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.

 

Intelligence community shared details into investigation of Trump with Hillarys campaign

page: 13
114
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.


Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.


Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.


Yes that is true, as was Robby Mook.
At such a time as this, he would be wise not to use the situation to spread propaganda, which he did in at least two instances.


Robby Mook was not reporting, he was being interviewed.

He has a right to speak his mind and the truth as he understands it.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert



Pay close attention to what the narrator says before the "quote" from Fox and Friends.


That is not the video of the interview...
Here it is.



He actually starts the main conversation with "lets look at the facts".



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I didn't say it was.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I really don't follow you.

Why would there be any comparison between what two different people said on two different issues?



The issues don't matter. I am pointing out no one would say "the intelligence community told us" based on an anonymous sourced newspaper article they read.


The issues don't matter???

Okay.

Mook said in the same sentence that the info on the wiretaps had been widely reported for months.

The SAME sentence.

It's quite clear what he meant.

You're making general statements about what you think "people" would say.

I'm talking about what Mook SAID in the interview.


Here is what was said.


MOOK: There was a wiretap of Russian agents, and the agents were communicating with Trump staff ... that's why they were picked up.

KILMEADE: How do you know that?

MOOK: That's what the intelligence community has told us, that's what's been reported very widely: those are the facts.


Right. Why does he believe it? because the intelligence community told him, and that has been reported very widely.

If he meant that he just read about it in those reports, he would have never mentioned the intelligence community telling "us"

He would have said only that he knew that because it was widely reported.

As I pointed out, saying the intelligence community told us does not mean that you read that a paper said anonymous sources said this.

I have to head out for a while bbut I will be back later.
edit on 9-3-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I actually can see an argument being made for 'us' being the public.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.


Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.


Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.


Yes that is true, as was Robby Mook.
At such a time as this, he would be wise not to use the situation to spread propaganda, which he did in at least two instances.


Robby Mook was not reporting, he was being interviewed.

He has a right to speak his mind and the truth as he understands it.


He never qualified it with "his understanding". If you are going down that route, then what is wrong with Trump saying definitively that Obama tapped his phones? That's his understanding, no?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

In your opinion and interpretation of the word US.

The context is clear. In the same sentence he refers to the widespread reports.

Sorry, but you're reaching here.

Did Mook refer to the Clinton campaign receiving intel from any part of the Intelligence Community?

If he did, quote it.

If he didn't, you've had a great thread on the ATS Front Page and hundreds of flags and stars.

Don't dig the hole deeper.
edit on 9-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

I actually can see an argument being made for 'us' being the public.


Sure it could be.

But then we would be able to see when the Intel community told us those facts.

For example, if the Intel community really did tell the public all of those facts, then why did the reporter have to ask how look knew that.

It would be public knowledge that we all know.

Yet I have not seen one statement from the Intel community saying any of this.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.


Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.


Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.


Yes that is true, as was Robby Mook.
At such a time as this, he would be wise not to use the situation to spread propaganda, which he did in at least two instances.


Robby Mook was not reporting, he was being interviewed.

He has a right to speak his mind and the truth as he understands it.


He never qualified it with "his understanding". If you are going down that route, then what is wrong with Trump saying definitively that Obama tapped his phones? That's his understanding, no?


Never qualified what? What are you referring to by "he never qualified it"

+



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Xcathdra
To get your thread going I will bring my question here as well.

a reply to: Grambler


originally posted by: Grambler
Now some may say the taps weren't on Trumps people, but on the russians. But keep in mind Clapper says there was no evidence of wrong doing. Therefore they had no right to spread info to anyone about this, let alone Trumps political opponent!


Here is my issue with the above.

Its already been stated by both sides that we monitor the Russian Ambassador as a matter of course via our secret services (and Russia does the same).

Knowing that please explain the need for a FISA warrant in order to monitor a Russian we already monitor as a matter of course. The same holds, presumably, for any Russian national we have identified and linked to Russian secret services / russian government.



That's exactly the Q&A that needs to be asked to Clapper under oath.


Like he will tell the truth.
ha

He has lied before and, let's face it, when it comes to actual intelligence, it is his job not to tell us the truth.


Yup seems a mans word ,means nothing now days,



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

edit on 9-3-2017 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

In your opinion and interpretation of the word US.

The context is clear. In the same sentence he refers to the widespread reports.

Sorry, but you're reaching here.

Did Mook refer to the Clinton campaign receiving intel from any part of the Intelligence Community?

If he did, quote it.

If he didn't, you've had a great thread on the ATS Front Page and hundreds of flags and stars.

Don't dig the hole deeper.


He said he was told by the Intel community, and he is part of the Clinton campaign. So yes, the Intel community gave this info to members of Hillary's team.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Just because it's what he intended his statement to mean does not mean he is telling the truth.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

I actually can see an argument being made for 'us' being the public.


Sure it could be.

But then we would be able to see when the Intel community told us those facts.

For example, if the Intel community really did tell the public all of those facts, then why did the reporter have to ask how look knew that.

It would be public knowledge that we all know.

Yet I have not seen one statement from the Intel community saying any of this.


It has been public knowledge for months.

Are you sayign that you expect the IC to announce something about on-going investigations on the 6 oclock news?

Jesus.

Everything we know has been sourced by LEAKS. Mook also stated THAT in his interview as well.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

And we're back at the beginning.

No, that's not what Mook said.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

Just because it's what he intended his statement to mean does not mean he is telling the truth.


So, he was lying about the IC telling us that they tap Russian communications then?

Perhaps, but there have been widespread reports supposedly based on leaks to the contrary.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Or lying about how he found out, which is what I was referring to.

Like Obama's "I found out about Hillary's email when you all did" .. and then we find out he was emailing it.
edit on 9-3-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.


Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.


Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.


Yes that is true, as was Robby Mook.
At such a time as this, he would be wise not to use the situation to spread propaganda, which he did in at least two instances.


Robby Mook was not reporting, he was being interviewed.

He has a right to speak his mind and the truth as he understands it.


He never qualified it with "his understanding". If you are going down that route, then what is wrong with Trump saying definitively that Obama tapped his phones? That's his understanding, no?


Never qualified what? What are you referring to by "he never qualified it"

+


You said:

He has a right to speak his mind and the truth as he understands it.


So does Trump then, right? If we can all state the truth as we understand it as fact, then what's the big deal with Trump saying Obama tapped his phones? Or does he not get afforded the same leeway with language?
edit on 9/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

In general, does Mr. Trump have the right to speak his mind? Sure.

Do you think there is any difference in gravity between the two things you are comparing?

You said that Mook would "be wise not to spread propaganda" ... what's propaganda to you isn't to the next person.

Are you saying that Trump was spreading propaganda with his tweets, since that's your point of comparison?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

And we're back at the beginning.

No, that's not what Mook said.


It's exactly what he said.. that the "intelligence community told us". The intelligence community never told the public anything that he claimed, so who is he talking about when he says "us"?

edit on 9/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join