once upon a time, it was against T&C to make such outlandish accusations.

If you think I'm a computer program, you're further gone than I thought.



I'm going with coin operated toy, and someone sure is feeding a lot of nickels in ya!



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Well at least we know that the allegations have something to back them off with, let see what will come out from all this after congress investigation.

Interesting days we are living.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I read about her yesterday, but didn't watch the Fox show. However, with respect to Louise Mensch, I think she is trying to cool the jets of chaos.


With respect to the below:



While it MAY be damning, it isn't inherently damning because the innuendo is not that Obama went after a political opponent but that Obama and the DOJ were going after the banks and Trump was simply the one in the middle of that.




No, she actually isn't doing that because let's face it, the FISA court is there for a reason...to ensure justice is met in a constitutional fashion even if there are elements within the Government that would want to abuse it. It's there as a stopgap....and it worked. You can't try someone for a crime that they were never allowed to commit; likewise you can't prove corruption when disallowing anything corrupt to happen in the first place. Even IF Obama wanted to (which I seriously doubt) wiretap Trump because he is a political opponent the FISA court would never have allowed this.


I disagree. I go into more on the thread I made, but here is the short of it.

First the fact that Obama encouraged the info to be classified as low as possible and to be shared shows that it wasn't just about doing the right thing, Onbama was going after Trump politically. All of these leaks go to show this.

Secondly, the Fisa court would not be the place to go for this sort of thing.


FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime. Third, the kind of information sought concerns solely information about a pending or actual attack on the country. That is why the law limits itself to sabotage incidents involving war, not any form or kind of “sabotage,” explicitly limiting itself to those acts identified in section 105 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

This bring us to Watergate-on-Steroids, or #ObamaGate. Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.


lawnewz.com...

And even if you don't think any of that has weight, are you really ok with a sitting president attempting to surveill their opponents based merely on speculation that the may have colluded with a group? Again, even Clapper has admitted they have zero evidence that Trump has done anything wrong.

If you believe that, would you support Trump attempting to surveill Obama, Hillary, Holder, Schumer, Lynch, and many other democrats for connections to extremist Islamic groups like hamas or the muslim borther hood, or people like Bill Ayers, or Antifa, etc?

I mean, Trump would just be viewing them as potential criminals, not political opponents.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Wookiep


We are absolutely positive Obama wire-tapped us during the election. We are absolutely not going to reveal our sources and methods for how we discovered this, not only would it put lives in danger but it would give up the upper hand we currently have in this situation.


Link

So Bannon is stating that there is no way they will provide evidence as to their allegation?

Nice.


Sounds like there is a valid reason. Keep reading, he states the Trump admin would give up the upper hand, currently.

The other really telling part is that he said lives would be in danger. That shows the scope of the level of corruption if even the POTUS can't reveal how they discovered the wire tapping without lives being in danger.

Holy smokes. I think this is a HUGE deal.

I refuse to read Facebook out of principle. Going by what was quoted.

That sounds very ominous... or maybe it's just bull# to cover what President Trump has claimed.

There is certainly vast evidence that President Trump just says stuff without regard to its veracity.

I'm surprised that this thread is nearing 200 pages with the evidence being: 'we can't tell you but trust us.'



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Greven

Well at least we know that the allegations have something to back them off with, let see what will come out from all this after congress investigation.

Interesting days we are living.


They do have evidence?

What?



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join