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: 241
158
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No no, I was only interested in the question I asked, not additional commentary to be honest.


So let me bring clarity to what I'm truly asking and the answers for both are pretty binary:


1 - Do you believe that Trump met with Russian Officials during his campaign?


2 - Do you believe that if he (Trump) did not meet with Russian Officials during his campaign, but other portential staff members did, that he should not be lambasted for their ineptitudes?




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Responsibility does not denote liability.

If someone broke the law in the chain-of-command, you're saying that Obama would be brought up on charges?

So, if a rookie cop abuses his authority and makes a bad kill, they arrest the Chief of Police for murder?

zzzzz


If a LT. on mid-watch runs the ship into the ground while the Captain is asleep the Captain is responsible.


Admiralty law is different from civil law. Why don't you answer my question rather than answering one you prefer.

Rookie cop shoots a civilian illegally. Is the Chief of Police guilty of murder?


Rookie cop shoots someone. Chief finds out about it, says nothing, and allows the rookie to continue working.

Yep, the chief is responsible.

The fact that Obama did not announce any wrong doing, and clearly knew about the investigation (and as I said above did all he could to spread the intel from it) means that if we now find out there was wrong doing, he is responsible.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Do you bother to read what you respond to?
I do believe I made a point to ask what point you were trying to make by posting something unrelated to my post about Flynn .



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No no, I was only interested in the question I asked, not additional commentary to be honest.


So let me bring clarity to what I'm truly asking and the answers for both are pretty binary:


1 - Do you believe that Trump met with Russian Officials during his campaign?


2 - Do you believe that if he (Trump) did not meet with Russian Officials during his campaign, but other portential staff members did, that he should not be lambasted for their ineptitudes?



1. I have no idea. Even if he did meet with Russians that on its own is not illegal though.

2. Again, the meeting of russian officials itself is not illegal. So in that world, no Trump should not be lambasted.

However, if anyone on Trumps team did have wrong doings with russians, then yes I feel Trump should be lambasted unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he knew nothing of it (which I would be very skeptical of this claim)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Responsibility does not denote liability.

If someone broke the law in the chain-of-command, you're saying that Obama would be brought up on charges?

So, if a rookie cop abuses his authority and makes a bad kill, they arrest the Chief of Police for murder?

zzzzz


If a LT. on mid-watch runs the ship into the ground while the Captain is asleep the Captain is responsible.


Admiralty law is different from civil law. Why don't you answer my question rather than answering one you prefer.

Rookie cop shoots a civilian illegally. Is the Chief of Police guilty of murder?


Rookie cop shoots someone. Chief finds out about it, says nothing, and allows the rookie to continue working.

Yep, the chief is responsible.

The fact that Obama did not announce any wrong doing, and clearly knew about the investigation (and as I said above did all he could to spread the intel from it) means that if we now find out there was wrong doing, he is responsible.


Interesting point.

The FBI/DOJ drop a case against a child porn peddler because pursuing it would mean they have to show the source code or how they hacked TOR. Are they responsible for any new instances of child victimization that this guy performs?

A logical test to the premise phrased in the context of current affairs.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The Chief, in my example, is not guilty of murder. With your alteration of the example, he would be responsible for his own action, the cover-up, not the murder committed by our hypothetical rookie. He might be charged with accessory to murder.

Same general concept for Obama in your example.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No no, I was only interested in the question I asked, not additional commentary to be honest.


So let me bring clarity to what I'm truly asking and the answers for both are pretty binary:


1 - Do you believe that Trump met with Russian Officials during his campaign?


2 - Do you believe that if he (Trump) did not meet with Russian Officials during his campaign, but other portential staff members did, that he should not be lambasted for their ineptitudes?



1. I have no idea. Even if he did meet with Russians that on its own is not illegal though.

2. Again, the meeting of russian officials itself is not illegal. So in that world, no Trump should not be lambasted.

However, if anyone on Trumps team did have wrong doings with russians, then yes I feel Trump should be lambasted unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he knew nothing of it (which I would be very skeptical of this claim)


Ok, now after having said all of that, though just the very act of meeting with Russian officials is not illegal, don't you think during a US Election campaign where everything is supposed to be about "making American great again" and one so utterly surrounded in controversy about DEM's hacked servers by the Russians, wouldn't you agree that even the simple act of meeting with Russian officials raises an incredibly high level red flag (of course if it happened)?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are cops generally responsible for crimes they didn't commit?

I can't see how dropping a case is similar to accessory to a crime, or to simple supervision of a criminal. Could you expand your thought?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Responsibility does not denote liability.

If someone broke the law in the chain-of-command, you're saying that Obama would be brought up on charges?

So, if a rookie cop abuses his authority and makes a bad kill, they arrest the Chief of Police for murder?

zzzzz


If a LT. on mid-watch runs the ship into the ground while the Captain is asleep the Captain is responsible.


Admiralty law is different from civil law. Why don't you answer my question rather than answering one you prefer.

Rookie cop shoots a civilian illegally. Is the Chief of Police guilty of murder?


Rookie cop shoots someone. Chief finds out about it, says nothing, and allows the rookie to continue working.

Yep, the chief is responsible.

The fact that Obama did not announce any wrong doing, and clearly knew about the investigation (and as I said above did all he could to spread the intel from it) means that if we now find out there was wrong doing, he is responsible.


Interesting point.

The FBI/DOJ drop a case against a child porn peddler because pursuing it would mean they have to show the source code or how they hacked TOR. Are they responsible for any new instances of child victimization that this guy performs?

A logical test to the premise phrased in the context of current affairs.


Great question.

There are two standards that we can view responsibility; legally and ethically.

Clearly I think legally they would not be held responsible.

But ethically? This is one of the great philosophical questions.

Is it acceptable to allow a small evil in an effort to stop a greater evil? Smarter people than me have spent careers trying to answer that.

So how would this apply to the Trump Obama surveillance fiasco.

Legally it is much more complicated. We will have to see if any laws were broken.

But ethically it will have to be seen exactly what happened. If Obama knew abuses were occurring but allowed them to continue because he was certain Trump did wrong, it would raise a ton of ethical questions, especially if it turns out Trump is innocent.

But the hypotheticals are nearly endless, so I guess we will just have to wait for more fats.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Seems Barack is a Mental Midget compared to the Donald , and it Will be his Undoing Soon......


The one thing that surprised me the most about Obama was his lack of a truly keen intellect. I'm no George W. Bush fan, but at least with him, you could see the gears turning. Obama is so smooth that he was able to hide his cluelessness most of the time, but when he wasn't on his game 100%, he would stutter and stammer like an old lawnmower and have his "57 states" moments.

I'm a big fan of the writer Ed Klein. If you want a true glimpse into the Obama White House and the occupants thereof (including some truly juicy gossip relating to the absolute hatred the Clinton's and Obama's have for one another), The Amateur is a must-read. According to Klein, Obama is lazy and disconnected, he and the utterly vile Michelle live completely separate lives including sleeping quarters, and he spends more time watching ESPN on the couch than working in the Oval Office.

My personal moment of revelation as to Obama being a bit dense was fairly early on in his first term when he was using the US Post Office as an example of government success and FedEx and UPS as an example of private sector failure...

I don't remember the exact words and phrasing, but my then-girlfriend (a veterinarian who voted for Obama) was with me at the time and she turned to me with this stunned look on her face like W-T-F did he just say...?

I knew Obama would largely fail in his agenda because it was just so far outside mainstream American sensibilities, but the fact that he has a truly mediocre intellect was definitely a surprise I did not see coming.






edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama is a failed dummy.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Grambler

No no, I was only interested in the question I asked, not additional commentary to be honest.


So let me bring clarity to what I'm truly asking and the answers for both are pretty binary:


1 - Do you believe that Trump met with Russian Officials during his campaign?


2 - Do you believe that if he (Trump) did not meet with Russian Officials during his campaign, but other portential staff members did, that he should not be lambasted for their ineptitudes?



1. I have no idea. Even if he did meet with Russians that on its own is not illegal though.

2. Again, the meeting of russian officials itself is not illegal. So in that world, no Trump should not be lambasted.

However, if anyone on Trumps team did have wrong doings with russians, then yes I feel Trump should be lambasted unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he knew nothing of it (which I would be very skeptical of this claim)


Ok, now after having said all of that, though just the very act of meeting with Russian officials is not illegal, don't you think during a US Election campaign where everything is supposed to be about "making American great again" and one so utterly surrounded in controversy about DEM's hacked servers by the Russians, wouldn't you agree that even the simple act of meeting with Russian officials raises an incredibly high level red flag (of course if it happened)?


Well it depends on the circumstances.

For example, Sessions met with Russians on the books in his capacity as senator. This seems reasonable to me.

Also I don't have a problem with someone like Flynn meeting with Russians seeing as how that would be part of his job. Now if he made promises, etc. that could be problematic.

Also, lying about this meeting does raise a red flag. Though apparently the transcript has been made availavle to the IC and they don't think anything bad happened in the meeting.

Now if we find out Trumps lawyer had meetings with Putin or his people, and didn't disclose that, that would raise a red flag.

In fact, Antedilluvian had a good thread about Trump people secretly meeting with Russians, and that did raise red flags to me.

However, raising a red flag does not prove a crime was committed, and it appears as if Clapper said they had no evidence of wrong doing.

For example, lynch meeting bill Clinton on the tarmac raised tons of red flags, but that is not enough to prove there was wrong doing.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

My personal moment of revelation as to Obama being a bit dense was fairly early on in his first term when he was using the US Post Office as an example of government success and FedEx and UPS as an example of private sector failure...



Is this just sheer recollection on your part?

I can't find any backup for what you're talking about here.

Off topic of course, but curious.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Also, lying about this meeting does raise a red flag. Though apparently the transcript has been made availavle to the IC and they don't think anything bad happened in the meeting.



Ok. The above is what I was looking for...if he (Trump in this hypothetical) met with Russian officials but lied about it, that would raise serious red flags to you (especially given the sensitive nature of an ongoing 'make America Great Again' campaign and the aforementioned Alleged Russian hacks in state department email servers), personally, correct?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You cant find it because it was only reported on fringe conservative sites, pinterest, and world nut daily



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Let's look at the general line of what ifs here ...

If there was illegal surveillance of Trump, his residence, his business, or anyone or anything associated with him, that's a crime.

Whoever ordered or performed that illegal surveillance is more than likely guilty of one or more crimes.

If anyone else in a position of authority over the person or persons ordering or conducting illegal surveillance covered the crime up, that too is a crime, though it is not the crime of illegal surveillance, except by accessory.

Now ... this whole thing is fairly simple: did Mr. Obama order the illegal surveillance of Mr. Trump, etc. or not?

Anyone have an answer to that?
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

You cant find it because it was only reported on fringe conservative sites, pinterest, and world nut daily



Ah.

Clears that up then.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

My personal moment of revelation as to Obama being a bit dense was fairly early on in his first term when he was using the US Post Office as an example of government success and FedEx and UPS as an example of private sector failure...



Is this just sheer recollection on your part?

I can't find any backup for what you're talking about here.

Off topic of course, but curious.




"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009


I had the specifics all bassackwards -- it was 8 years and 3 girlfriend's ago after all, but it's still a truly dumb statement by a proven mediocre intellect.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You wouldn't happen to have some of that supportive evidence that proves this contention, would you?

I do but evidence bounces off of you and you seldom provide any yourself. I'm busy digging deep into this story as it develops. Looking worse for your corrupt team than you guys seem to realize. Reading is your friend. Carry on with your self-embarrassing hysterics though. I find you an intellectual lightweight and world-class, uninformed, and disingenuous ideologue.

As such, I save most of my arguments for folk willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I just eff with you occasionally because you are rude to members whose shoes I deem you unworthy to untie. Can't wait to hear your theatrical, hysterical, hypocritical reply though. Really I can't.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's look at the general line of what ifs here ...

If there was illegal surveillance of Trump, his residence, his business, or anyone or anything associated with him, that's a crime.

Whoever ordered or performed that illegal surveillance is more than likely guilty of one or more crimes.

If anyone else in a position of authority over the person or persons ordering or conducting illegal surveillance covered the crime up, that too is a crime, though it is not the crime of illegal surveillance, except by accessory.

Now ... this whole thing is fairly simple: did Mr. Obama order the illegal surveillance of Mr. Trump, etc. or not?


I don't see that as the question at all.

The first thing that needs to be resolved before that is, FIRST was it illegal?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

My personal moment of revelation as to Obama being a bit dense was fairly early on in his first term when he was using the US Post Office as an example of government success and FedEx and UPS as an example of private sector failure...



Is this just sheer recollection on your part?

I can't find any backup for what you're talking about here.

Off topic of course, but curious.




"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009


I had the specifics all bassackwards -- it was 8 years and 3 girlfriend's ago after all, but it's still a truly dumb statement by a proven mediocre intellect.


Okay, thanks for following up.

So, overall, it's safe to say that you think Obama is dumb regardless of whether your reasons for doing so make sense or not?



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join