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: 25
158
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG



There is ZERO evidence that Trump has ANY connection to Russia.

There is ZERO evidence ANY activity by Russia caused Bill Clinton's corrupt, inept, drunk of a wife to lose.

Unless you can back up your accusations with fact I (and I assume others) will have no choice but to discount your post entirely as false.


How many people in his admin have been caught lying about meeting with Russia so far?

You know what they say, where the is smoke, there is fire.
edit on 4-3-2017 by Mictain because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I could care less about trump as a political figure.

I have NEVER voted Democrat in my life.

However, for a public official to announce the results of an investigation that hasn't happened yet or is open is completely unethical.

I think if Obama is guilty or the DOJ it is extremely serious.

However trump launching an investigation with tweets is not OK unless it's never meant to be official.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
True or not, Brietbert is taking credit to trumps craziness.

www.breitbart.com...

I believe he does put a lot of focus and veracity onto brietbart...tht is how twisted he is...sad.

No wonder he thinks everything else is "fake news"


I am a well-educated and relatively successful individual. I'm fairly sure that anyone who knows me would say that I am a reasonable and rational person.

I read Breitbart regularly and have never found any of their news reporting to be inaccurate.

Maybe certain hardcore leftists don't like the commentary there, but that doesn't make their news reporting (most of which is based upon other established sources) inaccurate.

Care to post an example of a Breitbart news report being inaccurate?
edit on 4-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife lost the popular vote.

edit on 4-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama has no legacy other than failure.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

A link to obstruction was provided? What is your understanding of the link.



A lot more educated based on experience and training than yours apparently.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Well then if the judges can be named they can be call it, to clarified who ordered the warrant.

Good.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Mark Levin: Was Obama Using NSA Against Trump During 2016 Campaign?



A good article with a time line.


1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

edit on 4-3-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

LOL... so Trump accuses CNN of fake news for not divulging sources, but then Trump tweets a serious accusation about Obama with no evidence at all.... LOL by his own standards Trump's tweets are fake news.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah Trump would have had this checked, doubled checked and triple checked before stating such. He obviously knows the backfire he would get if it was not true. So that being said, if any evidence can be shown for such then wow! That really does show how low Obama will go to put someone out of the race. I would not be surprised if it was true that Obama was visited by Russia intelligence and was advised to do such because in actual fact, Donald Trump is the only person not working with the Russians. Hence the double bluff.

The plot thickens and thankfully Trump knows the game being played.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: marg6043

The judges were William C Bigron,Jose Cabranes and Richard Tallman all appointees of William J Clinton



Senator Hatch just said

Hatch said he was not completely surprised by Obama’s use of official apparatus to track political opponents.

“I suspected that they were going to do that anyways,” he said.

The senator also said that he suspects information gathered by the Obama administration’s surveillance of the Trump camp made its way to Obama’s anointed heir Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign.
www.breitbart.com...




I could see a congressional investigation into this. Trump, Pence, Hatch ....

edit on 4-3-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jhn7537

He's not getting four years.
He'll be lucky to last this first one.


Your credibility has already been shot many times over.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




However, for a public official to announce the results of an investigation that hasn't happened yet or is open is completely unethical.


Funny.

The LEFT is the last group of people to be lecturing anyone on ethics.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



The President is not allowed to order the wire taps as far as I am aware, but it's stretching it a bit to think that some investigator did this without the ex President's knowledge


Obama knowing about it is not the same as ordering it, as Trump suggests.



This is not some low level target, it was a Presidential candidate a month before the election. There must be a trail of information that can shed light on exactly who and when the request was drafted and authorised. That is the information we need.


If Trump was the target of the tap request at all. At this point we have no information to confirm that.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: veracity
True or not, Brietbert is taking credit to trumps craziness.

www.breitbart.com...

I believe he does put a lot of focus and veracity onto brietbart...tht is how twisted he is...sad.

No wonder he thinks everything else is "fake news"


I am a well-educated and relatively successful individual. I'm fairly sure that anyone who knows me would say that I am a reasonable and rational person.

I read Breitbart regularly and have never found any of their news reporting to be inaccurate.

Maybe certain hardcore leftists don't like the commentary there, but that doesn't make their news reporting (most of which is based upon other established sources) inaccurate.

Care to post an example of a Breitbart news report being inaccurate?


I am sure you and all of your family and friends and people of your type think you are king of reasonability and rationality.

The fact that you regularly read and believe brietbart...im sure everyone else would disagree.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

LOL... so Trump accuses CNN of fake news for not divulging sources, but then Trump tweets a serious accusation about Obama with no evidence at all.... LOL by his own standards Trump's tweets are fake news.



Trump has made an accusation. Instead of investigating, CNN have immediately denied it to defend Obama. Partisan, fake news at its finest. Trump may be overstating, we'll wait to see, but calling it untrue with zero investigation is quite obviously agenda driven and no surprise for the father of fake news, CNN.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Meanwhile CNN have drawn their conclusion based on an Obama official denial.



Classic example of fake news foisted on the people.
No journalistic effort or integrity at all. Just agenda.


Wow! If that's not a perfect example of how CNN operates, then I don't know what is.

Neither side has presented ANY evidence yet!

If Trump turns out to be proven correct, can this finally be the nail in CNN's coffin?! I sure hope so.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I can not wait when they do, because is a serious charge and it needs to be pursued to the end.




edit on 4-3-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier




However, for a public official to announce the results of an investigation that hasn't happened yet or is open is completely unethical.


Funny.

The LEFT is the last group of people to be lecturing anyone on ethics.


To be fair, the last group of people to be lecturing anyone on ethics are Trump and his supporters......



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mictain

originally posted by: SBMcG



There is ZERO evidence that Trump has ANY connection to Russia.

There is ZERO evidence ANY activity by Russia caused Bill Clinton's corrupt, inept, drunk of a wife to lose.

Unless you can back up your accusations with fact I (and I assume others) will have no choice but to discount your post entirely as false.


How many people in his admin have been caught lying about meeting with Russia so far?

You know what they say, where the is smoke, there is fire.


Every leftist Democrat in government has met with a Russian official. There's nothing illegal about that.

And to answer your question, NO ONE in the Trump Administration has lied about meeting with Russians. Sessions spoke honestly in the context of the question asked and Flynn was asked to resign for lying to Pence about the nature of his perfectly legal and appropriate conversation with a Russian official. No crimes were committed.

Leftists need to come to terms -- if for no other reason than their own sanity, that Russia had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton's inept, corrupt, life-long-defender-of-a-sexual-predator wife losing the election.

She lost because Trump won.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Meanwhile CNN have drawn their conclusion based on an Obama official denial.



Classic example of fake news foisted on the people.
No journalistic effort or integrity at all. Just agenda.


Perhaps. Or maybe CNN is actually ahead of the curve because they have a very reliable source.

And it's not a classic example of fake news. CNN did not fabricate this story. Trump did.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



The President is not allowed to order the wire taps as far as I am aware, but it's stretching it a bit to think that some investigator did this without the ex President's knowledge


Obama knowing about it is not the same as ordering it, as Trump suggests.



This is not some low level target, it was a Presidential candidate a month before the election. There must be a trail of information that can shed light on exactly who and when the request was drafted and authorised. That is the information we need.


If Trump was the target of the tap request at all. At this point we have no information to confirm that.


The question will be whether he in any way approved it - especially if it was he who ordered the investigation.
You are right about waiting for more information. My position right now is that this is a major issue that is going to seriously hurt one party or the other, depending on what we find out. I could not, and would not, defend Trump if this turns out to be nothing more than speculation on his part. It's too serious to be throwing that stuff out without some evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join