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: 262
158
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you posted no source for any leo speaking to any of the people I listed. The only leo I could find that referenced them is clapper and he has no evidence of any crime. You only add more crap to the crap pile you are standing on.

Then you list "sources" that say blah blah blah.
Tired of your unknown bs sources. Thats all you people have. Partisan speculation. You cant even source anyone on the senate intel committee on record. Nunes is on record. Clapper is on record.

When you get some real analysis and drop the made up agenda of the DNC please post it.




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Wouldn't the investigation be over if it was such a forgone conclusion?

Why is the investigation continuing if they've already determined that no wrong doing was found? Why?
Why aren't they just, you know, making that announcement like they did with Clinton? Where is the intelligence community on making that announcement? Why aren't they all out there saying they found nothing? One guy not in the loop anymore says that if was not definitive when last he saw the evidence does not mean they don't have the evidence now. You assume a lot. They sure are still suspicious of the whole thing. This continuing investigation says that much at least.


They have not yet completed the investigation so there must be more ground to cover. I am not saying that no evidence of collusion will be found, just that none has found so far...and 'they' are out there saying that.

I suspect that the investigation is more or less over, though, because the public hearings begin next week.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you posted no source for any leo speaking to any of the people I listed. The only leo I could find that referenced them is clapper and he has no evidence of any crime. You only add more crap to the crap pile you are standing on.

Then you list "sources" that say blah blah blah.
Tired of your unknown bs sources. Thats all you people have. Partisan speculation. You cant even source anyone on the senate intel committee on record. Nunes is on record. Clapper is on record.

When you get some real analysis and drop the made up agenda of the DNC please post it.



You said that these guys "were done" in the middle of last year.

You were mistaken.

Wait and see.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
What amazes here is the constant wailing and gnashing of teeth about "innocent until proven guilty" when 95% of the five thousand or so responses here are claiming that Barack Obama is guilty of wiretapping Donald Trump.

Yet, straightforward statements about the clear collusion of Trump agents with Russian agents is railed against post after post.

Collusion is not automatically illegal. No one has said that Flynn, Sessions, Manafort, etc. have been convicted ... or that they're guilty of crimes.

What is clear is that Flynn and Sessions colluded with the Russians, i.e. they had secret communications and tried to deceive others regarding those communications.


edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

They had a "lighter hand" in that the Trump representatives only intervened on this one issue, perhaps?

You may call it liberal spin, but this issue in relation to the bigger picture does leave us with a lot of questions as to their motivations and alliances.


You can pose as many questions as you like, none of them indicate any wrong doing unless the answers provide evidence of collusion. The investigation will no doubt cover it, and we will see what the outcome is. Right now, I will assume innocence - the correct thing to do in the absence of evidence.


Evidence of collusion has already been established.

As this continues to unfold, we will find out how far it went, to what end and who was involved.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i have no idea what you are referencing fron the middle of last year unless it is with respect to hillarys emails
if so i stated here i was wrong when there was no inducement made you can look back and check


wait and see
really
get back to me when you are not posting made up bs



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

i have no idea what you are referencing fron the middle of last year unless it is with respect to hillarys emails
if so i stated here i was wrong when there was no inducement made you can look back and check


wait and see
really
get back to me when you are not posting made up bs



Right ... so you can't remember your own posts from a few minutes ago?


originally posted by: shooterbrody
Manafort has been out of the trump picture sincee august of 16.

[snip]

Stone has been out of the trump picture since august of 15.

[snip]
Page appears to be farther out with respect to the trump campaign...



Middle of last year was your earliest reference to these guys "being out of the Trump picture."

Get back to me when you can take responsibility for your own posts.

And please drop the partisan BS ... you're a partisan of the first water. Don't add hypocrisy to confusion in your posts.



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

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

And then you must admit it also means that there was no wire tap at trump tower .
Clappers statement is either true or it's not.

You can't have half of it true and half not true.


I can't believe I have to explain this. You know how people against Trump will post something from a republican or fox news that says something against Trump.

Like "Even Rep. Chaffetz admits he has seen no evidence of trump being wiretapped". So what your saying is if you believe Chaffetz about this, you now have to believe everything else he says. So Hillary should be prosecuted.

Just like if a democrat person who would be against Trump says like clapper says that there is no evidence of collusion, we point out that even he admits this (in addition no person on either side has said they have any evidence of collusion between Trumps team and russia).

And again, my stance the entire time is that I have seen no proof to confirm Trumps tweet.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Sorry, but when the preponderence of evidence proves otherwise, assuming 100% of anything is ridiculous.

As are your continued assertions. Look at the top of your webrowser. We are at the premier conspiracy website on the internet.

We're talking about the best facts we have, we're talking about trends, we're talking about reasonable connections ... and you and others are more than happy to make all sorts of wild connections when it suits your argument but are blind to anything else.

When such suppositions and reasonable assessments don't agree with your politics, well, then you want it to be a courtroom, innocent until PROVEN 100% guilty!!!

If you stood by that on all topics and all people, your post volume would drop 99%.

It's getting REALLY hypocritical to pretend otherwise.


There is no evidence of collusion. None at all. There is evidence of meetings, but last I checked meeting someone is not a crime.

The type of 'trends', 'best facts', and reasonable connections are nothing more than a collection of events packaged to push propaganda.

Let me know when you have some real evidence of collusion, which is what the the charge is. Until then, you can continue to lie and make accusations of collusion all you want, but it won't change reality. There is no evidence of collusion.

I have no problem with someone saying they think there was collusion and laying out the reasons why, but claiming anything more than just a belief - nope, that is propaganda.



Perhaps you missed gryphons post on page 258 where he proved that Clappers statement that he has yet to see evidence of collusion PROVES that there was collusion.

Or the article he posted on page 259 that said "the senators have not yet pieced together the information to determine any potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials." Can't you see how this PROVES collusion?

Hahahaha!



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth


Yes, there's evidence of collusion and that evidence is prompting further investigation.

Perhaps you don't comprehend what the word "collusion" really means?

Here you go:



secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.


Source

Secret cooperation to order deceive others?

Ask the Vice President about Mike Flynn.

Ask anyone (except Trump lovers) about Jeff Sessions.

Ask the Congress about Stone, Manafort and Page ... they're in the process of subpoena on those folks.

There is no doubt there has been secret cooperation between these Trump agents and the Russians.

There is no doubt that there has been multiple attempts to deceive.

That's what COLLUSION means.


What is the cooperation?

And remember, Pelosi and McCaskil and other democrats have lied about meeting with russians. So by your definition, they have colluded with russians, and we need an investigation into them and gtheir entire teams.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What amazes here is the constant wailing and gnashing of teeth about "innocent until proven guilty" when 95% of the five thousand or so responses here are claiming that Barack Obama is guilty of wiretapping Donald Trump.







Yet UKtruth and I have been very clear that we believe that Trump has provided no evidence to back up the claim provided in his tweet, and therefore we find Obama innocent unless evidence ie shown.

You on the other hand started out saying Trumps tweet PROVED his guilt.

So you feel Obama is innocent until proven guilty, but know that Trump is guilty.

You are a hypocrite.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Collusion is not automatically illegal as I have noted multiple times.

Grasping at straws so desperately in your first outing? LOL

Long day for you if you can't calm down just a little.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

BS you waffle about every other post.

Why do you waste so much time on a hypocrite?

Personally, I'd just move on.

(Those were my courtesy responses for the day.)


edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Yet, straightforward statements about the clear collusion of Trump agents with Russian agents is railed against post after post.

Collusion is not automatically illegal. No one has said that Flynn, Sessions, Manafort, etc. have been convicted ... or that they're guilty of crimes.

What is clear is that Flynn and Sessions colluded with the Russians, i.e. they had secret communications and tried to deceive others regarding those communications.



Definition of collusion
"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

1. You have yet to prove these meetings were cooperation or conspiracy.

2. The deceive part is not deceiving about the meeting, it is that the meeting was intended to deceive. For example, if I have a meeting with a car dealer to by a car, and then you ask me if I ever met with that dealer and I lie, my meeting with the car dealer wasn't collusion because it had nothing to do with cheating or deceiving other.

3. Under your interpretation, maany democrats such as Pelosi and McCaskil have also colluded with Russians, and therefore you must admit there should be an investigation with them.

4. Most damning of all, if your interpretation is correct, why has both Clapper and all of the ssenators in the article you posted said that they have seen no evidence of collusion? They were aware of things like Manafort, Flynn and all of the other meetings right?

So why would they not say "Well here is clear evidence of collusion!" Instead they say there is no evidence. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the fact that not one public official has said they have any proof of any collusion should be taken over your claim that there was collusion?

edit on 10-3-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



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




You said that these guys "were done" in the middle of last year.

I did not type what you quoted
now you are just lying

good day



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66




You said that these guys "were done" in the middle of last year.

I did not type what you quoted
now you are just lying

good day


I quoted you.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
www.foxnews.com...



President Trump’s assertion that his phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year has been treated as hilarious—and in some circles as beyond contempt. But I can vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur, regardless of whether it is officially approved.


I am going to leave this here as it is relevant and coming from a lifelong dem it is without any trump stink.

Same people same tactics



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

perhaps you lack reading skills
i did not type what you posted

again good day



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
How bad is it and can it get better ? I hope so because if its gets worse then the only thing you will have to embrace is hate .



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

1. Neither you nor I know the content of the meetings. What we do know is that several members of Trump's staff met with Russian Agents. What do you think they were discussing, baseball? You can use the tiniest bit of reasonable assessement to know that the meetings regarded common interests, i.e. cooperation. The fact that several have lied and been decietful about these meetings EVEN TO their own colleagues, is more than telling, and more than enough to prove collusion.

2. Word games; spurious example.

3. Again, you're so excited about that ... If you feel that Pelosi needs to be investigated, start rallying for it. I'm sure many people in Washington have colluded with Russians, other foreign powers, criminals, corporate shills etc. You're so desperate for a Gotcha Moment you're posting absurdities.

4. As is your regular practice, you are paraphrasing what they said and what I have said. It's one of your most irritating tactics to me. Clapper stated he didn't see evidence of collusion at the time, which was well over a month ago. Stop pretending you know what's come to light in the ON GOING investigations.

Ask them why they speak the way they do. You're all about restating what people say and mean, putting your own illogical interpretation on it, and then pretending like that's real.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join