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: 259
158
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why would they lie about it if these were ordinary meetings? You admit that they lied. They are being investigated by the IC and Congress based on conversations recorded with Russian agents. Are all these entities just wasting their time?

Such naivete boggles the mind.

No. I'm not going to copy and paste your comments so you can do more dancing about.

Folks who are reading this ... stuff ... can make their own minds up.

I've made mine up. Your posts evince a ... lack of rationality.

Nah ... I'm done with you. Your credibility is shot. Have fun arguing with yourself.
edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Corrected T&C issue




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Why would they lie about it if these were ordinary meetings? You admit that they lied. They are being investigated by the IC and Congress based on conversations recorded with Russian agents. Are all these entities just wasting their time?

Such naivete boggles the mind.

No. I'm not going to copy and paste your comments so you can do more dancing about.

Folks who are reading this ... stuff ... can make their own minds up.

I've made mine up. Your posts evince a ... lack of rationality.

Nah ... I'm done with you. Your credibility is shot. Have fun arguing with yourself.


Hahaha!

You know you are wrong so you deflect and say I am dancing and you are done responding to me.

Your post claiming Clappers comments prove there was collusion between Trumps team and russia is honestly one of the most surreal things I have ever read.

You are literally taking one quote that shows there was no collusion found while he was there, and to other quotes that have absolutely no mention whatsoever of Trump team colluding with Russians, and saying that is proof that trumps team colluded with russians.

If you can't see how this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you are clearly not a rational person, and everything you say is suspect.

As to the rest of your post I will just say this.

Pelosi and McCaskil both met with Russians and lied about it. According to you, this is proof that they colluded with the russians. I assume you will support an investigation into them.

downtrend.com... gn=Feed%3A+downtrend+%28Downtrend.com%29



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The investigations continue ...



Sources on the Senate Intelligence Committee said they want all the potential Trump associates who allegedly spoke with Russian officials to testify before the committee. This includes former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former adviser Carter Page. It's unclear when they would come before the committee, but senators say they haven't ruled out the prospect of subpoenas if those Trump associates don't comply.

This is partly because senators who have gone to CIA headquarters in Langley said they have reviewed information about the extent of the aggressive Russian attacks trying to influence the US election. But the senators have not yet pieced together the information to determine any potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.


CNN.com



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The investigations continue ...



Sources on the Senate Intelligence Committee said they want all the potential Trump associates who allegedly spoke with Russian officials to testify before the committee. This includes former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former adviser Carter Page. It's unclear when they would come before the committee, but senators say they haven't ruled out the prospect of subpoenas if those Trump associates don't comply.

This is partly because senators who have gone to CIA headquarters in Langley said they have reviewed information about the extent of the aggressive Russian attacks trying to influence the US election. But the senators have not yet pieced together the information to determine any potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.


CNN.com



Hahhahahahha!!!

This keep getting better!!!!!


You are a comedy of errors!

You are fighting tooth and nail that there is proof of collusion between Trumps team and Russians.

And now you have literally posted an article that admits there is no prroof of collusion between Trumps team and russians!!!

From you source!


But the senators have not yet pieced together the information to determine any potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.


www.cnn.com...

I don't know what to say. This is one of the biggest examples I have ever seen of someone being blinded by partisanship.

I honestly hope that you get help.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


What did I say at the top of my post "The investigations continue."

Ask yourself ... if the investigations are ongoing, how is there no proof of collusion?

Calm down, you're making a fool of yourself.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler


What did I say at the top of my post "The investigations continue."

Ask yourself ... if the investigations are ongoing, how is there no proof of collusion?

Calm down, you're making a fool of yourself.


What are you talking about?

The investigation continuing doesn't mean there is proof of collusion, it means they are still LOOKING for proof of collusion! The article literally says they currently have no proof!'

So by your interpretation, this investigation


Federal lawmakers are investigating the possibility that senior Department of Justice officials interfered in a terrorism probe involving a refugee just prior to the November election in an effort to deny campaign momentum to Donald Trump, Fox News has learned.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has launched a formal inquiry into the Texas, case, in which a terror suspect’s pending arrest was allegedly spiked just over a week before the election.


www.youtube.com...

is proof that the DOJ did interfere. Wow.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who are these Senators that went to CIA headquarters to see info on Russian "attacks"?

How did the Russians "attack" our election?

I thought it was wiretapped communications that they were investigating. Sounds like a long-shot grasping at straws witch hunt to me.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who are these Senators that went to CIA headquarters to see info on Russian "attacks"?

How did the Russians "attack" our election?

I thought it was wiretapped communications that they were investigating. Sounds like a long-shot grasping at straws witch hunt to me.



There are on-going investigations into collusion on the part of Trump associates with foreign interests. As has been stated over and over and over. Trump called for investigations on this unsubstantiated "wiretapping" by Obama of him to be investigated along side the ongoing investigations.

Comey just went to the Hill this afternoon to brief Congressional leaders on the status of the FBI's investigation into Russian agents interfering with the election and possible collusion.

Some folks here are desperate to claim that the matter is over and done with, and that is obviously not true. Some are glad to repeatedly bleat one thing the former CIA Director claims and ignore the other comments he made IN THE SAME INTERVIEW.
edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who are these Senators that went to CIA headquarters to see info on Russian "attacks"?

How did the Russians "attack" our election?

I thought it was wiretapped communications that they were investigating. Sounds like a long-shot grasping at straws witch hunt to me.



There are on-going investigations into collusion on the part of Trump associates with foreign interests. As has been stated over and over and over. Trump called for investigations on this unsubstantiated "wiretapping" by Obama of him to be investigated along side the ongoing investigations.

Comey just went to the Hill this afternoon to brief Congressional leaders on the status of the FBI's investigation into Russian agents interfering with the election and possible collusion.

Some folks here are desperate to claim that the matter is over and done with, and that is obviously not true. Some are glad to repeatedly bleat one thing the former CIA Director claims and ignore the other comments he made IN THE SAME INTERVIEW.


The investigation is not over, but to date there is NO proof that there was any collusion. This is not just the opinion of the former CIA Director, but several of those people who are involved in the investigation, including both Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. The only people bleating are the ones continually pushing the collusion narrative with zero evidence.

If and when evidence emerges that proves collusion then the discussion can move on. Until then, all we have are some anti-Trumpers suspending reason and assuming guilt or propping up the narrative by insinuating guilt.
edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


How did the Russians "attack" our election?


By providing a steady stream of disinformation that undercut America's faith in the legitimacy of their government. Official state media like Sputnik and RT presented "analysis" that suggested the election was predetermined, or that Hillary Clinton was a criminal. Fellow travelers like golbalresearch.ca promulgated rumors of conspiracy theories, and ephemeral websites claiming to be the online presence of real local newspapers published fictions about Clinton's health and ascribed assorted crimes to her. Wikileaks, of course, dutifully release emails gathered by Russian hackers that were claimed to be incriminating. The volume was so great that people assumed there must be something to it, although nothing incriminating was ever found. This fueled the blogosphere, which produced anti-Clinton hoaxes like @pizzagate. All of this was facilitated by an army of paid Russian trolls. Where have you been for the past year?


I thought it was wiretapped communications that they were investigating. Sounds like a long-shot grasping at straws witch hunt to me.


Which? Investigating the Trump campaigns possible collusion with the Russian disinformation offensive, or Trump's deflection onto alleged "wiretapping" on the part of President Obama? Either way, I hope Trump declassifies all the relevant material. If not, the black cloud of suspicion will never be lifted from his legitimacy.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: carewemust


How did the Russians "attack" our election?


By providing a steady stream of disinformation that undercut America's faith in the legitimacy of their government. Official state media like Sputnik and RT presented "analysis" that suggested the election was predetermined, or that Hillary Clinton was a criminal. Fellow travelers like golbalresearch.ca promulgated rumors of conspiracy theories, and ephemeral websites claiming to be the online presence of real local newspapers published fictions about Clinton's health and ascribed assorted crimes to her. Wikileaks, of course, dutifully release emails gathered by Russian hackers that were claimed to be incriminating. The volume was so great that people assumed there must be something to it, although nothing incriminating was ever found. This fueled the blogosphere, which produced anti-Clinton hoaxes like @pizzagate. All of this was facilitated by an army of paid Russian trolls. Where have you been for the past year?


I thought it was wiretapped communications that they were investigating. Sounds like a long-shot grasping at straws witch hunt to me.


Which? Investigating the Trump campaigns possible collusion with the Russian disinformation offensive, or Trump's deflection onto alleged "wiretapping" on the part of President Obama? Either way, I hope Trump declassifies all the relevant material. If not, the black cloud of suspicion will never be lifted from his legitimacy.


The BBC and Sky ran continual propaganda against Trump and for Clinton.
Most of RT's coverage (which was the main network cited in the 'intelligence' report) was not against the govt, it was pro Trump and anti-Clinton.

So we can say the Britain was actively trying to influence the US election too.

There was no attack on the election at all - at least zero proof has been uncovered of it. There was only partisan media worldwide. That is what you get when so few control so much of the media.

The burden of proof of election tampering is on those claiming it. So far nothing but speculation.


edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The BBC did not run continued properganda against Trump,I don't watchable lot of TV but can confirm that radio 4 was balanced and they even had a play on about Bills affairs that didn't paint Hillary in a good position during this election period

The BBC like other networks did comment on what Trump said during the election and also commented on Benghazi and the emails that was tarnishing Hillary



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: UKTruth

The BBC did not run continued properganda against Trump,I don't watchable lot of TV but can confirm that radio 4 was balanced and they even had a play on about Bills affairs that didn't paint Hillary in a good position during this election period

The BBC like other networks did comment on what Trump said during the election and also commented on Benghazi and the emails that was tarnishing Hillary



You don't watch a lot of TV - your words.
I do watch a lot of news coverage and the BBC News coverage of Trump was almost exclusively negative, as was Sky's.
What's more, left wing press was also against Trump in the UK, and much of their coverage permeated into the US. The Guardian being a classic example.
edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


There was no attack on the election at all - at least zero proof has been uncovered of it.


So far; hence the need for an independent investigation. By the way, why do you think so many of Trump's circle keep getting caught lying about their contacts with Russian agents? And why do you think Mr. Trump lashes out so angrily whenever the subject comes up?



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth DHS has its fingerprints on the 2016 election




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

There are left wing biased media sources and right wing media sources who are also biased when they report the news

The BBC has to be neutral and for the best part is unless it's something of national interest like impending wars when they tow the party line

Trump and Hillary both received unflattering media attention from the MSM here,but Trump would have had less if he didn't talk so much rubbish and flat out lie



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


There was no attack on the election at all - at least zero proof has been uncovered of it.


So far; hence the need for an independent investigation. By the way, why do you think so many of Trump's circle keep getting caught lying about their contacts with Russian agents? And why do you think Mr. Trump lashes out so angrily whenever the subject comes up?


So many? Really? Flynn had a call that we know of, Sessions had a normal meeting with the Ambassador, Page and some others met the Ambassador at the RNC. Manafort and Page (who doesn't seem to even know Trump and has never met him, and was never on the payroll of the campaign) had discussions with Russians that we know of that had nothing to do with the campaign. All these meetings were public or recorded. The evidence even of any unusual meetings is flimsy at best.

Lying? Who? Flynn did not lie about having a meeting, he lied to Pence about the content of the discussion, which was not illegal anyway. Sessions has made his position clear - he did not lie, he was discussing his involvement in the campaign. You may take the view he lied, but that is your view.

As for other 'lies', here is an article to read through.
www.usatoday.com...

There has not been the level misdirection that you and others are making out. You have nothing of substance, so are just left with spin.

I am sure Trump punches back because he is sick of the ridiculous propaganda with no evidence. Understandable.

You will need some evidence soon as with each passing day, it's the people who are driving this narrative that are becoming more desperate and foolish looking.



edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: UKTruth

There are left wing biased media sources and right wing media sources who are also biased when they report the news

The BBC has to be neutral and for the best part is unless it's something of national interest like impending wars when they tow the party line

Trump and Hillary both received unflattering media attention from the MSM here,but Trump would have had less if he didn't talk so much rubbish and flat out lie



The BBC is neutral? Good one. State funded media.



A Tory MP led a furious backlash against the BBC today over its 'biased' coverage of Donald Trump's emphatic election as US President.

Viewers complained that BBC presenters were unable to hide their displeasure at the Republican's shock victory over Hillary Clinton and had failed to convey the view of the 'silent majority' in the US. David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth in South Wales, said the 'surprise and anger' of the British media exposed its failure to understand ordinary voters.

Singling out the BBC, he said: 'On the BBC it was clear that the TV presenters were appalled by his election.' He urged the British public to 'see how he performs before condemning him out of hand'.

The hashtag #BBCbias trended on Twitter during its overnight coverage of the presidential election. Tom Harwood, who led the student Brexit campaign, said the BBC should be 'ashamed' of the way it covered the election, accusing the broadcaster of a 'dereliction of duty'.

But BBC presenters hit back at the attacks, with James Cook, a California-based reporter for BBC News, telling his accusers: 'Pointing out that Trump is a celebrity tycoon with no previous political experience isn't bias. It's fact.'



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: UKTruth DHS has its fingerprints on the 2016 election



Yes, there is more evidence, though scant, that the DHS hacked the election than any influence the Russians had.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Spin, spin, spin. Why did Trump change the wording of the party platform concerning the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea while Manafort was his adviser? What additional meetings were there that have not yet been discovered? Why did the Duma toast Trump's victory? An investigation is more than warranted.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join