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: 263
158
<< 260  261  262    264  265  266 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:13 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, 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.



I would have thought it obvious that we're not talking about collusion that was not illegal, after all what would be the point of anyone getting all upset with Trump and his campaign if they were not even claiming he did anything illegal. You are talking utter nonsense and your 'word salad' attempt to try and pin something on Trump and his campaign with no evidence is obvious.
edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Why should we listen to a "Judge" who wanted to be a politician and failed and had to settle for infotainment instead again?



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The DNC has never allowed the FBI to investigate their servers to determine who hacked them.
The people that will be called as witnesses on the "hacking" are all from the DNC contracted security firm.
The Russian hack story came from the security firm and not the government.

Why wont Democrats allow their server to be investigated by the FBI to determine who hacked it? What are they trying to hide?



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


Evidence of the collusion that the Trump team has actually been accused of is non existent.
The investigation will indeed uncover the truth, I hope, including who was responsible for the only crime we know was actually committed, the leaking of information from a US Citizens tapped phone call and any improper surveillance on the Trump campaign. It was fairly clear from Nunes' statement that significant focus will be on the leaks.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Why should we listen to a "Judge" who wanted to be a politician and failed and had to settle for infotainment instead again?


Much better to listen to unnamed sources and then proclaim the target of these unnamed sources as guilty.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you think the American people would be interested in the fact that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians at key points, like the DNC hack, etc.?

Do you think the American people would like to know that the President is at least aware of what his key advisers are saying and doing? Trump failed that with Flynn, apparently failed with Sessions ... who else?

The only nonsense here is your constant personal commentary. 50% or more of every one of your posts? Why? Because you have nothing else. No facts, no reasonable statements nothing.

Last courtesy response today. Come up with something significant, factual and related to topic.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Why should we listen to a "Judge" who wanted to be a politician and failed and had to settle for infotainment instead again?


Much better to listen to unnamed sources and then proclaim the target of these unnamed sources as guilty.


I'd say it's more than a tossup whether TV entertainers are more reliable than unnamed members of the IC acting as confidential sources; of course, no one but you keeps harping on about who's GUILTY.

And no one but you is glad to quote from those "unnamed sources" when you think it serves your argument.
edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grambler

The Russian hack story came from the security firm and not the government.



Completely and blatantly false.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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!



I saw it. It is amazing how an otherwise intelligent person such as Gryphon66 can get themselves into such an illogical way of thinking purely because they let their political bias cloud all judgement and succumb to such hypocrisy, but this thread is a good use case for exactly that.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And now you want to talk about your opinions of posters because you have no arguments.

And oooohhh the hypocrisy of your continual harping on partisanship and political views ...
edit on 10-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please show us where the Russians hacked the DNC. The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to "forensically" analyze the servers that were "hacked".

The Russia hacking bs came from the DNC contracted security firm and NOT the government.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Why should we listen to a "Judge" who wanted to be a politician and failed and had to settle for infotainment instead again?


Much better to listen to unnamed sources and then proclaim the target of these unnamed sources as guilty.


I'd say it's more than a tossup whether TV entertainers are more reliable than unnamed members of the IC acting as confidential sources; of course, no one but you keeps harping on about who's GUILTY.

And no one but you is glad to quote from those "unnamed sources" when you think it serves your argument.


The sources saying their is no evidence against the Trump campaign are not unnamed, they are known and are on video giving interviews to let us all know that there is no evidence. It must be a tough message for those that are so invested in presuming guilt, hence I understand why you have to fall back to your unnamed sources and deny reality.
edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please show us where the Russians hacked the DNC. The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to "forensically" analyze the servers that were "hacked".

The Russia hacking bs came from the DNC contracted security firm and NOT the government.


Last time for answers to spurious questions:



Intelligence agency leaders repeated their determination Thursday that only "the senior most officials" in Russia could have authorized recent hacks into Democratic National Committee and Clinton officials' emails during the presidential election.


NPR, January 5, 2017 (multiple other sources)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please show us where the Russians hacked the DNC. The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to "forensically" analyze the servers that were "hacked".

The Russia hacking bs came from the DNC contracted security firm and NOT the government.


We actually only have the IC's word that Russia hacked the DNC. They did not provide any evidence, so it's left to them asking us to trust them. Even then they could not say for certain, instead claiming 'high confidence', which by their own admission means it may not have happened.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Then why are you crying about unnamed sources?

You're the only one that has mentioned guilt or guilty.

You know, your posts wouldn't be 1/10 as obnoxious if you just copped to the difference between reality and your own biased opinion sometimes.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please show us where the Russians hacked the DNC. The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to "forensically" analyze the servers that were "hacked".

The Russia hacking bs came from the DNC contracted security firm and NOT the government.


Last time for answers to spurious questions:



Intelligence agency leaders repeated their determination Thursday that only "the senior most officials" in Russia could have authorized recent hacks into Democratic National Committee and Clinton officials' emails during the presidential election.


NPR, January 5, 2017 (multiple other sources)


..and yet they did not provide any evidence. The report in December was long on media examples from RT and others, and short on opposing media examples from pro Clinton media and very short on any technical evidence (in fact none).



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


So you admit that you don't know the content of the meeting. Yet somehow this is proof of collusion.

Your assumption that it must be collusion is just that, an assumption. It is not poof as you have suggested.



2. Word games; spurious example.


You are the one playing word games. Not one person, not even democrats, have said there is any evidence of collusion. You are the one trying to play word games and stretch the definition of the word collusion.


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.


Its quite simple. If lying about meetings with russia is collusion, then these democrats are guilty of it. The fact that you think some collusion is worthy of investgating but others aren't proves your double standard.



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.


No as in my regular practice I am making you look foolish.

You are right it is an ongoing investigation. Perhaps they will find evidence of collusion in the future. But not one person even on the democratic side had said they have evidence of collusion at this time.

I am not putting my spin on what they said.

You are the one who was putting your illogical interpretation that somehow clappers claims were PROOF of collusion. That is insane as I showed on page 258.

The senators from the article you posted said the following.

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

The fact that you think I am spinning what they said to mean there is no evidence of collusion, when they directly said this shows that you are not a rational person.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Then why are you crying about unnamed sources?

You're the only one that has mentioned guilt or guilty.

You know, your posts wouldn't be 1/10 as obnoxious if you just copped to the difference between reality and your own biased opinion sometimes.


Oh? Have you changed your tune now? So you are not assuming guilt?
I can't keep up with your shifting position on this. It seems you retreat to a new position every time you can't explain one of your outrageously false claims.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Then why are you crying about unnamed sources?

You're the only one that has mentioned guilt or guilty.

You know, your posts wouldn't be 1/10 as obnoxious if you just copped to the difference between reality and your own biased opinion sometimes.


Oh? Have you changed your tune now? So you are not assuming guilt?
I can't keep up with your shifting position on this. It seems you retreat to a new position every time you can't explain one of your outrageously false claims.


Quote me saying that anyone is guilty of anything. Stop with blatant dishonesty.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grambler

The Russian hack story came from the security firm and not the government.



Completely and blatantly false.


Yes, your comment is.

* - Fix Is In: House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ Includes Only DNC-Hired Tech Experts
* - Cybersecurity firm finds evidence that Russian military unit was behind DNC hack
* - FBI: DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers

* - The FBI Now Says Democrats Were Behind Hack Investigation Delay

A DNC source familiar with the investigation tried to downplay that report on Thursday, hours before the FBI statement was issued. The fact that the FBI didn’t have direct access to the servers was not “significant,” the source said.

“I just don’t think that that’s really material or an important thing,” the source continued. “They had what they needed. There are always haters out here.”


The DNC source also brushed off the idea that it was the DNC that refused to let FBI access the server. When BuzzFeed News attempted to reach the official after the FBI statement came out, he declined to comment.


The DNC claims it was hacked by Russia, refuses FBI access to the server and then says they dont see how its material / important.


So, no, not completely nor blatantly false.

Just what is the DNC trying to hide? For a group who cries about being hacked while proclaiming Trump-Russia collusion they sure as hell dont want anyone actually investigating their lies.. err claims.
edit on 10-3-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 260  261  262    264  265  266 >>

log in

join