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: 201
158
<< 198  199  200    202  203  204 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




there has been NO PROOF that Obama had taps on Trump or his cronies in the article in question.


Except for a guy named Flynn that used a phone that was recorded which the media has been perpetuating he lied.



The tap was on the Russian ambassador.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

How does a private bank temper an election? That makes 0 sense to me.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Berns4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom




So no, the FBI would not need a warrant.


That's right.

They are called warrantless wiretaps. No Fisa Court needed.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

She's hiking the gently rolling hills of upstate New York enjoying her retirement. Oh and laughing at trumps ineptitude on the 24/7 trump show. She's probably saying "I tried to tell you Donny, the job is hard. Requires actual work and not grandstanding but you wouldn't listen. Well you've made your bed. ".
Or something like that. She and Bill probably laugh at his bumbling chaotic performance as the so called civil servant.
And she had a great career. She has nothing to be ashamed of. And isn't. Your opinion not withstanding.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




First off I have seen it presented as the DOJ or FBI.

So, you didn't read the BBC article?



If so, why did he then change the rules so that this info could be spread across multiple agencies?
What info?


And you are REACHING because there is plenty of what you asked for provided in this thread,


No, what he asked for is a source that proves the claim...there is nothing but overly dramatic conjecture in this thread.



Cherry pickers anon has openings I bet, well if they actually existed.

Just kidding.. but you do need to check out the actual facts and not the narrow ones that you can point to. Life exists outside of this forum......


Actual facts?! You are one to attempt to educate someone else on obtaining facts?

Here are the facts and I don't need a source to give them to you:

Trump has proven nothing.
Until Trump proves something, this is a non-issue.
That is all.

Those are the facts. Spin away little man...


Really, and I just posted one for you too...
Geeze can you leftist be more Alinsky like, I think maybe but I hope NOT...

BBC is not God to me and the other sources are all over this thread.. Ignore at your own risk, lob more deflections, and ignore the Constitutionalist's some more. It won't change the facts because you refused the sources like the NYT. You were given the sources and are very lazy in asking for them again after being on this thread the whole time... Geeze Louise, I get it that you don't care for the truth...
edit on 6-3-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Yes I have read it. Private banks are not covered by FISA.

FISA laws - 50 USC 36.


TERMS

As used in this subchapter:

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments; or
(7) an entity not substantially composed of United States persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4), irrespective of whether the person is inside the United States;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities;
(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore;
(D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or
(E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such proliferation or activities in preparation therefor, or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such proliferation or activities in preparation therefor; or

(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Timeframe.

This monitoring took place months ago, before Obama's order.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
More on warrantless wiretaps.



The nation’s top intelligence agency revealed in a letter made public Monday that the NSA, CIA and FBI are engaging in a large number of warrantless searches of the content of Americans’ communications caught up in collection on foreign targets.




The letter, sent by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), also disclosed that there are large gaps in how the government tracks searches on Americans’ communications — and that the FBI simply does not track such searches at all.


Pay attention to that last part.



The Washington Post reported on Monday that the NSA considers 193 foreign countries — containing the vast majority of the earth’s population — to be valid foreign intelligence targets.


www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

that all needs to end



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

I really do appreciate the fullness of your answer.

So, if I am the FBI I very likely don't have to have a warrant to monitor Kislyak?

But I would to monitor Flynn or Sessions (or Manafort or whomever?)


I have no issues answering questions fully, regardless of previous disagreements. If you are seeking information then its all good in my book, regardless of what you may think of the info provided. Its the willingness to ask questions and learn that is important to me.

Correct on the Russian Ambassador however I think his surveillance would fall primarily more to the NSA. The FBI is mainly responsible for Criminal investigations and domestic counter intelligence.

Using FISA for an investigation has specific rules that deal specifically with US citizens being caught up in it. Mainly their info cannot be released (personal identifiers). Going after a US citizen for acting as an agent / colluding with a foreign government against the US would fall under Domestic Federal laws and the US citizen would still have full constitutional protections, including the requirement of evidence being collected in accordance with established laws / court rulings.

I would imagine a FISA operation that snares a US citizen would require the "info" be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency (most likely FBI). I would also imagine that investigation would need to uncover more incriminating evidence aside from the initial discovery in order to get it into the realm of it being prosecutable.

I am not an expert in FISA law so my response is based on my knowledge / experience in the civilian law enforcement side.

as an example look at the Anthony Wiener fiasco. That sex case was being worked by the NYPD. During their investigation and with a warrant they stumbled over the Clinton emails. In order for the FBI to view those emails they had to secure a second federal warrant to do so.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Im waiting for evidence. You know. That thing you examine to determine the truth?
I know what trump tweeted.
I know what officials from the Obama camp have said.
I know what the white house has said.
Yup I'm up to speed.
The truth has yet to be determined. As Fox Moulder said...It's out there.
You don't have the truth you have a belief.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Hey, here's a new twist!




RT ran an interview yesterday with retired CIA analyst, Larry Johnson. Johnson pointed out that the carefully-crafted denials by US Intel officials that they did not order the bugging of Trump Tower in New York within a month of the November 8 election may actually be true.

Johnson pointed out that a highly-classified job aimed at a domestic target could easily have been done by the British Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, then the results shared with both the intelligence community, as well as important American politicians.

[insert] The word in the community is that Admiral Michael Rogers, the Director of the NSA, apparently blew the whistle on the operation when he held a meeting with President-Elect Trump at Trump Towers shortly after the election and told him what he was up against.





Plausible?




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Berns4
a reply to: Xcathdra


Yes I have read it. Private banks are not covered by FISA.

FISA laws - 50 USC 36.


TERMS

As used in this subchapter:

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments; or

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4), irrespective of whether the person is inside the United States;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities;


(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).


I narrowed down the relevant parts that cover your "bank". A "bank" is owned / run by people. If those "people" fall into the categories above, its covered under FISA.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Berns4

There were no warrants.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, I can only say thank you.

So, given that there were wire taps involving the Russian Ambassador and say Michael Flynn, it would be much easier (less paperwork, legal hassles, etc.) to monitor the Ambassador's "phone" than Flynn's "phone" right?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The owner of alfa bank is Mikhail Fridman, a Jew like me. He is not part of the Russian government. A FISA on him or his bank is illegal no matter how you look at it.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Also, Mikhail Fridman, the owner of alfa bank, has no ties to the Russian government. He is an Israeli citizen too. Putting a FISA on him was a bad mistake.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-3-2017 by Berns4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: neo96

that all needs to end


Why?

They can't use anything against Americans unless they have the appropriate warrants.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




Plausible?


Yeah.

Long gone are the days of people breaking in to offices and slipping a bug in a telephone handset.

It's all digital now done at service end.




top topics



 
158
<< 198  199  200    202  203  204 >>

log in

join