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: 205
158
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

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


Generally, yes.. but I think we need specifics... it's one thing saying "there was a call" and another to provide details of the call... got to find a good summary.




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't disagree ... in theory.

To me, government surveilance is only one aspect of a much greater issue ... the continual erosion of civil rights.

This is not coming from Republicans or Democrats but from core authoritarians. Party affiliation, at least at the top of the pyramid, is mostly just a masque.

Some here have presented the conflict as nationalist versus globalist ... and I can see that aspect although to me the lines are a lot more blurry than they are usually presented.

However, my personal issue is authoritarianism versus individual liberties, and in that, I see both the nationalists and the globalists on the side of the authoritarians.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
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...


Most of the links I have found result in downloading a document via pdf. However, this article from the Atlantic seems to cover the salient points: Minimization: A Term You Need To Know - The Atlantic



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
A party in power using the ic against the party running during the campaign is worse than watergate.

The coordination to get the protected data from multiple american citizens is a rico case.

Or the obama admin admits to spying on the gop.

Either way this is really really bad and our "system" needs changes.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   
The bone of contention: was there a legitimate reason for the Justice Department to investigate the foreign (Russian) connections of Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.

There seems to be more than enough evidence of foreign influence on Trump and his campaign (and his businesses, which is where I think most of the attention was given in the investigations, my opinion only.) to warrant investigation. Members of both parties have agreed on that point, and are, as well, carrying out their own investigations.

So ... to say that the investigations were political in nature ... doesn't seem to hold much water.

... and to pretend that every act of government is not "political" in some way is ... just a bit naive (or agenda-based) in my opinion.
edit on 7-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

when used againt 1 person from a campaign your defense of the obama admin is plausable.
When 4 people from the same campaign were treated in this fashon and were intimidated enough to leave the campaign it is not plausable.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

when used againt 1 person from a campaign your defense of the obama admin is plausable.
When 4 people from the same campaign were treated in this fashon and were intimidated enough to leave the campaign it is not plausable.



... unless four (or more) people were involved in illicit activities, before during and after their involvement with the campaign.

Besides there's no reasonable evidence that "1 makes sense, 4 doesn't" ... that's just a generalization that fits what you believe about this particular issue.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Intimidated? Try: afraid of being exposed and dragging the operation down. The FISA warrant required evidence. Several members of the campaign were caught speaking with Russian agents because the Russians were being monitored. There's your FISA warrant.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i will direct you back to clappers statement about NO collusion with the russians

or do you think it is ok to use the ic against political opponents?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

clapper said there were no fisa warrants

american citizens data CANNOT be used as you describe



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree, my god I agree, I always feel that the shadow government if any is behind the spying agencies that are to me personally a government on their own.

Is a reason and a movie showing why Hoover started the FBI, so he could have collateral on political figures in the US.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
Here's a fun video with Tucker debating congressman Himes on this subject. It's a lot like the back and forth here in this thread lol!




This Guy is SO Pro Spook I Gotta Laugh at his Utterly Overt Defensive Posturing in basically telling Tucker our Intelligence Agencies are " Saints " , and Would Never do Anything to Deprive the American People of their Fourth Amendment Rights . This Clown is a Congressman ? The Country is Screwed.........



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yeah I'm pretty sure it was because trump was way easier to manipulate.

Russia's puppet.





no puppet...
LOL



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i am in no way saying there shouldnt have been an investigation into the 4
if there was justification there will be warrants
for each

using the access to the data of the 4 through the foreign target is a crime

using that in 4 incidents in the same campaign will enable rico
edit on 7/3/2017 by shooterbrody because: fatfingersstupidphone



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

Intimidated? Try: afraid of being exposed and dragging the operation down. The FISA warrant required evidence. Several members of the campaign were caught speaking with Russian agents because the Russians were being monitored. There's your FISA warrant.


It may well be that the FISA warrant was to spy on the Russians only, and contacts with the Trump campaign were swept up in that.

However, someone MUST be prosecuted over the leaking of the Flynn conversation and it is important to find out who ordered that leak and who made the leak. Further, any other information that has been leaked about American citizens as a result of tapping the Russians must also be investigated. The agenda is clearly political as such Russian surveillance would also have swept up other people outside the Trump team talking to the Russian Ambassador, yet no information on those conversations has been leaked.

So, lets find the criminals who were and are leaking and punish them. I think everyone should at least agree with that.
edit on 7/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I'm listening to this now.

Mark Levin radio show podcast about this tapping.

tunein.com...

lol, crazy.

Good stuff to fall asleep to, I like the yelling, reminds me of my childhood.












posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't know coming out with the Clinton investigation that went nowhere a week before election sure seemed to favor republicans. I can't stand Clinton and still found that whole deal concerning.
edit on 7-3-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

i will direct you back to clappers statement about NO collusion with the russians

or do you think it is ok to use the ic against political opponents?


What was the basis of Clapper's statement?

Was it the investigations we're speaking of?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

i am in mo wau saying there shouldnt have been an investigation into the 4
if there was justification there will be warrants
for each

using the access to the data of the 4 through the foreign target is a crime

using that in 4 incidents in the same campaign will enable rico


Actually, you just said that one makes sense and four didn't.

/shrug



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

i will direct you back to clappers statement about NO collusion with the russians

or do you think it is ok to use the ic against political opponents?


What was the basis of Clapper's statement?

Was it the investigations we're speaking of?



Clapper said more broadly that there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join