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: 242
158
<< 239  240  241    243  244  245 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG




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.
That might explain why that painting of Hillary can be seen in the vid of the kids visiting the White House .




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
As a side note and since the russians hysteria has been off and on in this thread....
www.dailymail.co.uk... -intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Interesting timing for this...



EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.





posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

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?


Good point ... maybe the question is:

Did Obama order surveillance of Mr. Trump, etc.?

Then

Was the surveillance ordered in a legal manner?

You're right.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

From the article:



Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks


ETA



Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony. His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

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



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You see, as far as I'm concerned, and unless I'm taking things WAY off-course, as I pointed out in my post about the Omnibus and Safe Streets Act of 1968, if a sitting President deems fit to ensure national security or National security Intelligence information, he basically has limitless powers under that act to impose a wiretap on a Foreigner OR US civilian suspected of collusion without fear of unethical practice.


Whether or not the (alleged) wiretap actually went on longer than it should have he would have had little control over unless one expects the President to micromanage every single aspect of every single department that he/she entrusts the respective department heads to oversee.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?


I don't think he's "dumb", but he's not the world-class intellect he was presented to be either.

Hence the first EO he ever signed -- 13489. He signed that order as soon as he was sworn in. It seals all his educational, travel, and personal records. In his book "Dreams...", Obama admitted to being a poor student in high school. How a "poor student" gets into a top shelf school like Occidental I'll leave up to you (hint: foreign student using Indonesian passport...).

But no, I don't think Obama is "dumb" per se.
edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife knows about Pizzagate.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: SBMcG




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.
That might explain why that painting of Hillary can be seen in the vid of the kids visiting the White House .


My guess is that Trump had that put there, but you could be right -- it could have been Obama. Either way, I don't see anything particularly telling about it.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Seth Rich.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

You mean this Executive Order?

The one that replaced George W. Bush's EO 13233 of 2001 which in turn had replaced Reagan's Executive Order 12667 made on January 18, 1989?

Was that because Bush's EO had been struck down in Court, and Obama basically put Reagan's EO back in place?
edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Link fixage



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
As a side note and since the russians hysteria has been off and on in this thread....
www.dailymail.co.uk... -intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Interesting timing for this...



EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.



I firmly believe the DNC "leaks" were really stolen by assassinated DNC staffer, Seth Rich. I have no proof or evidence of that theory of course, but if as the article you linked claims, no Russian hacking was involved, and the emails were delivered to a Wikileaks operative by a DNC staffer, I'd say it's a pretty good operating theory.

Whether one wants to believe it or not, there are an awful lot of conveniently-dead bodies in the Clinton's wake. I fear Mr. Rich is just the latest one.
edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife is involved Pizzagate. Ask Carlos Wiener.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   


But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information. 'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... -intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4alt6WMwn Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




He suggested that Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials. Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... -intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4altJQXsa Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Interesting
So if these were from within the DNC that burns up most of the russia hysteria
Russias so called attempt to influence the election would only be left with garbage articles on the internet.
So wikileaks snowden good?
wikileaks podesta emails bad?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

You see, as far as I'm concerned, and unless I'm taking things WAY off-course, as I pointed out in my post about the Omnibus and Safe Streets Act of 1968, if a sitting President deems fit to ensure national security or National security Intelligence information, he basically has limitless powers under that act to impose a wiretap on a Foreigner OR US civilian suspected of collusion without fear of unethical practice.


Whether or not the (alleged) wiretap actually went on longer than it should have he would have had little control over unless one expects the President to micromanage every single aspect of every single department that he/she entrusts the respective department heads to oversee.



It will be interesting to see some folks argue in favor of President Trump's exercising those powers in the future, eh?

But as to your second question, yes, some of our friends here are making the feeble argument that Obama is the literal source for every action of the Executive Branch 2009-2017.

It will be interesting to see if they hold Mr. Trump to the same standard. (I jest.)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: shooterbrody

Seth Rich.




I would wager that was the original source.
Now we have an actual name that has come forward to say it was not the russians.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Without the hysteria of the podesta emails will the russians still be the bogeymen they were made out to be when people from trumps campaign interacted with them? Or do they just go back to being foreign reps like from any other country?
Also without the influence of russia why did the odds on favorite to win end up losing?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

You mean this Executive Order?

The one that replaced George W. Bush's EO 13233 of 2001 which in turn had replaced Reagan's Executive Order 12667 made on January 18, 1989?

Was that because Bush's EO had been struck down in Court, and Obama basically put Reagan's EO back in place?


No, I mean EO 13489 that Obama issued the second he was sworn in that sealed all his records

The Obama apologists frequently use that lie about it being some convoluted legal maneuver relating to some nebulous SCOTUS ruling or another, but that's all B.S. usually coming from one of the Obama origins debunking sites.

The fact is, he sealed his records as his first presidential order and for 8 years denied every single FOIA request to unseal them.

Legal Source
edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama has a forged birth certificate.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

You see, as far as I'm concerned, and unless I'm taking things WAY off-course, as I pointed out in my post about the Omnibus and Safe Streets Act of 1968, if a sitting President deems fit to ensure national security or National security Intelligence information, he basically has limitless powers under that act to impose a wiretap on a Foreigner OR US civilian suspected of collusion without fear of unethical practice.


Whether or not the (alleged) wiretap actually went on longer than it should have he would have had little control over unless one expects the President to micromanage every single aspect of every single department that he/she entrusts the respective department heads to oversee.



I am less concerned with the legality than I am the ethics of it.

Based on what you posted here, is it your contention that you have no problem with any president wiretapping their opponents in the name of national security?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

New York Times NATIONAL Wednesday, March 8, 2017

"Trump Aides Address His Wiretap Claims: 'That's Above My Pay Grade'"


Link:

www.nytimes.com...
edit on 8-3-2017 by Erno86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2017 by Erno86 because: grammar



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

I see. Perhaps you should click on my first link?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

So, does it surprise you that specific evidence from a highly sensitive matter like the Obama Regime spying on the Trump Campaign would be withheld from a mid-level White House staffer like Spicer?

Congress is going to investigate this. My guess is the public won't hear anymore specifics until that time.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Jesus.

Do we have no concerns about a current President attempting to denigrate or harass a previous President with empty allegations and obvious political maneuvering?

Doesn't the blade cut both ways?



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 239  240  241    243  244  245 >>

log in

join