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: 208
158
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: Indigo5


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.


Where did you read foreign entities not the CIA? The whole document was about the CIA using this tech. In fact, it specifically says even people in the US were targeted.


Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.


www.zerohedge.com...








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?


Right I said could. Again, I am not saying the wikileaks proves that Russia did not hack the DNC. They very well may have. But it raises the possibility of them being framed by the CIA.


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.


Fair enough. I don't think what I posted was illogical, but I guess everyone can make up their own mind.

Again, I am by no means suggesting I know what happened. But the wikileaks today does show that the CIA is unaccountable in its spying of even Americans, and they have the tech to frame Russia. Given that I find it difficult to take the CIA words that they are sure Russia hacked the DNC without them showing me any evidence.




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Do you always trust what Wikileaks releases?

PS, I'm not being one of those things that rhymes with stick.
edit on 7-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This RT report brings to the for just what may have been in the Donalds thinking for the tweets . You are demanding evidence then show your evidence which should result in the MSM having to back up their claims with evidence .



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.


I am not looking for a gotcha moment.

The fact is several people have said this, and I have yet to see one piece of evidence anywhere that proves that it was only the Russians that were tapped and no one in Trump tower.

The NYT article mentions wiretaps, but does not mention who was tapped. Other than that I have seen no evidence of who was tapped. This is alos true that there is no evidence to my knowledge that Trump or Flynn or any other person in Trumps team was tapped.

Now we have seen reports of possible fisa applications to surveill members of Trumps team. So I am wondering where these people are so sure that it was only Russians that were surveilled and not anyone on Trumps team or in Trump tower.

I have googled it and found no evidence. If someone has the evidence I am open to seeing it. But without that evidnece, how are you so certain in your claim?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


No I outlined two possible scenarios.

First maybe the CIA was monitering everyone and a rogue agent released the info to wikileaks.

Secondly perhaps a DNC insider released the info to wikileaks, and then the CIA tried to frame Russia when they found out in an attempt to discredit Trump and the leaks.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Secondly perhaps a DNC insider released the info to wikileaks, and then the CIA tried to frame Russia when they found out in an attempt to discredit Trump and the leaks.

You meant to say 'CIA insider', right?
Just making sure.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Do you always trust what Wikileaks releases?

PS, I'm not being one of those things that rhymes with stick.


No I appreciate the questions.

Its a tough one. I will say that I am uncertain of their motivation at times.

However, to my knowledge, not one document that they have ever released has been proven fake. This is a better record than Trump, Obama or any other media outlet.

So until I see otherwise, I will trust that the documents they release are authentic.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


No I outlined two possible scenarios.

First maybe the CIA was monitering everyone and a rogue agent released the info to wikileaks.

Secondly perhaps a DNC insider released the info to wikileaks, and then the CIA tried to frame Russia when they found out in an attempt to discredit Trump and the leaks.


As I said, in my first cup today.

Those are logical scenarios.

Seems like it would have been easier to hack Trump, drop evidence of Russian connections, and then tip off the FBI.

But then, what do I know about spookery.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Grambler




Secondly perhaps a DNC insider released the info to wikileaks, and then the CIA tried to frame Russia when they found out in an attempt to discredit Trump and the leaks.

You meant to say 'CIA insider', right?
Just making sure.


No I don't. In the first scenario, perhaps a CIA insider saw that the CIA was collecting this DNC data and leaked the info.

But the second scenario does not require the CIA to have had the DNC material at all.

Instead, maybe someone who was in the DNC and had access with these emails got disgusted and leaked the info to wikileaks.

The Cia found out about this, and then framed the Russians to make it look like they hacked the DNC to discredit the leaks (notice how little time was discussed about the content of the leaks by much of the media as opposed to where they came from).

Again, I am not saying that the wikileaks today prove this. It just shows the CIA has the capability to frame Russia for hacks.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Do you always trust what Wikileaks releases?

PS, I'm not being one of those things that rhymes with stick.


No I appreciate the questions.

Its a tough one. I will say that I am uncertain of their motivation at times.

However, to my knowledge, not one document that they have ever released has been proven fake. This is a better record than Trump, Obama or any other media outlet.

So until I see otherwise, I will trust that the documents they release are authentic.


Fair answer.

I have to make choices about what to accept as ... what I've called in my head "axiomatic truth."

There is no way for any one of us "civilians" to enumerate or even understand all of the possible sources of information now.

So I guess for you, in my terminology, Wikileaks is axiomatic truth. Fair enough.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I got it. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


No I outlined two possible scenarios.

First maybe the CIA was monitering everyone and a rogue agent released the info to wikileaks.

Secondly perhaps a DNC insider released the info to wikileaks, and then the CIA tried to frame Russia when they found out in an attempt to discredit Trump and the leaks.


As I said, in my first cup today.

Those are logical scenarios.

Seems like it would have been easier to hack Trump, drop evidence of Russian connections, and then tip off the FBI.

But then, what do I know about spookery.


I would argue that it is still probably most likely that the Russians actually did hack the DNC.

But these are possibilities.

Whats a shame is that if the Russians really did hack the DNC, because of the shadiness of the CIA and there spying on Americans and having this project UMBRAGE tahta they have used to frame Russia apparently, there is now doubt about their findings which gives wiggle room for Russia to get out of this.

Here is the main point; given what we now know about the CIA, how can we just take their word that Russia was responsible, especially given that we now know the CIA has the capability to frame Russia.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My snide remark from yesterday about epistemology applies ... how do we know anything?

What criteria constitute truth?

Does truth rely on the subjective or objective frames of reference?

Again, not being stickish, but these are the real fundamental questions for those who enjoy our pursuits.




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



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Is it true that the Wikileaks DNC emails stopped right after Seth Rich was murdered?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: Grambler


Is it true that the Wikileaks DNC emails stopped right after Seth Rich was murdered?


I had heard those rumors but I do not have definitive proof.

Perhaps someone else knows more about that than I.

I know that Assange sais some things that could be interpreted to him alluding to the fact that he thought the murder of Rich wasn't as simple as it seemed.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If UMBRAGE is a known known then is it possible to detect if its been employed in the data ?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Grambler

If UMBRAGE is a known known then is it possible to detect if its been employed in the data ?


No.

The CIA spy playbook is to spy undetected.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I posted it a couple of pages back
Clapper appeared on meet the press last sunday and cleared the entire trump campaign. Clappers words not mine.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Grambler

If UMBRAGE is a known known then is it possible to detect if its been employed in the data ?


It appears as if it can't be. However, it would be possible to find out if it was employed through an investigation into people as opposed to the technological traces.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Here's a question for pondering.

If the CIA/NSA/FBI are hobbled in their ability to work against our "enemies" (however you interpret that) ... what is Mr. Trump going to replace those covert actors with?

Private security loyal to him? Have any of you thought this "deep state" scenario through?




top topics



 
158
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join