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.

 

Is Lynch About To Go Down ?

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If the FISA court approved the warrant.

Wouldn't it be legal anyways?




Of course.

Any credible case presented to the court would have allowed the warrant.

But what was the case presented?




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Lol. No it wasn't.


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BestinShow

No. Not without evidence. All Trump is doing is building a case to bring a libel suit against himself. By the way, you don't use prior instances of wiretapping as a precedent to "prove" that a wiretap was done here. That isn't evidence of anything.


Ha! At least he is bringing SOMETHING to the table...

What have you got other than bold faced incredulity?

"Well, it has happened bef......."

"Laaa lala lala I can't hear you!"



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
For the slightly visually impaired,

files.abovetopsecret.com... (doing this for indistinct images helps a lot)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

What is he bringing to the table besides a waste of oxygen? Oh wait no. He did this on Twitter. So what has he brought to the table besides a waste of processing power?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you i had seen that but a spokesperson? really? why would one not defend such a charge himself? i know if i was accused of such a thing i would want to respond personally that way i could be clear and leave no questions to ask.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you i had seen that but a spokesperson? really? why would one not defend such a charge himself? i know if i was accused of such a thing i would want to respond personally that way i could be clear and leave no questions to ask.

They are lucky that Obama even gave it the time of day. There is no evidence for these accusations.


+9 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

says you! how on earth could you possibly know what evidence if any that there is? are you a wh insider?


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

THANK-YOU for starting this thread, Blue_Jay33!

Everybody knew Loretta Lynch was "dirty" when she met with Bill Clinton in Secret (they thought) to ensure that Hillary would never be prosecuted while Obama was President. The evidence you've presented implies that we have to add "dumb" to "dirty".



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

says you! how on earth could you possibly know what evidence if any that there is? are you a wh insider?

Generally one levels accusations with evidence to substantiate the claims. Investigations aren't started by first leveling accusations then looking for evidence. That's called a witch hunt. Trump has produced all of zero evidence for his claims.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Let's take a step back and since this is the Political Madness Forum, I'm going to grow the madness about this issue. It is widely known but not totally accepted that there are secrets that the Presidents need not know. The ol' "plausible denial" dodge. Let's assume that is the case here, that the intel agencies of the secret government--we'll leave the FBI out of this loop, that know and work with the really above top secret stuff have decide that Mr. Hothead is a danger to the stability of the government if not the country if not the entire world and they have chosen to do what they must do to maintain their secrets and that would be to spy on him.

Other presidents and Congress members have vowed over the decades to spill the beans about UFOs for the citizenry. Once in a position where they thought that they had the power to do so, they were simply told in no uncertain terms that they could not do so and that was that. They let the matter drop which clearly demonstrated where the true power resides.

Trump is nothing if not a wild cannon with a short fuse and a big mouth. He will not be trusted to any degree. Being a high-level business man, it is possible that he knows part of the story about UFOs in that ETIs exist here and now and (to put it kindly) are interrelated with most modern governments, especial the US, the policeman of the world.

The term Disclosure, at least among the ATS crowd is about as well recognized as the subject that it is related to, UFOs. Anyone that accepts the reality of UFOs must concede that eventually that the other shoe must drop and the ETIs recognized for their presence (but perhaps not their full interactions with us).

If the deep intel agencies are doing their job--and they have been for over half a century in regard to UFOs, at no level must they take Trump as being under their control. His ever utterance will be captured and analyzed to determine what he is thinking and what he may say or do next. So where is the blame, the misconduct to be placed?

...And I did vote for the man and I'm a UFO abductee that knows the ETIs are here. So make of this what you will as the bigger issue here is not about Lynch, Obama or even Trump.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)


+13 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Lol. No it wasn't.


So wait a sec. You think the Obama administration went through the trouble of multiple FISA requests and issued an executive order specifically catering to this exact scenario all for the purposes of NOT putting Trump under surveillance?

Lol. You're in denial man.


+7 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I would think the logical conclusion is that he wouldn't have said anything at all without SOME reason to say it. But you assume the opposite?

Noone knows for sure, but common sense would suggest he has something to back up his tweet.

I'm sure you will tell me how little common sense Trump has, or that he is stupid. But so far, all of his "stupid" actions and ideas have made him the President of the USA, go figure.

If he's stupid, he is stupid like a BOSS.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Lol. No it wasn't.


So wait a sec. You think the Obama administration went through the trouble of multiple FISA requests and issued an executive order specifically catering to this exact scenario all for the purposes of NOT putting Trump under surveillance?

Lol. You're in denial man.

You guys are too much. Y'all spend all day deriding the media for "fake news" and shoddy reporting and Trump literally TWEETS a very serious accusation about a former US President and suddenly his masses not only accept these accusations at face value, but start manufacturing and piecing together unrelated evidence to "prove" it true. You guys should be ashamed of what you are doing to "truth".



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

HE has not produced it does not mean he does not have it..



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

HE has not produced it does not mean he does not have it..

Yes. It does.


+7 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BestinShow

No. Not without evidence. All Trump is doing is building a case to bring a libel suit against himself. By the way, you don't use prior instances of wiretapping as a precedent to "prove" that a wiretap was done here. That isn't evidence of anything.


But the quote you posted from Obamas spokesperson claimed "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

But we know James Rosen, a private citizen was indeed wiretapped.

This means that either the Obama spokesman is flat out lying, or they are playing a semantic game because in their interpretation Holder wiretapped Rosen not Obamas admin (which is absurd because Holder was Obamas sidekick).

Regardless of which one of these two interpretations is correct, it makes this statement absolutely irrelevant to the Trump wire tap situation and is a non denial.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

By definition all FISA court cases are top secret.

You're not supposed to talk about it.

Did Trump just mess up and break the FISA court gag order?


+4 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you claim to deny ignorance that statement is the epitome of ignorance



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
I would think the logical conclusion is that he wouldn't have said anything at all without SOME reason to say it. But you assume the opposite?

No. I agree. He has a reason. The reason was to try to lie and manufacture a scandal on Obama to distract from his many investigations involving Russia. Too bad for Trump investigations don't get distracted easily like the American public is.


Noone knows for sure, but common sense would suggest he has something to back up his tweet.

Actually common sense says he is lying.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join