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: 336
158
<< 333  334  335    337  338  339 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Which member of his cabinet ordered the surveillance? I've missed that.


I'm sure we will get some info on that soon enough....I'll check back with you personally when it comes out Obama not only knew but he or his staff was behind the warrants on Trump and his associates.

Until then we will have to agree to disagree as to who is behind this and their motives.


I thought it was revealed today that Obama's administration ordered the surveillance. By definition, that would mean a member of his cabinet.

Obama or his staff knowing about it is not the same as them being behind the order. It has been stated that Obama specifically had a policy that he or his cabinet would not get involved in such matters.
edit on 20-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
The two cases are not comparable.


Oh, yes they are very similar.

In fact, both investigations were carried out by the FBI,
and one was kept entirely secret. Comey even said this
information was kept out of the daily intel briefings.

The other investigation was under wraps, but when Comey
needed to include Weiners laptop, he went to Congress with
the information, and got a warrant.


originally posted by: introvert

I thought it was revealed today that Obama's administration ordered the surveillance. By definition, that would mean a member of his cabinet.


Source please?



It has been stated that Obama specifically had a policy that he or his cabinet would not get involved in such matters.


No, incorrect!

Obama's statement said he did not interfere with DOJ investigations.




edit on 20-3-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
The two cases are not comparable.


Oh, yes they are very similar.

In fact, both investigations were carried out by the FBI,
and one was kept entirely secret. Comey even said this
information was kept out of the daily intel briefings.

The other investigation was under wraps, but when Comey
needed to include Weiners laptop, he went to Congress with
the information, and got a warrant.



OK. Fine.

How is that relevant to this issue in regards to the FBI deeming the situation warranted further investigation?

What is your point?



Source please?


Sure:


originally posted by: UKTruth a reply to: introvert It's already been clarified that Trump was talking about the Obama administration. Whether that was a cop out is another matter, but in that sense the original tweet has already been clarified.

Today we found out that the Obama Administration was indeed running surveillance on the Trump campaign. It's not confirmed by them that this swept up some Trump communications too, but I find it unlikely that it did not. I also find it highly plausible that some of the Trump team's phone conversations spied on would have take place in Trump Tower.





No, incorrect! Obama's statement said he did not interfere with DOJ investigations.


Perhaps I am wrong on that aspect.
edit on 20-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dude, you can defend him all you want, I don't really care.

He needs the help.

But it just means you're defending a troll. But that's your choice.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dude, you can defend him all you want, I don't really care.

He needs the help.

But it just means you're defending a troll. But that's your choice.


Seems to me the only way to defend Trump is make excuses for him.

Isn't it time to pull the blinders off?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dude, you can defend him all you want, I don't really care.

He needs the help.

But it just means you're defending a troll. But that's your choice.


Seems to me the only way to defend Trump is make excuses for him.

Isn't it time to pull the blinders off?


Why? They've been firmly in place since 2000 or so, quite possibly much sooner.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
This is a very important part to understand



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Perhaps I am wrong on that aspect.


No you're not.

You said that Obama's stance was that his cabinet would not get involved with such matters.

His rebuttal was that Obama claimed that he would not interfere in DOJ investigations.

Don't let the circular buffer BS speak get in way of your common sense.

Claiming either his cabinet or the DOJ is exactly the same thing as:




The Department of Justice (DOJ) is a cabinet-level agency responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States federal government. DOJ ensures public safety against foreign and domestic threats, including terrorism, and preventing crime. The department includes such venerable law enforcement agencies as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Marshals, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). DOJ is led by the United States Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement official and chief legal adviser to the President.



Source



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Boy the hearing today sure triggered some people eh.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Seems to me the DOJ is (or should be) completely non-partisan.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Boy the hearing today sure triggered some people eh.



Seems to me the DOJ says we are and will continue to investigate.

Seems the REPs stance was: "How dare you!"



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

Seems to me the DOJ is (or should be) completely non-partisan.


I'm starting to believe there is not a single sole in this country that is completely non-partisan. Maybe the scope of ATS' reach simply isn't broad enough.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I think his 'clarification' was a cop out in the sense he knew he hadn't been clear and then when the sh** hit the fan had to wind it back. That does make him look foolish. Hardly the first time a President has looked foolish or had to walk back a lie.


True. Add the fact that he did it on twitter like a jaded teenage girl and I can see why they were quick to "Clarify".



I'm still baffled by the focus on the tweet when his administration has already effectively said that he didn't mean exactly what he tweeted.


Perhaps it's because Trump is known for being a "straight talker" and saying exactly what is on his mind. It's become quite clear that we cannot believe what Trump says. We have to wait for clarification by one of his staff.

Today's events and the way many people are defending him only further highlights the fact we cannot take Trump for his word.



Take away the laser focus on proving he technically lied and you are still left with the fact that the Obama Administration did put the Trump campaign under surveillance (at the same time that Obama himself was campaigning for Hillary by the way) and there was a crime committed against a Trump campaign member in General Flynn.


Which member of his cabinet ordered the surveillance? I've missed that.


The FBI reports into the DoJ.
Under Obama's watch the FBI were spying on Trump campaign members.
That we now know.
It's also highly likely they were recording calls whilst Trump campaign members were inside Trump Tower.
edit on 20/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

Seems to me the DOJ is (or should be) completely non-partisan.


I'm starting to believe there is not a single sole in this country that is completely non-partisan. Maybe the scope of ATS' reach simply isn't broad enough.


Completely is stretching it.

Hopefully, there's still some integrity.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Boy the hearing today sure triggered some people eh.



Seems to me the DOJ says we are and will continue to investigate.

Seems the REPs stance was: "How dare you!"


Come now, do you think that Sessions and Trump had not spoken about this before today and agreed exactly what Comey could say and what he couldn't?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Boy the hearing today sure triggered some people eh.



Seems to me the DOJ says we are and will continue to investigate.

Seems the REPs stance was: "How dare you!"


Come now, do you think that Sessions and Trump had not spoken about this before today and agreed exactly what Comey could say and what he couldn't?


We never agree on anything.

Trump would need to listen.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
This is a very important part to understand


I agree. Gowdy's time today was the turning point of the Right Wing narrative that took the attention away from Russian involvement, to the leakers.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

Seems to me the DOJ is (or should be) completely non-partisan.


But is isn't.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Thank you for the info.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

Seems to me the DOJ is (or should be) completely non-partisan.


But is isn't.



Let me guess.

You think it leans Liberal.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 333  334  335    337  338  339 >>

log in

join