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: 308
158
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah

“While I appreciate the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ chairmen and ranking members putting out bipartisan statements indicating they have seen no evidence of surveillance of Trump Tower by the Obama Administration, I strongly believe that these statements by political leaders should not be a substitute for a public response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice on this matter,"


source


Yes, and the plethora of reporters who said there WAS surveillance on Trump and his campaign team, whether directly or swept up, should also be questioned further on what they know.


Nice way to distort the facts. A conservative blogger repeated a leaked claim that a FISA grant was obtained to surveille a member of Trump's campaign. It is a no brainer to conclude that this was probably Paul Manafort, who fulfilled a similar role on pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovych's campaign staff. Under Manafort's guidance, Trump softened the GOP's plank concerning the Russian occupation of Crimea. When the media made this connection public, Manafort withdrew from the campaign. Somethingtells me he might wind up moving to Russia if Congress's investigation gets some real traction. Anyway, the media correctly reported that it was specific members of Trump's campaign, not Trump or his campaign in general that were being investigated.


No, there were several reports.
Spicer read out some of them... including Heat Street, New York Times, BBC.
They were either lying or they have information pertinent to the investigation.




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.
edit on 16/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.


I will posit that the journalists involved would rather go to jail for contempt of court, than to reveal their anonymous sources...then, they will technically win in the court of public opinion, which frankly to them has far more value than the judicial system....rightfully so. They represent the people's interest, not the judiciaries.

It's happened before, it will happen again, and the journalists come out on top every time, and that's the way it should be. (Except of course, for the journalists that end up dead trying to report on wars that should never have been instantiated in the first place)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.


I will posit that the journalists involved would rather go to jail for contempt of court, than to reveal their anonymous sources...then, they will technically win in the court of public opinion, which frankly to them has far more value than the judicial system....rightfully so. They represent the people's interest, not the judiciaries.

It's happened before, it will happen again, and the journalists come out on top every time, and that's the way it should be. (Except of course, for the journalists that end up dead trying to report on wars that should never have been instantiated in the first place)


Evidence can be revealed without naming sources, though.
This includes redacted information on any materials passed to support the 'anonymous sources' claims.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.


I will posit that the journalists involved would rather go to jail for contempt of court, than to reveal their anonymous sources...then, they will technically win in the court of public opinion, which frankly to them has far more value than the judicial system....rightfully so. They represent the people's interest, not the judiciaries.

It's happened before, it will happen again, and the journalists come out on top every time, and that's the way it should be. (Except of course, for the journalists that end up dead trying to report on wars that should never have been instantiated in the first place)


Evidence can be revealed without naming sources, though.
This includes redacted information on any materials passed to support the 'anonymous sources' claims.


That's true. But the moment you put them under oath, there's either 1 of 2 choices...reveal the sources to determine veracity of the claim, or face contempt of court charges.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.


I will posit that the journalists involved would rather go to jail for contempt of court, than to reveal their anonymous sources...then, they will technically win in the court of public opinion, which frankly to them has far more value than the judicial system....rightfully so. They represent the people's interest, not the judiciaries.

It's happened before, it will happen again, and the journalists come out on top every time, and that's the way it should be. (Except of course, for the journalists that end up dead trying to report on wars that should never have been instantiated in the first place)


Evidence can be revealed without naming sources, though.
This includes redacted information on any materials passed to support the 'anonymous sources' claims.


That's true. But the moment you put them under oath, there's either 1 of 2 choices...reveal the sources to determine veracity of the claim, or face contempt of court charges.


Seems to me that if they know something about such an important investigation they should be questioned. If they come out looking like heroes then so be it. At least the investigation can get sworn confirmation that, for example, there was surveillance and the nature of that surveillance according to what the reporter knows. Sworn testimony is better than a newspaper article.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah

“While I appreciate the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ chairmen and ranking members putting out bipartisan statements indicating they have seen no evidence of surveillance of Trump Tower by the Obama Administration, I strongly believe that these statements by political leaders should not be a substitute for a public response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice on this matter,"


source


Yes, and the plethora of reporters who said there WAS surveillance on Trump and his campaign team, whether directly or swept up, should also be questioned further on what they know.


Nice way to distort the facts. A conservative blogger repeated a leaked claim that a FISA grant was obtained to surveille a member of Trump's campaign. It is a no brainer to conclude that this was probably Paul Manafort, who fulfilled a similar role on pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovych's campaign staff. Under Manafort's guidance, Trump softened the GOP's plank concerning the Russian occupation of Crimea. When the media made this connection public, Manafort withdrew from the campaign. Somethingtells me he might wind up moving to Russia if Congress's investigation gets some real traction. Anyway, the media correctly reported that it was specific members of Trump's campaign, not Trump or his campaign in general that were being investigated.


No, there were several reports.
Spicer read out some of them... including Heat Street, New York Times, BBC.
They were either lying or they have information pertinent to the investigation.


Heat Street was the original source. The rest simply reported what Heat Street said. Since you are not an idiot, why are you trying to create the impression that this is not the case?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22022101]UKTruth[/post

How does it feel to know that your posts are going to get stars from people who don't even speak English? What does that do for your Make Britain Great Again heart?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Here is a new piece

By Andrew P. Napolitano March 16, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - The question of whether former President Barack Obama actually spied on President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and transition has been tantalizing Washington since President Trump first made the allegation nearly two weeks ago. Since then, three investigations have been launched — one by the FBI, one by the House of Representatives and one by the Senate. Are the investigators chasing a phantom, or did this actually happen? Here is the back story.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Unnamed sources have been a part of journalism for decades.

Why do you think the reporters involved should be put under oath? They didn't wiretap anyone. They didn't break any laws.

Why would you want to go after the Press? They are doing their job ... and some of them are doing it quite well.

Sometimes a Catch-22 is just a good ol' fashioned false dichotomy. In this case, it's certainly not a simplistic either/or.

New York state has a shield law in place. State's rights, remember?


Witnesses are regularly put under oath. Not because they are suspects, but because they could have evidence pertinent to a case. These reporters actually said that the Trump campaign was under, or caught up in, surveillance. Its seems appropriate to bring them in as witnesses to understand what they really know.


I will posit that the journalists involved would rather go to jail for contempt of court, than to reveal their anonymous sources...then, they will technically win in the court of public opinion, which frankly to them has far more value than the judicial system....rightfully so. They represent the people's interest, not the judiciaries.

It's happened before, it will happen again, and the journalists come out on top every time, and that's the way it should be. (Except of course, for the journalists that end up dead trying to report on wars that should never have been instantiated in the first place)


Evidence can be revealed without naming sources, though.
This includes redacted information on any materials passed to support the 'anonymous sources' claims.


That's true. But the moment you put them under oath, there's either 1 of 2 choices...reveal the sources to determine veracity of the claim, or face contempt of court charges.


Seems to me that if they know something about such an important investigation they should be questioned. If they come out looking like heroes then so be it. At least the investigation can get sworn confirmation that, for example, there was surveillance and the nature of that surveillance according to what the reporter knows. Sworn testimony is better than a newspaper article.


In theory that may be true. In fact it makes sense, yet, if that's the tac the courts were to take, then you need to worry about actually marginalizing the intelligence community as a whole by assuming that a journalists anonymous source could potentially have a greater level of intelligence information than the agencies whose job it is to deal in it. (Which I'm sure we both know isn't REALLY the case anyway; the intelligence agencies have the firsthand information, everything else is secondary)...so in reality, we have to let the agencies have the authoritative word on what happened and what didn't, not some anonymous source.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That would be very very dumb because then he's implicating another country an alley.
He surly won't start an international incident will he?
To support his lies?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Since when did that stop Trump from using the information anyway.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you find it ironic that trump is using the lying crooked dishonest failing media to prove his point?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

How could the reporters prove any of that? The intelligence agencies and for sure the attorney general's office can just give it to him. Why do you fail to realize that? He can have it all. Every bit of information he wants he can have. All he has to do is ask them. He won't . He doesn't want this to go any deeper.
edit on 3162017 by Sillyolme because: Sorry about that kindle just went crazy.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

King Obama was the most corrupt, unscrupulous alleged president the USA's ever had. I can't believe he's gone this far without being impeached. Unfortunately, the liberal media elite's in on it too and he'll probably never be impeached.

The snowflakes get so indignant when republicans wire tap democrats, but when the shoe's on the other foot they become total hypocrites.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BlueAjah

“While I appreciate the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ chairmen and ranking members putting out bipartisan statements indicating they have seen no evidence of surveillance of Trump Tower by the Obama Administration, I strongly believe that these statements by political leaders should not be a substitute for a public response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice on this matter,"


source


Yes, and the plethora of reporters who said there WAS surveillance on Trump and his campaign team, whether directly or swept up, should also be questioned further on what they know.


Nice way to distort the facts. A conservative blogger repeated a leaked claim that a FISA grant was obtained to surveille a member of Trump's campaign. It is a no brainer to conclude that this was probably Paul Manafort, who fulfilled a similar role on pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovych's campaign staff. Under Manafort's guidance, Trump softened the GOP's plank concerning the Russian occupation of Crimea. When the media made this connection public, Manafort withdrew from the campaign. Somethingtells me he might wind up moving to Russia if Congress's investigation gets some real traction. Anyway, the media correctly reported that it was specific members of Trump's campaign, not Trump or his campaign in general that were being investigated.


No, there were several reports.
Spicer read out some of them... including Heat Street, New York Times, BBC.
They were either lying or they have information pertinent to the investigation.


Heat Street was the original source. The rest simply reported what Heat Street said. Since you are not an idiot, why are you trying to create the impression that this is not the case?


You are wrong. Sara Carter of Circa news was specifically mentioned also and she and John Solomon have done their own investigations completely separate to the Heat Street article.

Also, the NYT article was not linked to Heat Street.

Here is their print version headline on 20th January:


Here is their online version:
www.nytimes.com...




edit on 17/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Here is what your source says:


The F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring, and was an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. In August, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort’s name had surfaced in a secret ledger that showed he had been paid millions in undisclosed cash payments. The Associated Press has reported that his work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.


www.nytimes.com...

That was public knowledge at the time, yet Trump seemed uninterested. He also somehow didn't notice that his pick for National Security Adviser was receiving tens of thousands of dollars from RT, a Russian propaganda organ, and thousands more from a Russian business for undisclosed reasons. There was excellent reason to investigate the campaign. This does not mean that Trump was being spied on to benefit Clinton's campaign, as he seems to want people to believe.

If Trump knows what is best for himself and the country, he would resign now to "spend more time with his family."

ETA: Incidentally, the "wiretaps" were initially on the telephones of Russian agents, thus legal.
edit on 17-3-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Here is what your source says:


The F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring, and was an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. In August, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort’s name had surfaced in a secret ledger that showed he had been paid millions in undisclosed cash payments. The Associated Press has reported that his work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.


www.nytimes.com...

That was public knowledge at the time, yet Trump seemed uninterested. He also somehow didn't notice that his pick for National Security Adviser was receiving tens of thousands of dollars from RT, a Russian propaganda organ, and thousands more from a Russian business for undisclosed reasons. There was excellent reason to investigate the campaign. This does not mean that Trump was being spied on to benefit Clinton's campaign, as he seems to want people to believe.

If Trump knows what is best for himself and the country, he would resign now to "spend more time with his family."

ETA: Incidentally, the "wiretaps" were initially on the telephones of Russian agents, thus legal.


Go back 100 pages or so, we've already covered that. If Trump or his campaign team had their information swept up and then leaked, then they were being spied on, regardless of who the 'wire-tap' was originally for.
So, there were multiple reporters saying there were wire taps. Great. Glad we could clear up that it was not just Heat Street.

edit on 17/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Arguing with you is like walking in circles. People surrounding Trump have been under investigation for colluding with a foreign power; that is the point. If, as Heat Street claimed, there was a FISA warrant issued, there must have been compelling evidence of wrongdoing. This is not a case of President Obama, who has never been named in any of the actual sources, spying on a political rival. Trump's claim that Obama was "tapping his phone" is delusional. The fact of the matter is that, knowingly or not, Trump has somehow surrounded himself with Russian agents of influence who were being investigated by American counter-intelligence.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: FuggleHop


King Obama was the most corrupt, unscrupulous alleged president the USA's ever had.


So you don't think it a President who charges people $200,000 to join his country club to buy face time with him is less corrupt?


I can't believe he's gone this far without being impeached. Unfortunately, the liberal media elite's in on it too and he'll probably never be impeached.


Obama will never be impeached because he is no longer in office, remember?


The snowflakes get so indignant when republicans wire tap democrats, but when the shoe's on the other foot they become total hypocrites.


There is still absolutely no evidence that President Obama ordered any wiretap. On the other hand, it is clear that American counter-intelligence was investigating links between Trump associates and a hostile foreign intelligence agency... you know, treason.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join