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: 231
158
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage



I have my own guesses.

Are they classified?

Are you looking at the stuff we post in response to y'alls generally source-free and hate-filled posts? Like the interview with Cotton?

It sounds like Prez Trump is making classified documents available to them. You should listen if you haven't. I mean, I can't stand to listen to O'Reilly much so I understand any aversion, but I think the gravity of what's going on and why The Donald's Tweets have teeth might become a little clearer.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I really hope Mr. Trump is innocent of conspiring with the Russians, I really do. I initially didn't think much of the accusations leveled at Mr. Trump last fall over the Russian thing, or that the Russians had hacked the DNC. I thought at the time, Trump's no dummy, neither he nor his team would be involved in anything like that.

Since then, piece by piece, my perception has been shown to be incorrect ...

The American IC has stated that indeed Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC.

Flynn met with the Russian ambassador (nothing wrong with that) and lied to the VP about it (as well as the American people.)

Sessions met with the Russian ambassador (again, nothing wrong with that) and lied to the Senate about it.

Why would they lie about something so innocent ... unless it wasn't innocent.

As the circle tightens around Trump, he tweets decades old photos with Chuck Schumer meeting with Putin ...

And his statement is "see they did it too."

Think about that in relationship to what a guilty child does when they're caught breaking the rules.


That's pretty thin, and just mirrors the innuendo based narrative being pushed by the media.

Flynn lying is pretty easy to explain - it had nothing to do with collusion on the campaign, rather he was denying that he spoke about sanctions after being accused of it. Let's face it, many people (especially politicians) who had an pretty minor conversation that they believed to be private AND knew that enemies would blow it out of all proportion to score political points would do the same as Flynn.

Sessions didn't lie. To prove such you would need to prove his intent on answering the question. i.e. you would need to prove he did not consider the question as simply about his campaign contributions.

Trump saying "they did it too"..? That is in response to Democrats trying to demonise simple meetings. Again, nothing to do with the accusation of collusion.

Your bar for moving from not believing something to believing it seems pretty low - i.e. no evidence required. Or could it be that you actually believed it all along because you wanted to, and the narrative about being convinced you were wrong is for dramatic effect?

edit on 8/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT




Are you looking at the stuff we post in response to y'alls generally source-free and hate-filled posts?

Yes.
But, if you were paying attention (which you apparently were not), you would see that I was asking about your "own guesses."



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

But, if you were paying attention (which you apparently were not), you would see that I was asking about your "own guesses."

Sorry. I admit I've lost a lot of respect for you and I wasn't as attentive because you don't bring much to the political discussions imo (UFOs though you be pretty good.) No debate or research worthy of paying much attention to. Just being honest there and hoping you'll shape up because it's sad to see a decent intellect and respected member resort to puff posts.

My guesses are that much of what Trump is giving them so far isn't just stuff about the leaks/treason, but he wants the house intel committee to see the totality of the non-evidence concerning the collusion allegations against his team because he knows it's crap and subsequently Congress will have a very clear view of who the bad guys really are...consistent with his tweets. He is unleashing the hounds unfettered by the smokescreen hit jobs.

The answer to this vid is...Trump!

My guesses, mileage may vary.


edit on 8-3-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
More fake narrative from CNN.

Their take from the Nunes interview:
"Trump is a neophyte" and "GOP leaders back away from wire tap claims".
edition.cnn.com...

Tapper also repeated the definitive statement that the FBI director said the wire tap claims were false.

The lying on CNN is getting worse.

Yeah, I noticed that too. If anyone were truly trying to find out the truth for themselves, they would have noted that Nunes actually showed much respect for Trump and the validity of the leaks/wiretapping assertions. They would've also been paying more attention to what Nunes was saying and come away with the gravity of the situation facing members of the Obama administration. Lots of meat in that interview as well.


I think Comey will probably surprise some folk here. He is a wildcard I will admit, but I think the Tweets--and the subsequent enlarging of the "Russia" investigation--have assured that many who might not otherwise, will now get real and play ball. Comey pulled a Donald today & trolled the press. Might be a good sign. I hope he comes down on the right side of history. He may have been there all along.

For the record Gryphon: This stuff about Comey AIN"T a hard prediction, k? But you can hold me to that declarative I gave ya!


edit on 8-3-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   
If you listen closely , the Senator gives all the answers that are necessary.

Billy O. has sure become brain dead in his old age.

Just getting the SSCI to move this fast is a miracle in its own right.

Not bad for less than 60 days.

The Legends and Legacys of the Casper's are alive and well.



Buck



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
What are you all going to say when an independent investigator rules that there was no illegal wiretap, and that President Obama is blameless?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
What are you all going to say when an independent investigator rules that there was no illegal wiretap, and that President Obama is blameless?

We're sorry and we were wrong. How about you if it goes the opposite?

Clarification though: If members of his administration go down for leaks and dirty tricks, I personally will feel that's guilt on Obama even if he skates.

If Bin Laden really is dead in the manner we were told, was it Obama that got him? Or his administration?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT


We're sorry and we were wrong. How about you if it goes the opposite?


It would depend on whether or not the investigator were truly independent. If they were trustworthy, I would be stunned that the Obama administration was that gutsy.


Clarification though: If members of his administration go down for leaks and dirty tricks, I personally will feel that's guilt on Obama even if he skates.


And if this administration goes down for treason and/or corruption? Will you somehow still hold Obama responsible?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
An investigation into Trumps allegations is good this matter must be settled with hard evidence.

If Obama is Guilty he needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump lodged libelous accusations he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.


If either is guilty there is no reasoning that will work as an excuse.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Thin? LOL Nothing I posted is anything but basic facts that can be observed by anyone regardless of media bias "preference."

When the "narrative pushed by the media" happens to be the same as "the facts" there's no problem.

Flynn lied and resigned. There's the proof of wrongdoing and admission of guilt.

Sessions lied and recused himself. There's your proof of wrongdoing and admission of guilt.

Trump acting like a child ... well, that would be self-evident proof as well for anyone that's not a Trump-lover.

You don't know what my "bars" for belief are ... you're only attempting to negate statements based on your own beliefs.

You're not telling the truth about the "evidence" required, as not one statement I made is anything other than cold, hard facts.

So, what you're doing is blandly reactive ... second hand thinking, as it were.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Nota bene



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Why do you think a report from Fox News has significance to anyone who comprehends their decades-long penchant for fake news?

Why do you take the word of one individual as the Gospel? Is it because it matches your beliefs? Tom Cotton? Are you kidding me? This is your idea of a fair witness?

Why do you keep posturing about what you think about other members? Even in The Mud Pit, that's not germane to a topical conversation. For example, what do you think your posting Youtube videos brings to a conversation ... most are either fringe conspiracy productions or jokes. (You can decide where Fox News sits on that spectrum.)

Several members here toss out pronouncements regarding other's "credibility" when ... shocker, most of the ones doing so have flushed any credibility they had down the Trump Train Toilet.

You particularly are as partisan as they come in your expressions. You like to pretend to an objectivity that you simply don't display.

Why don't we stick to the arguments and leave each other out of it? And before you go there, it's a chicken-egg problem with me, because typically, I'll give exactly what I get in return.

Stop with the BS, you might be surprised at the outcome.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   
My question is this. Trump Tower is a high security 24 hour surveillance building. Open to the public certainly, but high security none the less. It has been this way ever since it was opened.

How bad is the private security firm Donald Trump uses that they would allow people outside the regular intelligence agencies contracted directly by President Obama access to the building to place the wire taps, and how bad were they that they weren't doing DAILY sweeps for bugs of the entire premises during the campaign, or at all times, just as a matter of normal operations?

Donald Trump either has to admit that his own private security firm failed him in their allowing of and lack of detection of these supposed bugs and wire taps, or admit that he's just blowing smoke from where the sun don't shine.

All his people are going on TV saying "remember, Donald Trump gets security briefings and knows information we don't, so must have some evidence in those briefings", but the very people who prepare the briefings are saying no such evidence exists, at all.

We KNOW that if these bugs were placed, Obama would have had to hire private intelligence firms to do this, as both FBI and CIA directors (who remember, prepare the President's daily security briefings) say that they have no knowledge of this.

If the people who prepare the daily briefings say that they have no knowledge, then what "evidence" is it that Donald Trump is supposed to have that the media don't, as all his surrogates are claiming?

edit on 8-3-2017 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Interesting and insightful approach to the subject ... thinking outside the box as it were.

I'm not sure digital surveillance requires actual physical "bug" devices these days ... but still, great approach and great observations and questions.

Be prepared for the cadre of armchair security experts to diminish your idea though.

EDIT: To your last question ... obviously, Trump's not listening to the CIA, NSA or FBI (Deep Hubba State Hubba Hubba) ... so where's he getting his "intel"?

Breitbart, Townhall, Fox and Friends?

The facts say ... yeah, probably.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
An investigation into Trumps allegations is good this matter must be settled with hard evidence.

If Obama is Guilty he needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump lodged libelous accusations he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.


If either is guilty there is no reasoning that will work as an excuse.



I'm good with that.

If Barack Obama is shown to have personally directed the investigative power of the US government at Trump for no other reason than political gain, i.e. with no evidence of foreign interference or collusion with foreign powers, then he needs to be sitting in a Federal jail cell for the rest of his life.

If, on the other hand, this is merely another lie from Donald Trump? He's incompetent to the office, and the Congress must do its duty under the 25th Amendment.

Soon.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL

Like either will happen.

I predict: Someone in Obama's admin actually tapped something of Trumps. It won't be what he said, but close enough that no one walks away with egg on their faces.

Not because that's the truth. But because that's the only evidence left to point to a truth.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Thin?,

Flynn lied and resigned. There's the proof of wrongdoing.

Sessions lied and recused himself. There's your proof wrongdoing.

You don't know what my "bars" for belief are ...


Apparently very low bar going by assertions.

Flynn did not resign because of any treasonous act against this country, he resigned for not being wholly truthful to his boss.

You keep asserting otherwise, got any proof or better yet transcripts.

Guilt by association is all you have and yes that's THIN.

Sessions recused as any lawyer worth darn would, posit you had beef with GM and Sessions had met with them prior to your case, it would be immoral for him not to recuse, recusal removes taint of appearance of influence, not any admission of wrongdoing.

Again all you have is guilt by association, very THIN indeed. Got any proof of wrongdoing besides an opinion.

Using the "guilt by association" threshold of yours then assumptions can be made that a multitude of Democrat leaders and followers are guilty as hell when meeting with Russians and committing treason.

Pretty soon you'll have any Trump administration member within a thousand yards of a Russian suspect on that reasoning.

Isn't seeing Russians behind every curtain whether true or not and using guilt by association what Joe MCarthy was excoriated for?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Did you say low bar for reading comprehension?

My statement was that Flynn lied about his contacts, which resulted in his resignation. I stated clearly that whatever contact he had was probably not (based on what we know) illegal.

Sessions lied about his contact, which resulted in his recusing himself. This too is regardless of what contact he had and why.

This not guilty by association, this is guilty by action. They acknowledged their guilt by the actions they took.

Is this the best you have to offer? Strawman argument?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Phoenix

Did you say low bar for reading comprehension?

My statement was that Flynn lied about his contacts, which resulted in his resignation. I stated clearly that whatever contact he had was probably not (based on what we know) illegal.

Sessions lied about his contact, which resulted in his recusing himself. This too is regardless of what contact he had and why.

This not guilty by association, this is guilty by action. They acknowledged their guilt by the actions they took.

Is this the best you have to offer? Strawman argument?



But you saying guilty implies they did something illegal.

You wouldn't say I was guilty of having dinner wiht my family last night.

Even if I lied and said I didn't have dinner with them and you proved I did, that doesn't make me guilty.

The fact is there was no wrong doing found in either Flynn nor Sessions meetings.

But even if you want to say they were somehow guilty, you say they acknowledged this guilt. But guilt of what, having legal meetings? THis isn't a crime, neither is misrepresenting those meetings.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Flynn lying...not much of a lie. He seemed to answer the question asked, with the person asking it deciding to expand upon it further than what had been verified. His lie was by proxy, more or less, as Pence is an idiot and put words in his mouth.

Sessions lying....again, answered the question asked. Who in their right mind would think that in his capacity as an elected official in the US government, sitting on committees where it would be appropriate, that he wouldn't have had meetings with Russian people of various sorts over the years. The assertion that Sessions lied is just ridiculous and ludicrous. Now pardon me while I spit the taste of having to defend Jeff Sessions out of my mouth.

....


Im all for hanging people for being unethical. But this crying wolf is really going to make me deaf in the near term.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join