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: 244
158
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


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



what if they were looking for a foreign agent ? changes the whole tone doesn't it?




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

I don't think that's a valid excuse. In the 2020 election Trump can just use the same argument to spy on his Democratic opponent on the pretext of catching a potential foreign agent. Unless there is some evidence, I don't think this excuse should be used to spy on political opponents by the incumbent president.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: l007sb


In December, President Obama ordered a review of Russia’s alleged effort to hack the U.S. election. A month later, the FBI, CIA, and NSA said they had concluded with “high confidence” that “Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election” — with the goal of helping Donald Trump.

Months later, we still don’t have many answers about Russia’s operation, or regarding the explosive allegations about the Trump campaign. That’s not due to lack of trying; U.S. intelligence agencies have reportedly been investigating for more than a year, and at least four congressional committees have discussed conducting their own probes.


New York Magazine

Emphasis mine.

In case it was missed: Republicans in Congress are also investigating these claims.

The assertion that the claims themselves or the investigations are merely political is patently untrue.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, ahem, for one thing, Trump did lie about having never met Putin.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: l007sb

/shrug I respond since you addressed me ...

Trump also said in 2013 or so that he really liked Hillary Clinton and Bill ... and that the Benghazi stuff was nuts as Clinton went "above and beyond everybody else as Secretary of State."

He thought she'd make a great President too.


edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because:




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: l007sb
a reply to: syrinx high priest

I don't think that's a valid excuse. In the 2020 election Trump can just use the same argument to spy on his Democratic opponent on the pretext of catching a potential foreign agent. Unless there is some evidence, I don't think this excuse should be used to spy on political opponents by the incumbent president.


you should google the process, i don't have time to catch you up



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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?


No. That would be spinning what my contention is in the wrong direction. What I have no problem with is wiretapping a potential national security threat or national security intelligence threat and if that threat (or suspected threat) happens to be a political opponent then so be it. I'm not about let Kim-Jong-runtheUSA come waltzing into this country simply because some silver-spoon fed uptight tweet-a-holic get's their silk-lined panties in a bunch.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Its a good thing the left has such warriors to take on Trump eh



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
And you guys want this paranoid sociopath as your president??? I guess some people just want to see the world burn...



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It's also being discussed that Candidate Trump went out of his way not to attack President Obama in his speeches and during the debates. Intentionally lured Obama into a false sense of security...to keep his guard down.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: l007sb
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, ahem, for one thing, Trump did lie about having never met Putin.


LOL


One of those heavily edited video-shop jobs.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verse
And you guys want this paranoid sociopath as your president??? I guess some people just want to see the world burn...


Hillary Clinton lost the election.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
It's also being discussed that Candidate Trump went out of his way not to attack President Obama in his speeches and during the debates. Intentionally lured Obama into a false sense of security...to keep his guard down.


So what are you saying? That a REAL President takes pride in attacking other Americans by way of deceit?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

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?


No. That would be spinning what my contention is in the wrong direction. What I have no problem with is wiretapping a potential national security threat or national security intelligence threat and if that threat (or suspected threat) happens to be a political opponent then so be it. I'm not about let Kim-Jong-runtheUSA come waltzing into this country simply because some silver-spoon fed uptight tweet-a-holic get's their silk-lined panties in a bunch.


Very well. The you would have had no problem with Bush tapping Obama and all of his people for his connection to known terrorist Bill ayers. And Bush could have then spread that info to all intelligence agencies, and let other countries know that Obama may be compromised by a terrorists.

Once this precedent is set, the peaceful transition of power in this country is over. Every sitting president will just have to claim their is suspicion that their opponent has contact with terrorists or bad actors, and then its off to the races. And if all of the dirt get leaked to the media to make that person look bad, so be it.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you prove it by posting the unedited version?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
DP

edit on 8-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Absolutely hilariously scary woman.
Maybe she will join that movement "a lifetime without women like me"




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

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?


No. That would be spinning what my contention is in the wrong direction. What I have no problem with is wiretapping a potential national security threat or national security intelligence threat and if that threat (or suspected threat) happens to be a political opponent then so be it. I'm not about let Kim-Jong-runtheUSA come waltzing into this country simply because some silver-spoon fed uptight tweet-a-holic get's their silk-lined panties in a bunch.


Very well. The you would have had no problem with Bush tapping Obama and all of his people for his connection to known terrorist Bill ayers. And Bush could have then spread that info to all intelligence agencies, and let other countries know that Obama may be compromised by a terrorists.

Once this precedent is set, the peaceful transition of power in this country is over. Every sitting president will just have to claim their is suspicion that their opponent has contact with terrorists or bad actors, and then its off to the races. And if all of the dirt get leaked to the media to make that person look bad, so be it.



Yep. That's what I think....because someone who HASN'T done all of those things, it will become clear very quickly. Not to mention, the power for the President to do precisely what you've outlined has been in place for likely longer than you've been alive. Why haven't you fought it before now? I mean we ARE talking 1968...I don't claim to know how old you are, but I'm just taking an educated guess that you're younger than that.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Are you saying that you consider Bill Ayers a threat to national security?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

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?


No. That would be spinning what my contention is in the wrong direction. What I have no problem with is wiretapping a potential national security threat or national security intelligence threat and if that threat (or suspected threat) happens to be a political opponent then so be it. I'm not about let Kim-Jong-runtheUSA come waltzing into this country simply because some silver-spoon fed uptight tweet-a-holic get's their silk-lined panties in a bunch.


Very well. The you would have had no problem with Bush tapping Obama and all of his people for his connection to known terrorist Bill ayers. And Bush could have then spread that info to all intelligence agencies, and let other countries know that Obama may be compromised by a terrorists.

Once this precedent is set, the peaceful transition of power in this country is over. Every sitting president will just have to claim their is suspicion that their opponent has contact with terrorists or bad actors, and then its off to the races. And if all of the dirt get leaked to the media to make that person look bad, so be it.



Yep. That's what I think....because someone who HASN'T done all of those things, it will become clear very quickly. Not to mention, the power for the President to do precisely what you've outlined has been in place for likely longer than you've been alive. Why haven't you fought it before now? I mean we ARE talking 1968...I don't claim to know how old you are, but I'm just taking an educated guess that you're younger than that.


Because we have never had a sitting president wiretap an incoming one, and have all of this info be leaked.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join