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: 299
158
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I would like help with the idea of Scotland part of the UK becoming a member of states that make up the united states of america The possible strategic gains that could be offered as a state that can and will be a positive member of the united states of America.

Limited funding is offered to the people of America but also the rest of the EU with a direct hub to Europe.

Only considered applicants i,e, Mentors need apply
Thank you for you're time.
Kevin.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MachiavellianMindset
I would like help with the idea of Scotland part of the UK becoming a member of states that make up the united states of america The possible strategic gains that could be offered as a state that can and will be a positive member of the united states of America.

Limited funding is offered to the people of America but also the rest of the EU with a direct hub to Europe.

Only considered applicants i,e, Mentors need apply
Thank you for you're time.
Kevin.


Nice pitch, but who in the hell would want Scotland to have any part of their country? I can't imagine anyone putting up with that Gordon Strachan impersonator in charge of Scotland's affairs running around shrieking all day

edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would say -3 ...It has happened to me before and aside from completely deleting the post and making another one I can't fix it ...Oh and I am lazy today .

edit on 14-3-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

First of all, surely the world doesn't really break down only into "pro-Trump and anti-Trump" people for you.

Second ... why would anyone have "responded" to it if they're not a regular reader of Breitbart?

Let's assume those three intelligence sources that told Fox News this information are correct.

(I mean the Judge is obviously heavily paraphrasing whatever someone told somebody ... but still)

President Obama (apparently personally) requested information on Trump or Trump associates from GCHQ?

You'd think this would be headline news all over Fox, and all over the internet if proven.

(I thought it was weird that the source was Breitbart not Fox.)

I just checked Fox ... the headline is "State Department Warns College Students Against Travelling to Mexico"

Huh?

The secondary headlines ... nothing.

The listing of articles down one side ... nothing.

Okay, quick look at CNN, nothing, NBC, nothing, Reuters, nothing ... WTH?

Well, let's dig out Google ... "Napolitano, Fox and Friends, wiretap"

And a hit at Fox News Insider ... uh oh ... not the most reliable source ... ok, what the heck?



On "Fox & Friends" this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that even if the Obama administration did spy on Trump, there may never be a way to prove it. He explained that the statutes allow the president to order the surveillance of any person in the U.S., without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant, but that would leave "fingerprints." In this case, the alleged surveillance was reportedly ordered in a way that left no record, he said.

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command," Napolitano said. "He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice." Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.


(So, substantially the same as Breitbart's reporting.)

Okay.

So.

Judge Napalitano says that three sources state that President Obama requested intelligence from the UK on Donald Trump (which of course, they got from the NSA database). There's no record of that.

What?

There's no record of that. Napalitano says that in the first part of the clip. There's no record of this.

Then he says "What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Trump was inaugurated." (found at 2:38 on the video on the site.)

What? I thought three intelligence sources said that Obama ordered it?

Who's the guy that ordered it?

No information, not in the article, not on the Fox News site, not on any other site.

So, did Obama order this transcript? Did someone else? Why did they order it? Was it really on "Trump" or someone else?

Many questions remain.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Eh? I didn't state anything about "what I think a leader should be." Why toss that in?

Further, no President in recent history has called the press "the enemy of the People."

No President has said that he wanted to change the laws to make it easier to sue the press.

No President has suggested an increase in INS forces to the degree that Trump is ... so no ... it's not just "business as usual."



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Eh? I didn't state anything about "what I think a leader should be." Why toss that in?

Further, no President in recent history has called the press "the enemy of the People."

No President has said that he wanted to change the laws to make it easier to sue the press.

No President has suggested an increase in INS forces to the degree that Trump is ... so no ... it's not just "business as usual."



You were describing the difference between the President and the language he uses vs a private citizen.
I just don't hold leaders to an expectation that they have to hold their tongue. I am aware that my view is somewhat idealistic in that sense, but only because we've allowed ourselves to hang on the words of a few people that shouldn't really matter that much.

As for laws, let's wait until he passes such a law. At the moment these are just campaign words. You know, the media has the power to move markets and influence the decisions of millions too, so if you are against Trump saying what he wants because he is the President, then it stands to reason you would want the media to be tempered in the same regard, no?
edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree questions remain. Yet you took the New York times reports of anonymous people in the intelligence community at face value.

Why accept one and not the other?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I didn't say he has to hold his tongue, either.

I said that when the President of the United States makes a statement the world listens.

Does that happen with the average private citizen?

Of course not. If you say "The Press (US or UK) is the enemy of the People" folks just say "yeah, okay." and move on.

It's different when the President says something like that. I mean ... it just demonstrably is.

Your analogy to the media is fair, although, not really comparable. No single news outlet has the worldwide outreach that POTUS does.
edit on 14-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree questions remain. Yet you took the New York times reports of anonymous people in the intelligence community at face value.

Why accept one and not the other?


Did I reject what Napolitano said?

I tried to verify it, give some context to it, find corroborating sources, etc. (For the record, just like I did with the CNN and NYT articles).

Is there something wrong with that? Attempting to verify the validity of a claim?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree questions remain. Yet you took the New York times reports of anonymous people in the intelligence community at face value.

Why accept one and not the other?


Did I reject what Napolitano said?

I tried to verify it, give some context to it, find corroborating sources, etc. (For the record, just like I did with the CNN and NYT articles).

Is there something wrong with that? Attempting to verify the validity of a claim?



No there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is if you believe anonymous sources on one end, but not the other. So if you are waiting for more info to believe any of these anonymous sources, thats fine. Or you believe them both, also fine.

I assume you are saying you fall into the first catergory.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I didn't say he has to hold his tongue, either.

I said that when the President of the United States makes a statement the world listens.

Does that happen with the average private citizen?

Of course not. If you say "The Press (US or UK) is the enemy of the People" folks just say "yeah, okay." and move on.

It's different when the President says something like that. I mean ... it just demonstrably is.

Your analogy to the media is fair, although, not really comparable. No single news outlet has the worldwide outreach that POTUS does.


If only we had a collection of independent, or single, news outlets. Too few people own far too much in the media and agendas are easy to inject into multiple outlets serving multiple audiences. Actually, on that point, rather than use any libel laws it would be better to break up monopolies.
edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Uumm ... aside from the dig on "independent news outlets" you lost me.

Monopolies?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Uumm ... aside from the dig on "independent news outlets" you lost me.

Monopolies?


Monopolies was the wrong choice of words, but Viacom, GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS can reach massive audiences across hundreds of outlets worldwide. They influence people on a global scale. What consequences are there for whatever they say? Their outlets have done everything from repeatedly calling Trump a racist to running documentaries on what would happen if he was assassinated. There is too much concentration of media in too few hands in my view, with the internet (with all it's flaws), being the only avenue that seems to be making a dent.
edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Uumm ... aside from the dig on "independent news outlets" you lost me.

Monopolies?


Monopolies was the wrong choice of words, but Viacom, GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS can reach massive audiences across hundreds of outlets worldwide. They influence people on a global scale. What consequences are there for whatever they say? Their outlets have done everything fro repeatedly call Trump a racist to running documentaries on what would happen if he was assassinated. There is too much concentration of media in too few hands in my view.


Sure, the Big Six. And yes, I absolutely agree their reach and influence taken together has a longer-term effect than a President. The corporate masters, however, work at a different level than say CNN or Fox.

Well, one of the six is NewsCorp ... so, not all of them are "enemies" to Trump, and further, your example might be a bit ... narrow and overly dramatic to some extent. Think WWE wrestling.

Too much influence in the hands of too few? Oh, you're darn skippy. This interlacing of international corporations is one of the major underpinnings of the actual "PTB" in my understanding and opinion.



edit on 14-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Uumm ... aside from the dig on "independent news outlets" you lost me.

Monopolies?


Monopolies was the wrong choice of words, but Viacom, GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS can reach massive audiences across hundreds of outlets worldwide. They influence people on a global scale. What consequences are there for whatever they say? Their outlets have done everything fro repeatedly call Trump a racist to running documentaries on what would happen if he was assassinated. There is too much concentration of media in too few hands in my view.


Sure, the Big Six. And yes, I absolutely agree their reach and influence taken together has a longer-term effect than a President. The corporate masters, however, work at a different level than say CNN or Fox.

Well, one of the six is NewsCorp ... so, not all of them are "enemies" to Trump, and further, your example might be a bit ... narrow and overly dramatic to some extent. Think WWE wrestling.

Too much influence in the hands of too few? Oh, you're darn skippy. This interlacing of international corporations is one of the major underpinnings of the actual "PTB" in my understanding and opinion.




We're probably veering off a little, but yes there are elements of pro-Trump too, though when influence is so concentrated then it comes down to a small group of individuals and not even corporations... and influence extends way beyond news channels.

But anyway - it does feel like we're spinning wheels a little leading up to the 20th.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

We can talk about the material that Grambler brought in if you wish. I'm finding very little discussion of it outside the echo chamber of right-wing websites.

What do you think of that? Can you throw some more light on GCHQ for us? I understand you guys are about as happy with them as we are with the NSA.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

We can talk about the material that Grambler brought in if you wish. I'm finding very little discussion of it outside the echo chamber of right-wing websites.

What do you think of that? Can you throw some more light on GCHQ for us? I understand you guys are about as happy with them as we are with the NSA.


Yea talk about my points!!! Lol!

But seriously, here is an article that reveals the general problems with the relationship between the GCHQ and the NSA.


It looks as if a US government agency might be helping a foreign government spy on US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. Intelligence agencies have moved beyond their traditional role of gathering information about governments and are now gathering information about individual citizens. They’re also sharing that data with other countries in the so called “Five Eyes eavesdropping alliance.” The alliance’s members are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.

The NSA’s relationship with GCHQ is troublesome on every level. Not only does it appear to promote illegal activities that could threaten our rights, but it raises issues of national sovereignty.

Has the NSA figured out how to do an end-run around the Constitution with the help of a foreign intelligence agency? If the NSA tapped a US citizen’s phone or intercepted her emails without a warrant, that would violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. If the GCHQ did the same, it would not be violating the Constitution, although NSA might be violating it if GCHQ shares that information with it.

The US financing of British intelligence programs can be construed as interference in the internal politics of the United Kingdom. GCHQ eavesdropping in the US can be construed as a violation of American sovereignty. Serious investigation of these agencies and real oversight by Congress is needed now. Our media is to be condemned for ignoring these issues.


www.offthegridnews.com...

Your point that only right wing sources are reporting the story about Obama asking british intelligence to look into Trump doesn't prove that its not a story to me, it proves they are partisan.

Those same outlets have taken tons of anonymous sources that make Trump look bad seriously enough to report on, but ignore anything that is against their narrative.

Again, I am not saying this story proves anything, but it is a big deal if true, so why would the press not mention it? Could it be that once again, they are proving they are less interested in news and more interested in taking Trump down (as many of them have said).



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

We can talk about the material that Grambler brought in if you wish. I'm finding very little discussion of it outside the echo chamber of right-wing websites.

What do you think of that? Can you throw some more light on GCHQ for us? I understand you guys are about as happy with them as we are with the NSA.


It's long been known that GCHQ and the NSA are thick as thieves and that the NSA was also collecting information on UK residents. If anything the information on UK residents will be deeper.

From 2013

The US government has paid at least £100m to the UK spy agency GCHQ over the last three years to secure access to and influence over Britain's intelligence gathering programmes. The top secret payments are set out in documents which make clear that the Americans expect a return on the investment, and that GCHQ has to work hard to meet their demands. "GCHQ must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight," a GCHQ strategy briefing said.

www.theguardian.com...

From last November 2016

The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.


This is the result of the Investigatory Powers Bill, signed by politicians late November.


The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary....

...We already know quite a bit about these capabilities thanks to Snowden’s leaks, and they cover the sort of malware and spyware you might expect any hacker to use. GCHQ’s toolkit, for example, includes a collection of programs named after smurfs: "Nosey Smurf" activates a device’s microphone to record conversations; "Tracker Smurf" hijacks its GPS to track location in real time; while "Dreamy Smurf" allows a phone that appears to be off to secretly turn itself on.


www.theverge.com...
edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why would the press not report on it?

There has been no corroboration of sources?

It's not even on Fox's front page?

The reports seems vague and self-contradictory?

Possibilities abound.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

None of that, sadly, is surprising.

I guess one of the questions I have from the Napalitano information suggested, basically, that every communication by everybody in the United States and UK are constantly recorded and stored in a database.

Now, I know that the NSA has that capability, but the situation is really more complex than that, right?

It's not like looking up a phone number or address.

Napolitano said something along the lines of "all Obama had to do was ask for anything Trump or Trump-related" and he got it.

My first thought, after doing some research, was that someone in DOJ may have requested info on the Russians being surveilled ...
edit on 14-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
158
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join