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: 207
158
<< 204  205  206    208  209  210 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SB1023
a reply to: Indigo5

Is there a transcript of the Flynn conversation? Who does Flynn think he is speaking on Trump's behalf. Last I checked, he was not the president.


Not trying to be snarky...But those are some ground level, basic news questions. Have you followed the story?

Transcripts were shared with WH Counsel..To make the POTUS aware that Flynn and the VP were publicly lying about the frequency and content of those conversations with Kisylak. Having Russian intelligence be aware that Flynn had lied to the VP, the press and public (and possibly others) and caused the VP to lie on Sunday Mornings News shows, caused Spicer to lie in press conferences denying they discussed sanctions...created a blackmail risk.

Was Flynn aware of who he was talking to?
He knew Kisylak since (at a minimum since 2013) when Kisylak made arrangements for him to visit Moscow and had multiple one on one meetings with him in the intervening years, visited Moscow, Met with Kisylak at Trump Tower (along with Kushner) in December etc. etc.


edit on 7-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no black swan when you are trying to remove seditious traitors from within the government.

Although, seeing it become another "Red Scare" where people lose their collective minds isn't someting that I'd like to see.


Find and remove all "seditious traitors from within government"...except the ones that were working for or with Russian FSB...Understood.


There is no evidence after wire taps and months of investigation that anyone was colluding with the Russians. You seem unable to accept reality and the time is ticking to the official investigation's announcement on this. You are going to look mighty stupid for your continual proclamations of guilt.

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



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Looks like that network trafific from that server in Trump tower could have been FAKED.

Umbrage.



With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.


russia-insider.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Not trying to be snarky but clapper knows much more about this than any of us and he CLEARED THE ENTIRE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Is UMBRAGE from wikileaks just yesterday? I would have thought it's simple enough to hack DNC from a location in Russia and point out the IP address of the hacker is from Russia.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no black swan when you are trying to remove seditious traitors from within the government.

Although, seeing it become another "Red Scare" where people lose their collective minds isn't someting that I'd like to see.


Find and remove all "seditious traitors from within government"...except the ones that were working for or with Russian FSB...Understood.


There is no evidence after wire taps and months of investigation


???

The FBI/CIA/NSA have not concluded or officially released the results of the investigation?

You seem to have an issue confusing the order in which things occur?

The FBI/CIA/NSA and Senate and House intelligence committee investigations are ongoing.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SB1023




Is UMBRAGE from wikileaks just yesterday?


Yeah.

Wiki laid it all out.

It's on drudge.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.


Actually, that's not quite accurate.

According to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Title III, Chapter 119, Section 2511, Part 3 states (which is the chapter on wire interception and interception of oral communications):



Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U.S.C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.


Copy of FCC PDF as source

So it seems to me, unless I'm mistaken, that he in fact does have both the authority and the right to do so, if he deems it necessary as a safeguard against a foreign nation OR a US citizen if they threaten national security in some way or the nations interests or national security information against actual or potential attacks.

So, in my hypothetical scenario (that being that Obama had actually ordered surveillance) it would have been well within his rights, according to the above, if he deemed it necessary as a safeguard against potential Russian aggression or a threat to national security information.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

Not trying to be snarky but clapper knows much more about this than any of us and he CLEARED THE ENTIRE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.


I see you using ALL CAPS...

ALL CAPS does not make BS true...

Clapper has repeatedly said he does not comment on ongoing investigations?

Please direct me to the report where clapper says the FBI "cleared the entire trump campaign"?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Grambler


So the CIA, who Donald Trump has derided as "Nazi's", conspired over a year to hack the DNC and conduct a massive online propaganda campaign, coordinating extensively with WikiLeaks? Who also leaked this CIA material exposing the supposed plot?...to help get Donald Trump elected?? The guy who repeated and viscously railed into them before and after being elected?


Explain that to me please...



First the entire wikileaks today shows that the CIA has no qualms at all about spying on Americans without their knowledge of it.


Not that I necessarily disagree, but where does the leak show that specifically?


It seems likely that the CIA could be surveilling all politicians.


Same question as above.



I am not claiming I have proof that this is what happened, but it could be a possibility. Perhaps if the CIA and Obama administration didn't have a track record of spying on political opponents like James Rosen and lying about it they would have more credibility.


So President Obama, who wasn't running again and on his way to surfing with Richard Branson, risked his entire legacy to direct the CIA to illegally hack into the DNC?...cuz he wasn't aware of what the DNC were up to even though he was the Defacto leader of the Democratic Party? And needed to know because?

Sorry..it not only makes no sense, it offends common sense.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


Not that I necessarily disagree, but where does the leak show that specifically?


It shows that everyday tvs, video game consoles, iphones, etc. are used by the cia as bugs to listen in. It also claims to show Americans have been targeted using these means. I did not download the files, I only read the press release which you can find easily if you would like.




Same question as above.


That they could spy on politicians. Umm, thats the entireity of the release which describes how the CIA ran this surveilling apparutus that rivals the NSA, and goes into detail of the techniques that the used.





So President Obama, who wasn't running again and on his way to surfing with Richard Branson, risked his entire legacy to direct the CIA to illegally hack into the DNC?...cuz he wasn't aware of what the DNC were up to even though he was the Defacto leader of the Democratic Party? And needed to know because?


You are grossly misrepresented what I said.

I gave two scenarios.

The first was that the CIA spied on the DNC and an insider released the info to wikileaks. Hence the CIA did not intend to release this info to the public, but a rogue individual inside the CIA released the info to wikileaks. Given that the wikileaks vault 7 says there is another Snowden type person within the CIA this could lend credence to that.

The second scenario was that someone in the DNC released the info to wikileaks, and so the CIA got wind of this and attempted to make it seem like it was Russia that hacked the DNC in order to discredit the leaks and Trump.

Neither one of these scenarios would require Obama ordering the CIA to spy on the DNC.

And further more, why would Obama risk his legacy to spy on James Rosen? But he did that. And we know for a fact that Obama ordered all info and Trump and Russia to be shared throughout all agencies, and has left all sort of pitfalls for Trump to have to deal with.

Why would Obama risk his legacy to change the rules of how the agencies handle this classified info on his way out the door?


edit on 7-3-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Guess what???
Without a fisa warrant ANY data from an american citizen is off limits.
Also how does this square with what clapper offered on sunday? Was clapper not involved with this; because his statement on mtp indicates differently.


Not sure how many times you need it explained to you.

Flynn's communications were not picked up via a wire-tap on Flynn..

They were picked via a wire-tap on Kisylak..

And NSA/FBI's motivation for sharing with WH counsel was not prosecutorial, but rather to mitigate black-mail risks.

The President's Chief National Security Advisor had had meetings and conversations with Russia's Chief representative in the US and had assured him sanctions would be reversed once Trump took office...And then LIED about it...to the Press, to the Vice President..causing the Vice President to unwittingly lie to the public.

The Chief National Security advisor to the President was a severe blackmail risk and that had to be dealt with.



The leaking of Flynn's conversation was illegal. That remains, and the leakers need to be prosecuted.


Not opposed to having a debate of what constitutes a "whistle blower" and what constitutes a "leaker" that "needs to be prosecuted"...

I am not convinced that Trumps threats of prosecuting leakers is real beyond twitter...

It's a Pandora's box for him. Drag an NSA or CIA insider in the Russian investigation into the spotlight and have him questioned by Congress or spend months in the spotlight or on trial debating whether he was doing a public service or not and what the investigation involved etc. etc. etc.

Sounds like it would be an interesting time and force public disclosure of a lot of the evidence surrounding the investigation. The leakers defense attorneys would immediately file for discovery on multiple fronts with Trump and the Intelligence community, subpoenaing every relevant Russian/Trump communication and testimony.

Hell..I am about full light...You guys want to find a leaker and have him tell his story and make his case in court with a full legal team? Sure.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Still waiting for you to post a link that it was only the Russians that were wiretapped and not Trump tower.

You seemed so certain of it so I assume you have some sort of proof.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no black swan when you are trying to remove seditious traitors from within the government.

Although, seeing it become another "Red Scare" where people lose their collective minds isn't someting that I'd like to see.


Seditious traitors? Alright, perhaps a tad bit hyperbolic but technically ... perhaps.

The phrase "black swan" only indicates unforeseen events that have considerable repercussions.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Indigo5


Not that I necessarily disagree, but where does the leak show that specifically?


It shows that everyday tvs, video game consoles, iphones, etc. are used by the cia as bugs to listen in. It also claims to show Americans have been targeted using these means. I did not download the files, I only read the press release which you can find easily if you would like.


I read the press releases...Americans targeted (By foreign entities, not CIA)
Yes..Specifically Samsung Smart TVs...Appearing to still be on when they are actually off was the hack...Thinking that one through, it might be really crazy if it is used to give a target a fake news broadcast?

Much of it was explaining discovered hacks that had been used in the wild...Either to be exploited for defensive or offensive capabilities.






That they could spy on politicians. Umm, thats the entireity of the release which describes how the CIA ran this surveilling apparutus that rivals the NSA, and goes into detail of the techniques that the used.



I thought you said the leaks said they DID spy on politicans? Not "could"...My bad..I guess yes? Yes the CIA "could" spy on politicians...Not sure we needed a leak to figure out that potential?


As to the rest...I have a busy morning and your Obama/CIA hacking the DNC seems illogical on many fronts, but I can't dig into the complexities of the conspiracy you are working to construct right now.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Why would Obama risk his legacy to change the rules of how the agencies handle this classified info on his way out the door?
Obamas Mom was CIA correct ? GB dad was CIA correct ? Who is DT's Mom ?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


I'm really glad if that's true.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Indigo5

Still waiting for you to post a link that it was only the Russians that were wiretapped and not Trump tower.

You seemed so certain of it so I assume you have some sort of proof.


I totally get you are reaching for a Gotcha moment...I have to get to work. I feel confident if you google and read you can find everything you are asking for, but right now..you can either pat yourself on the back or I can return to the thread tonight and do some googling and posting of links for you.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Okay, so, in light of the UMBRAGE material you offered, the idea is that the CIA spoofed Russian hacking to help Clinton lose the election ... so that Trump would win ... and now they are out to destroy Trump?

I'm on my first cup ... but are you sure that tracks logically?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


I'm really glad if that's true.



The full interview with clapper is packed full of useful stuff and it's only 7 minutes...

Folks should watch. He did say no evidence of collusion, but there is a time qualifier..

www.nbcnews.com...




top topics



 
158
<< 204  205  206    208  209  210 >>

log in

join