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: 385
158
<< 382  383  384    386  387  388 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG
Catherine Herridge on Fox tonight...

Surveillance was for political reasons... Names illegally unmasked... Not connected in any way to Russia investigation... Actions "probably" illegal... This leads to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the previous Administration!

SOURCE: O'Reilley (Eric Bolling sitting in)


Infotainment.

Awesome.

Hey, where's "Judge" Napolitano lately?


Infotainment?

Are you familiar with the widely-respected Catherine Herridge?

Wikipedia: Catherine Herridge




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

He's making "great progress?"

You see, this is a perfect example of what I was speaking to you of earlier.

Supporting Trump's goals is fine. Even a certain amount of zealotry.

This just makes you sound ... out of touch ... like an evangelist.

Personal opinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG
Catherine Herridge on Fox tonight...

Surveillance was for political reasons... Names illegally unmasked... Not connected in any way to Russia investigation... Actions "probably" illegal... This leads to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the previous Administration!

SOURCE: O'Reilley (Eric Bolling sitting in)


Infotainment.

Awesome.

Hey, where's "Judge" Napolitano lately?


Infotainment?

Are you familiar with the widely-respected Catherine Herridge?

Wikipedia: Catherine Herridge


Yeah, she's always worked for Fox since she graduated ... was it Columbia or Cornell.

Now, perhaps I'm not talking about her, but about O'Reilly?

Hmmm.

Did you have an update on "Judge" Napolitano? I'm worried about him.
edit on 23-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG
Catherine Herridge on Fox tonight...

Surveillance was for political reasons... Names illegally unmasked... Not connected in any way to Russia investigation... Actions "probably" illegal... This leads to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the previous Administration!

SOURCE: O'Reilley (Eric Bolling sitting in)


Infotainment.

Awesome.

Hey, where's "Judge" Napolitano lately?


Infotainment?

Are you familiar with the widely-respected Catherine Herridge?

Wikipedia: Catherine Herridge


Yeah, she's always worked for Fox since she graduated ... was it Columbia or Cornell.

Now, perhaps I'm not talking about her, but about O'Reilly?

Hmmm.

Did you have an update on "Judge" Napolitano? I'm worried about him.


What does Judge Napolitano have to do with the widely-respected Catherine Herridge?

Just because the Judge's reporting couldn't be confirmed, that doesn't mean the overwhelming mountain of evidence proving that the Obama Regime spied on Team Trump isn't correct.

That FACT has now been confirmed by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Just like the laughably-failed Obama era, this is not going to end well for you leftists.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG




That FACT has now been confirmed by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Can you point out exactly where Nunes confirmed that Trump was spied upon? Per his tweets. Which are the topic of this thread.

A direct quote would be nice.

We know from the hearing on Monday that there is an ongoing investigation involving Trump associates.

edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG




That FACT has now been confirmed by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Can you point out exactly where Nunes confirmed that Trump was spied upon? Per his tweets. Which are the topic of this thread.

A direct quote would be nice.

We know from the hearing on Monday that there is an ongoing investigation involving Trump associates.


Please...

This prove-everything-empirically shtick of yours gets old. If we used your investigative standard no one in the country would ever be convicted of a crime.

What's your deal -- is it Trump's use of the term "wiretapped"?

Is it that he blamed Obama directly for that wiretapping?

The fact is, the Chairman of the House Intelligence has taken the unprecedented step of disclosing that there was surveillance of Team Trump by the Obama Regime and that he is "uncomfortable" with the nature of that wiretapping.

There has been a monumental volume of posting on this subject including source after source quoting Nunes. I shouldn't have to spoon-feed you at this point.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
With the nsa collecting everything(metadata) what is to stop trump via the doj to dig into the former doj chain of command?
Easy enough to get the fisa warrant right? Only a handful have been denied in the last decade.
Rodgers at the nsa seems technically capable and understands his place in the chain of command.
Espionage and treason are serious offences. Why not deploy all assets in hand for a full investigation?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

Obama Regime

That FACT

laughably-failed

you leftists.


Note all the keywords you leveled at various people either in here or out in the world.

This is why other people within this thread feel as though they cant have reasonable discourse with you. It has nothing to do with your political affinity, and everything to do with how cultish you sound.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

What's your deal -- is it Trump's use of the term "wiretapped"?

Is it that he blamed Obama directly for that wiretapping?
Yes. Oh, also that it was done before the election.



and that he is "uncomfortable" with the nature of that wiretapping.
What does that mean? Perhaps you can interpret for me because I could make no sense out of the contradictory things he said yesterday, or how it in any way "vindicated" Trump. I don't know what evidence he got. You don't know what evidence he got. Nor do I have any idea why he thought he should bypass the committee which he heads.


I shouldn't have to spoon-feed you at this point.
So, no direct quote to support Trump's tweets. Which are the topic of this thread.
edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG




That FACT has now been confirmed by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Can you point out exactly where Nunes confirmed that Trump was spied upon? Per his tweets. Which are the topic of this thread.

A direct quote would be nice.

We know from the hearing on Monday that there is an ongoing investigation involving Trump associates.


Please...

This prove-everything-empirically shtick of yours gets old.


Terrible thing when someone asks for actual facts, huh?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
Catherine Herridge on Fox tonight...

Surveillance was for political reasons... Names illegally unmasked... Not connected in any way to Russia investigation... Actions "probably" illegal... This leads to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the previous Administration!

SOURCE: O'Reilley (Eric Bolling sitting in)


Flies getting stuck on the glue-paper.

100% a stone breaker for Democrats.




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG




That FACT has now been confirmed by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Can you point out exactly where Nunes confirmed that Trump was spied upon? Per his tweets. Which are the topic of this thread.

A direct quote would be nice.

We know from the hearing on Monday that there is an ongoing investigation involving Trump associates.


Please...

This prove-everything-empirically shtick of yours gets old.


Terrible thing when someone asks for actual facts, huh?


Not at all. I've given him facts all day long.

His standard is beyond what anyone can provide in this online forum.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
His standard is beyond what anyone can provide in this online forum.

Cop out.

All he asked for was a direct quote. More than doable in this format.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

This, just in:

But until Nunes sees the actual documents, he does not know whether any of the transition officials were actually part of the surveilled conversations or were just talked about by others, spokesman Jack Langer said Thursday.

www.latimes.com...

What? He didn't have any documents? What the hell was he talking about yesterday then?

edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

your points 1 and 3 are semantics and I can't help you there. You're asking me to get into someone's head and interpret their thoughts.

As for your 2nd point, I see absolutely no contradiction in anything Chairman Nunes said yesterday, so given the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your claim, and because I can't read your mind either, I can't help you.

Here is the Nunes news conferences from the 22nd...

AM:

Nunes 1

White House:

Nunes 2

I hope that helps.

edit on 23-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama is going to SuperMax.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
What the hell was he talking about yesterday then?


That's a great question.

I don't think anyone really knows. As far as I'm concerned, he has tainted any valuable evidence by leaving bi-partisan committee members out of the equation before he alerted the White House.
edit on 23-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

As for your 2nd point, I see absolutely no contradiction in anything Chairman Nunes said yesterday, so given the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your claim, and because I can't read your mind either, I can't help you.



His second point, IIRC, was asking you to make an interpretation. You want evidence that he asked that of you? Go back and read it? I'm confused.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

This, just in:

But until Nunes sees the actual documents, he does not know whether any of the transition officials were actually part of the surveilled conversations or were just talked about by others, spokesman Jack Langer said Thursday.

www.latimes.com...

What? He didn't have any documents? What the hell was he talking about yesterday then?


I don't see anything new there. Nunes is a politician being cagey. He's caught in a Cat 5 hurricane and he knows it.

We'll see what he has to say in 15 minutes on FNC and we'll see what the "smoking gun" James Rosen has in the next few days.

In the meantime, I am personally satisfied, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and taking into account Barack Hussein Obama's established history of spying on political foes, allies, and even reporters (including the aforementioned Rosen), that President Trump was largely correct about the Obama Regime spying on his team.

The details of how, when, who, or even why cannot be known with 100% certainty right now.

I'll keep my very strong suspicious to myself...



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: SBMcG

As for your 2nd point, I see absolutely no contradiction in anything Chairman Nunes said yesterday, so given the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your claim, and because I can't read your mind either, I can't help you.



His second point, IIRC, was asking you to make an interpretation. You want evidence that he asked that of you? Go back and read it? I'm confused.


That was my issue. He was asking me for an opinion based upon a premise that I do not agree with.

I watched both videos again and don't see any contradiction in what Nunes was saying. What I do see is a man who would probably be doing anything else at the moment.
edit on 23-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Michael LaVaughn Robinson.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: SBMcG

As for your 2nd point, I see absolutely no contradiction in anything Chairman Nunes said yesterday, so given the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your claim, and because I can't read your mind either, I can't help you.



His second point, IIRC, was asking you to make an interpretation. You want evidence that he asked that of you? Go back and read it? I'm confused.


That was my issue. He was asking me for an opinion based upon a premise that I do not agree with.

I watched both videos again and don't see any contradiction in what Nunes was saying. What I do see is a man who would probably be doing anything else at the moment.


Which is why I said what I said the other day. I think is in a seriously tough spot. He is damned either which way the wind blows.

If things get ugly, and they will, I hope he has a good healthcare plan.




top topics



 
158
<< 382  383  384    386  387  388 >>

log in

join