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: 204
158
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That sounds like they were watching Manafort. Did I read that right??




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just tossing this out there, what is a Democrat president doing
tapping a Republican opposition in an election?

"No one is better qualified than her"

She was his candidate whether though hook or crook.
If that is not politically motivated, what is?

I'm also looking at his colleague cautioning saying "Obama said".

So he never interfered with the AG, means nothing.
He shrugs, he nods, hard to even begin to thread the idea he
had no knowledge of this.




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



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So much for meme "Obama knew nothing about it"

It also severely diminishes claims that "orders" nay "requests" for political spying did not come from Obamas whitehouse.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
A lot of these media outlets seem to be sourcing the NYTimes for their reason to report the wiretapping.

Could it be that the NYTimes is actually Fake News and everyone both on the Right and Left fell for their Fake News???



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Could it be that the NYTimes is actually Fake News and everyone both on the Right and Left fell for their Fake News???


It could be. It could also be they are fed leaked "intel"
that is disinformation, or twisted infomation from extreme loyalists,
partisan operatives appointed in "non political" positions in the IC community.

imo of course.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Xcathdra

So much for meme "Obama knew nothing about it"

It also severely diminishes claims that "orders" nay "requests" for political spying did not come from Obamas whitehouse.


Let's postulate for the moment, that he did know, and that he actually ordered intelligence gathering from what he suspects could be a threat to National Security (you calling it political spying is hyperbole and doesn't reflect any known facts) or perhaps in the commission of a past or future crime. Do you somehow believe he doesn't have the right to do so if he deems necessary?
edit on 7-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
March 6, 2017

In January 2017, the New York Times said that Donald Trump was Wiretapped. When Donald Trump said that Obama Wiretapped him, everybody thought Trump was nuts...including the guy who wrote the New York Times piece!

Source: www.rushlimbaugh.com...

How crazy are some of the NYT writers, huh?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Considering no evidence has ever been found implicating Trump / Trump associates to Russia he doesnt have the authority to do it. Since there is also no smoking gun evidence linking Russia to the DNC hacks or election tampering he doesnt have the right to do it.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 03:50 AM
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...


Actually it is not a non issue prior to Trump proving the facts.

Firstly, Trump will not be proving any facts as he has left it to the House Intelligence Committee to investigate.
Secondly, the very fact that the House Intelligence Committee is investigating tells us all it is not a non issue. They may find Obama (or his administration) did nothing wrong, but it's still an issue or no one would be spending any time on it.
edit on 7/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

except they were.. Unless you can cite exactly where Comey himself said this as sillyolme claimed.

since you cant because he didnt sillyolme is lying and you dont have all the info.

so we would be done.


Nor, can you prove that Comey himself did not say anything. You're fighting a losing battle, sillyoleme's sources do not matter....even if it's a gross misperception by sillyoleme of the source, that doesn't mean he is lying, but simply that he didn't pay attention properly.

Yet you want you 15 minutes by pointing out the big bad liar.

Good luck with your amateurish sleuthing.


Let me get this right... Comey says nothing public, so your view is that one has to prove he said nothing because an unnamed source said he said something. Right?

The world has gone mad.


The world has gone mad? I think it's just you.

If someone I trust, tells me that another third party had said something, I would believe them until I find they either lied or I proved them otherwise not credible. What the hell is mad about that? It happens every day and is a normal and healthy part of trust.


So because YOU trust the NYT, that means everyone else has to prove Comey has said something when he has in fact not said anything... right...?
So I trust Trump... so therefore the onus is on you and everyone else to prove that Obama did not illegally tap Trump's phones... correct?

So, with that established and embracing your madness , have you got proof that Obama did not tap Trump's phones?

You may also like to know that your 'trusted' sources are now changing their story, after they have done the damage with their lies of course...


The source said Comey felt "institutionally he has to push back on this" because the magnitude of the allegations that Comey knows not to be true. Over the weekend, senior-level officials within the FBI reached out to career personnel at the Justice Department to try to clear up reports that Obama wire-tapped Trump's phone, a US official told CNN. Part of the discussion was the FBI asking for DOJ to publicly knock down the allegations, which so far DOJ has not done. Comey was aware of those discussions, the US official said, but Comey himself did not reach out to DOJ over the weekend.


Sounds like back tracking to me..it now appears they are saying some lower level FBI people reached out to some lower level DoJ people, which even if true is hardly surprising given the Obama people still in govt and the leaking we've seen. Not quite the same as posting a picture of Comey and saying he asked the DoJ to refute Trumps claims.

I wonder how long it will be before we find out that the new "Comey felt 'institutionally he has to push back on this' " narrative will also turn out to be not true. We're expected to believe now that the head of the FBI left it to others to reach out to the DoJ on something he was apparently so appalled by.
In fact at this stage, for all we know, it was Comey who tipped Trump off.

Like I, and others, have told you... Comey has said nothing and until he does the simple fact is that Comey has not made a public statement on this and we cannot assume based on unnamed sources that he has asked the DoJ to refute Trump's claims. If and when he does, then we can discuss the implications.
edit on 7/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
There seems to be some confusion; this is President Obama's response on the Trump accusations:



"A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Obama spokesperson Kevin Lewis said in a statement on Saturday. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."


TIME

So, unlike what's getting repeated and argued here, there's nothing in that statement that says "Obama didn't know" about surveilence (apparently from the Justice Department, which squares with what we know) or that he didn't see material gleaned from that investigation.

To claim that the actions of an FBI investigation (getting warrants, monitoring suspects) are all personally ordered by the President is ... kinda silly.
edit on 7-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   
As far as whether the Russians were the ones tapped in counterintelligence investigations (as reported on January 19th in the New York Times here), every part of the article makes it clear that it was RUSSIAN communications that were monitored.

Grambler gave a reasonable critique of my assertion in previous posts.

Here are the perinent pieces of evidence:

1. The title of the article clearly states that the article is based on Intercepted RUSSIAN communications, not "Intercepted Communications Involving Russia" or "Intercepted Domestic Communications Involving Russia" etc.

2. Our own law enforcement experts have noted here in this discussion that it would be much easier to clear the monitoring of foreign agents than getting the proper warrants for doing the same to American citizens.

3. The FBI's Counterintelligence efforts are described in the article. Here is how the FBI itself describes its mission:



Our Priorities

Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
Combat public corruption at all levels


Mission and Priorities - FBI

Emphasis mine. So the emphasis for the FBI is foreign intelligence operations, in this case, involving American citizens.

The Times article suggests that the Trump associates involved in this investigation are Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone.

Grambler and others have suggested that the following statements from the article are important, and I agree:



Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.


To me, this last statement makes it clear that the point of surveillance was "Russian officials under investigation" precisely because the standard for opening these investigations is low. Acquiring a FISA warrant, as we have seen, is complicated and can be rejected.

Also, it bears repeating, that this investigation covered in this article is SPECIFICALLY regarding the named three individuals.

It does not cover Michael Flynn or Jeff Sessions and certainly not Donald Trump.

This article came into question because of a blog article posted by another member citing the references to wiretaps and transcripts as proof that Trump tower and/or Mr. Trump had been monitored. While that may be true (although it is yet to be proven) this article does not prove that nor does it even address that question.

The fact that the communications monitored and recorded were Russian in origin (or were from "taps" on Russian lines) seems quite clear for the reasons I've outlined. However, there is no direct statement of that fact in this article, however, there is no statement that the taps were on Manafort, Stone or Page, either.

... and certainly, there is no evidence of taps against Mr. Trump himself.

I did post in hubris (because the matter is strongly and evidently clear) but I did not stay within the strict boundaries of the evidence. Grambler, and others, were correct in pointing that out.


edit on 7-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks, that is about the sum of that article, however there is something that needs to be added.. my understanding is that any material gleaned from taps of foreign targets that consequently includes American citizens can not be shared.

The transcripts of Flynn's calls being leaked still remains a problem - who was given this information and who gave it to them? I am aware that the article covered Page, Manafort and Stone, but there must have been a separate (or part of the same) investigation that consequentially covered Flynn.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
It is interesting that Trump has accused Obama directly, not the former administation an organisation or even a group of people, no Obama personally. What kind of evidence is going to imply direct involvement of Obama? And what kind of accusations are going to generate the most headlines?
Regardless, Trump is making an error in thinking his real enemies have names and familiar faces.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
It is interesting that Trump has accused Obama directly, not the former administation an organisation or even a group of people, no Obama personally. What kind of evidence is going to imply direct involvement of Obama? And what kind of accusations are going to generate the most headlines?
Regardless, Trump is making an error in thinking his real enemies have names and familiar faces.


I actually think you are right here... what IS encouraging though is that the world is talking about the hidden elements within the US govt in a way that I have not seen before. Sure, we've all talked about on boards like this, but now it is mainstream... there is actually a chance, however slim, of rooting them out.

We're living in interesting times.. the likes of which we've not really seen since JFK


edit on 7/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks, that is about the sum of that article, however there is something that needs to be added.. my understanding is that any material gleaned from taps of foreign targets that consequently includes American citizens can not be shared.

The transcripts of Flynn's calls being leaked still remains a problem - who was given this information and who gave it to them? I am aware that the article covered Page, Manafort and Stone, but there must have been a separate (or part of the same) investigation that consequentially covered Flynn.


That's only the summary of the article from my point of view supporting my argument that the taps referred to were against Russian sources not American citizens.

A decent article on the particulars we are discussing can be found here: ACLU - Trump's Wiretapping Accusations: Here's What the Government Can Actually Do

Here's a quote pertinent to your point UK:



Individuals who are in contact with the government’s target may have their communications swept up too, though the government must apply court-approved procedures, known as “minimization” procedures, to limit the intrusion into Americans’ privacy.


However ...



Anyone genuinely concerned about the unconstitutional surveillance of Americans should turn their attention to reforming one especially problematic section of FISA: Section 702, which the government relies on to surveil essentially all Americans’ international communications. Unlike “traditional” FISA, which at least requires the government to obtain an individualized court order to conduct surveillance, Section 702 authorizes the warrantless surveillance of vast quantities of international communications, with virtually no judicial oversight.


and



While there have been no public indications of this to date, it’s possible that Section 702 surveillance also captured communications between the Trump campaign team and the same Russian entities abroad.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I'm always a bit shocked when folks here at ATS and in the larger "conspiracy theory" community seem to think that Joe Q. Public is not aware that the government monitors us both legally and illegally.

I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but, for example, my business partner is about 15 years older than me. He has never visited a conspiracy site in his life (he doesn't like to argue on the internet, imagine that) but he is one of the most paranoid people I have ever seen when it comes to government surveillance. His tagline is "I'm not going to give those b------s anything."

And he's probably right to take that approach.

For most Americans that I've talked to about these issues, sadly, most basically shrug and say "what are we going to do
edit on 7-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am interested to find out what these "minimisation" procedures should entail... i don't doubt that many Americans have been swept up through spying on foreign officials, after all conversations between foreign and US govt officials are widespread. I expect this is what happened to Flynn.

The question is - are the intelligence services who collected this information allowed to share it and provide the media with portions of this information or even discuss in general terms the activity (i.e. Flynn had a call with Russians). I don't know the answer, so some reading to do...



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If I understand correctly, most have the understanding that the leaks were illegal.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm always a bit shocked when folks here at ATS and in the larger "conspiracy theory" community seem to think that Joe Q. Public is not aware that the government monitors us both legally and illegally.

I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but, for example, my business partner is about 15 years older than me. He has never visited a conspiracy site in his life (he doesn't like to argue on the internet, imagine that) but he is one of the most paranoid people I have ever seen when it comes to government surveillance.

And he's probably right to do so.

For most Americans that I've talked to about these issues, sadly, most basically shrug and say "what are we going to do."



One of my criticisms of Trump is that he seems to be a supporter of surveillance of the American people - he could make a big gain I believe by rolling back the surveillance state and further regulating the sharing and use of intelligence.

If the whistle blowing relating to the NSA is true, then every person, not just Americans, should be appalled and demand change.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join