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: 243
158
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

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


I've researched the matter ad nauseam. I've heard this deflection in it's various forms numerous times. At some point, you as an Obama-fan are going to have to admit to yourself that not all is as it seems with this guy.

FACT: He sealed all his records, a condition that exists to this day.

FACT: He denied every single FOIA requests to unseal them, even for ongoing court cases.

Why?

What is he afraid of the public knowing about his college records?

I could care less who looked at my college and grad-school transcripts.

What's your theory?




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

I was thinking more along the lines of Trump getting into Obamas head . One member and I cant remember which one has stated that Trump is stuck in Obamas head real hard ...Trump having that Picture of the Bengazi Bitch hanging in the WH and not Obamas might add to that .He does seem to have a legacy that may be in jeopardy and the Pic might just be adding salt to the wound .



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?



So you are really equate someone making a potentially dumb accusation with some ordering spying of political opponents?

I am not saying there should be no repercussions if there turns out to be nothing behind Trumps claims, but come on now its a far cry from wiretappng a political opponent.

Should all of those is washington that said Trump was a racist, or Trump is like hitler or genocidal also be punished? If there turns out to be nothing to the Trump colluding with Russia story, should people like Maxine Waters who said there was enough already to impeach Trump be punished?

Should all of those politicians that called Bush a war criminal without presenting evidence also be punished?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: SBMcG

I was thinking more along the lines of Trump getting into Obamas head . One member and I cant remember which one has stated that Trump is stuck in Obamas head real hard ...Trump having that Picture of the Bengazi Bitch hanging in the WH and not Obamas might add to that .He does seem to have a legacy that may be in jeopardy and the Pic might just be adding salt to the wound .


Oh yeah, I could definitely see that. Hang portraits of Bill Clinton's wife all over the White House, LMMFLWAO! Trump has been burrowed into Barry's head since challenging him on his birth certificate in early 2011 and has been living there rent-free ever since.

Obama will get his presidential portrait and I believe the tradition is that he will get to choose where it's displayed for a period of time, but it would be hilarious if Trump moved Slick Willy to Obama's right and Mrs. Clinton to his left, heh heh heh!



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Okay, you're obviously ill-informed.

Here's the basics which you refuse to consider when the facts are put right before your eyes:

Obama issued EO 13489. This replaced George W. Bush's EO 13233, which had replaced Reagan's EO 12667.

Bush's EO was struck down in court. Obama basically reinstated Reagan's order verbatim.

Those are the facts, I don't know what you've read in fringe novels.

For the record, I am not that much of an Obama fan. I voted against McCain in 2008 and against Romney in 2012.

Every President since Reagan has had the same privileges.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Does the "dumb accusation" make the President of the United States look like an unhinged fringe theorist?

Does the "dumb accusation" result in a likely interminable series of Congressional investigations (ala Benghazi, ala Clinton's emails) which are OBVIOUSLY primarily political in nature?

The "repercussions" are found in the 25th Amendment.

Should people be punished for exercising their First Amendment rights? Not in my opinion; although there are some who would say that Mr. Trump doesn't have the same regard for the First. Did Maxine Waters break a law? If so, which one?

If not, do you think someone who voices a political opinion should be silenced? Or punished?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

Okay, you're obviously ill-informed.

Here's the basics which you refuse to consider when the facts are put right before your eyes:

Obama issued EO 13489. This replaced George W. Bush's EO 13233, which had replaced Reagan's EO 12667.

Bush's EO was struck down in court. Obama basically reinstated Reagan's order verbatim.

Those are the facts, I don't know what you've read in fringe novels.

For the record, I am not that much of an Obama fan. I voted against McCain in 2008 and against Romney in 2012.

Every President since Reagan has had the same privileges.





I'm absolutely not "ill-informed" at all. No president EVER has gone to such great lengths to keep their records sealed and EO 13489 is just a tiny part of that.

I have been an amateur Obama origins researcher since 2010 when I began to smell a rat in his back-story. Because I can, I have gone to Hawaii, Los Angeles (Occidental), and made numerous trips to Seattle and the University of Washington where I and several other professional researchers believe the whole scam began in mid-August 1961.

There are several Obama origins threads here already and I'm not going to start another one, but so far, you like all other Obama apologists I asked have refused to answer the question: why has Obama turned down every FOIA request to unseal his records?
edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama is a fraud.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Does the "dumb accusation" make the President of the United States look like an unhinged fringe theorist?

Does the "dumb accusation" result in a likely interminable series of Congressional investigations (ala Benghazi, ala Clinton's emails) which are OBVIOUSLY primarily political in nature?

The "repercussions" are found in the 25th Amendment.

Should people be punished for exercising their First Amendment rights? Not in my opinion; although there are some who would say that Mr. Trump doesn't have the same regard for the First. Did Maxine Waters break a law? If so, which one?

If not, do you think someone who voices a political opinion should be silenced? Or punished?



No Maxine shouldn't be punished. My point is if the argument is that if Trumps accusation is unfounded it is just as serious as if Obama wiretapped Trumps phones. If his besmirching of Obama is worthy of a huge punishment, then why not Maxine waters.

But I don't think she should be in trouble.

I am not sure what your on about with the benghazi and hillary email investigations. Are you saying these investigations shouldn't have happened? How is that relevant to our discussion?

The question was regardless of legality, do we really want a world where a president can tap their opponent in the name of national security.

I think that would be terrible, and doing this is a far more serious than slander a past president (which is also bad, just not as bad).



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
After watching the CNN Interview with Hayden, I have to ask "why"?

There seems to be at least good enough speculation to cast doubt on a Russian connection, nor that the "Intelligence community proper*" knew about this tapping.

the other issue that was brought up is "why" didn't Trump just call the "inside guys*" to clear this up. On this I could speculate that Trump used the tweet to inform people* while bypassing any "leftover go between*" that might cover up the issue of mis-use of authority by the outgoing PotUS.

The Words I used:

Intelligence community proper: The legal and Constitutional use of the Intelligence Assets for the purpose of National Security.

Inside Guys: Directors and department heads

Leftover go between: People and assets that are part of the outgoing administration and still working with the current administration while staying loyal to the outgoing administration.

People: The American voter
edit on 8-3-2017 by Guyfriday because: added info



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

EO 13489 is virtually identical to Reagan's with the part's of the GW Bush EO that were struck down.

You made the spurious claims about EO 13489, and you were mistaken on that point.

Obama enjoyed the same basic privileges as Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

EO 13489 is virtually identical to Reagan's with the part's of the GW Bush EO that were struck down.

You made the spurious claims about EO 13489, and you were mistaken on that point.

Obama enjoyed the same basic privileges as Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush.


Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. I've seen too may members simply ignore you after getting into one of these cyclical back-and-forths with you to put up with it much longer myself...

I am well-educated. I know how to read legalese. I have researched Obama and his now-proven fraud for years.

FACT: EO 13489 sealed Obama's records.

FACT: Obama has used that order dozens of times to deny FOIA requests.

You can try and deflect all you want, but the facts are the facts.
edit on 8-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama and Larry Sinclair.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Maxine Waters is not POTUS. If Maxine Waters, due to her expressed opinions, is deemed unfit to serve by Congress, she should be removed from office via impeachment.

You can minimize what Mr. Trump did with weasel words like "besmirching" but here's the skinny: in front of the world, the current President stated that the past President had committed high crimes. If Obama didn't, the very least that indicates is that Trump committed defamation (libel). My assertion is that as part of a constellation of behavior, if such wild accusations prove to be unfounded, there is a very strong case to be made that Mr. Trump is unfit for the Office, and that situation should be resolved as the 25th Amendment states.

Congressional abuse of its investigative powers for sheer political purposes should not happen.

Yes your question was about a President is tapping an opponent, mine is about referring him to Congressional investigation on trumped up charges.

Are you saying you approve of the Congressional investigative powers being used purely for political purposes?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

FACT: EO 13489 reestablished the EXACT SAME PRIVILEGES that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump have enjoyed.



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



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66





posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep, one of the few things I agree with her completely on.



With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.


Politico



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Maxine Waters is not POTUS. If Maxine Waters, due to her expressed opinions, is deemed unfit to serve by Congress, she should be removed from office via impeachment.




Again, I said I don't think Maxine should be punished for what she said.



You can minimize what Mr. Trump did with weasel words like "besmirching" but here's the skinny: in front of the world, the current President stated that the past President had committed high crimes. If Obama didn't, the very least that indicates is that Trump committed defamation (libel). My assertion is that as part of a constellation of behavior, if such wild accusations prove to be unfounded, there is a very strong case to be made that Mr. Trump is unfit for the Office, and that situation should be resolved as the 25th Amendment states.


So you admit the rules are different for a president. Hence if Obama had an incoming president surveilled in any way, that would be hugely problematic.

Again, even libel is not as serious as wiretapping an incoming president. I think Trump should be punished for this if it is totally unfounded. I don't think that impeachment would be the answer though, but I would be open to hear it.


Congressional abuse of its investigative powers for sheer political purposes should not happen.

Yes your question was about a President is tapping an opponent, mine is about referring him to Congressional investigation on trumped up charges.

Are you saying you approve of the Congressional investigative powers being used purely for political purposes?


No I don't want investigations for a purely political purpose.

So are you saying the investigation into Trumps russian ties should never have happened?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

FACT: EO 13489 reestablished the EXACT SAME PRIVILEGES that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump have enjoyed.




FACT: Obama has used order 13489 dozens of times to deny FOIA requests.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No, I didn't "admit' that the rules are different for a POTUS.

What I said was that if Waters' comments made her unfit for her office, she should be removed via legal means.

If Trump's comments are shown to be false, then he has committed a crime in front of the whole world (libel.) It is my opinion that would add to a constellation of actions and behaviors that strongly indicate he is unfit for the office, and if that were determined to be true, he should be removed via the 25th Amendment.

By what measure is libel not as serious as "wiretapping"? Both are crimes. What's your criteria?

EDITED: The "Russian ties" of Mr. Trump and those associated with him have been proven on more than one occasion. Are they illegal?

If Mr. Trump (or his agents) conspired with the Russians to do anything illegal or harmful to the United States, then yes, he should be investigated and prosecuted along with any person who committed crimes.

If the investigations into this matter were "purely political" would the Republicans in Congress have been carrying them on?


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



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Bush vs. FOIA




the Defense Department completely granted 61 percent of FOIA requests in Fiscal 1998. In Fiscal 2007, the Defense Department completely granted only 48 percent of FOIA requests. And the Pentagon wasn't alone. The Interior Department fully granted 64 percent of FOIA requests in 1998 but only 47 percent in 2007. The invaluable annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies provide the numbers.

...

Remember: then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had essentially encouraged federal agencies in October 2001 to take a parsiminous approach to FOIA requests, promising Justice would defend agencies challenged by pesky info-seekers. One might expect, then, that outright FOIA denials would increase while complete FOIA access would fall compared to the Clinton administration years.

So, what happened? Sure enough, denials were up and grants were down.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
did spicer ruin the party today? did the useful idiot finally figure out how you get a surveillance application approved ?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House struggled Wednesday to answer whether it believes President Donald Trump is the target of a counterintelligence investigation. When first asked whether Trump is the subject of such a probe, press secretary Sean Spicer said the White House needed to find that out. "There's obviously a lot of concern," he said. Spicer added that the question is the reason why Trump has asked Congress, specifically the House and Senate intelligence committees, to include the issue in its investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign. Spicer revised his response later in the briefing after an aide handed him a note. "I just want to be really clear on one point, which is there is no reason that we have to think that the president is the target of any investigation, whatsoever," Spicer said. "There's no reason to believe that he is the target of any investigation. I think that's a very important point to make." Over the weekend, Trump alleged on Twitter that then-President Barack Obama had Trump's telephones tapped during last year's presidential election. Trump cited no evidence. An Obama spokesman denies the allegation.

edit on 8-3-2017 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join