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: 14
114
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Yes, through leaks it did. If you would just watch the interview, the leaks are brought up as the source of information.

Perhaps by "us" he just means the four in the interview? Perhaps by "us" he means himself and the mouse in his pocket.

BOTH of which make more sense in context that that "us" is the Clinton Campaign.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


Lying about how he found out? Okay, that's possible, but how would we know?

There have been reports for months about wiretapping on the Russians. Those have been the results of leaks from the IC, which is what was discussed in the interview.

As far as Obama and emails ... When you're auto replying to emails, do you always check the email address?

I don't. Perhaps the President didn't. I have no idea. Politicians lie. I wouldn't be shocked if he did.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Conspiracy Theory:

Clinton Campaign operatives called phone numbers associated with Trump and said they were "Russians".

Easy to spoof a phone number and an accent.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Homeland Security, representing the USIC, told everyone.



the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement that said,
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
www.politifact.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Yes, through leaks it did. If you would just watch the interview, the leaks are brought up as the source of information.

Perhaps by "us" he just means the four in the interview? Perhaps by "us" he means himself and the mouse in his pocket.

BOTH of which make more sense in context that that "us" is the Clinton Campaign.



I don't care who he means by 'us'. The intelligence community never told anyone the things he is claiming. Reporters used leaked information from unnamed sources, yet Mook is stating facts.
edit on 9/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Yes, through leaks it did. If you would just watch the interview, the leaks are brought up as the source of information.

Perhaps by "us" he just means the four in the interview? Perhaps by "us" he means himself and the mouse in his pocket.

BOTH of which make more sense in context that that "us" is the Clinton Campaign.



I don't care who he means by 'us'. The intelligence community never told anyone the things he is claiming.


You don't care who he means but you're sure he means the Clinton campaign? Why?

Yes, the intelligence community has leaked this information for months. Multiple press outlets have reported on it.

Which is exactly what Robbie Mook said in the interview with Fox and Friends.

ETA: To address your edit, yes, Robbie is stating facts as he knows them backed up by months of media reports.
edit on 9-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Homeland Security, representing the USIC, told everyone.



the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement that said,
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
www.politifact.com...




Completely different point to the one being discussed.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm addressing what Mook said in the Fox and Friends interview, which is backed up by the wording and the timing of both the Slate article and Clinton's tweet.


She had advance notice period.
The only proof it could have been gained illegally could have
been her husband meeting Lynch on the plane.

But I'll take your hint you dont want to discuss it, no worries.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Yes, through leaks it did. If you would just watch the interview, the leaks are brought up as the source of information.

Perhaps by "us" he just means the four in the interview? Perhaps by "us" he means himself and the mouse in his pocket.

BOTH of which make more sense in context that that "us" is the Clinton Campaign.



I don't care who he means by 'us'. The intelligence community never told anyone the things he is claiming.


You don't care who he means but you're sure he means the Clinton campaign? Why?

Yes, the intelligence community has leaked this information for months. Multiple press outlets have reported on it.

Which is exactly what Robbie Mook said in the interview with Fox and Friends.


Like I said, the IC never told anyone what he claims, so the 'us' is actually irrelevant. He was claiming facts, using the term repeatedly, when all we have are unsubstantiated reports. He was engaging in propaganda, but given his language he should be questioned further on what he knows. I hope the House Intelligence Committee were watching and will ask him to clarify under oath.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I'm not sure what else there is to say beyond continued bickering about the meaning of "they have told us, it has been widely reported for months>" (paraphrased, text provided earlier)

People will believe what they want to. I encourage every one to watch the Fox and Friends interview and decide for yourself.

Second hand information (including that at Fox and the Gateway Pundit) is merely lying.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't. If hearsay can be stated as facts by one person then it has to applied to all people.
edit on 9/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Yes, through leaks it did. If you would just watch the interview, the leaks are brought up as the source of information.

Perhaps by "us" he just means the four in the interview? Perhaps by "us" he means himself and the mouse in his pocket.

BOTH of which make more sense in context that that "us" is the Clinton Campaign.



I don't care who he means by 'us'. The intelligence community never told anyone the things he is claiming.


You don't care who he means but you're sure he means the Clinton campaign? Why?

Yes, the intelligence community has leaked this information for months. Multiple press outlets have reported on it.

Which is exactly what Robbie Mook said in the interview with Fox and Friends.


Like I said, the IC never told anyone what he claims, so the 'us' is actually irrelevant. He was claiming facts, using the term repeatedly, when all we have are unsubstantiated reports. He was engaging in propaganda, but given his language he should be questioned further on what he knows. I hope the House Intelligence Committee were watching and will ask him to clarify under oath.


I hope so too. Let's just forget about government and have investigations all the time. Of course, at some point, someone will actually have to DO something in government for us to investigate ... unless we investigate the investigations, which wouldn't surprise me.

The interview is clear. People can decide for themselves. Carry on.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Conspiracy Theory:

Clinton Campaign operatives called phone numbers associated with Trump and said they were "Russians".

Easy to spoof a phone number and an accent.




That is a truly funny comment that busted me up Big League!

Until I realized just how likely it was that the Clinton Camp could have done exactly that because they were already armed with the knowledge "the Russians" were being investigated and it was a zero-risk way to implicate Team Trump.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:22 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.


Well, I do not see how he is spreading propaganda. But considering where you are coming from, I can see why you would spin it that way.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't.


Nope, you don't get to interpret what I think or what I said and claim I thought it or said it.

There is no qualification on my quote. Don't indulge in blatant false equivalency.


edit on 9-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't.


Nope, you don't get to interpret what I think or what I said.

There is no qualification on my quote. Don't indulge in blatant false equivalency.



So it's false equivalency to say that if Mook gets to speak his mind on what he believes are the facts, then Trump should be afforded that right too? How so? What's is the difference?
edit on 9/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't.


Nope, you don't get to interpret what I think or what I said.

There is no qualification on my quote. Don't indulge in blatant false equivalency.



So it's false equivalency to say that if Mook gets to speak his mind on what he believes are the facts, then Trump should be afforded that right too? How so?


Mook, in an interview, made a statement.

Trump, in a series of Tweets, made several statements.

Your assertion is that Mook was spreading propaganda, and you're directly comparing that to what Mr. Trump did.

Are you saying that Trump was spreading propaganda, or not?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't.


Nope, you don't get to interpret what I think or what I said.

There is no qualification on my quote. Don't indulge in blatant false equivalency.



So it's false equivalency to say that if Mook gets to speak his mind on what he believes are the facts, then Trump should be afforded that right too? How so?


Sorry, I avoided your question: I'm better than that.

You are equating Robbie Mook's response on a morning talk show with the President of the United States accusing the past Presdient of the United States with high crimes if not actual treason.

Are those equal or not? If they're not, you're engaging in false equivalency.

If they are in your mind, your understanding of relative importance is far, far different than mine.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


I see, so now there is another qualification on when you can 'speak your mind and the truth as you understand it"?
You either hold that principal or you don't.


Nope, you don't get to interpret what I think or what I said.

There is no qualification on my quote. Don't indulge in blatant false equivalency.



So it's false equivalency to say that if Mook gets to speak his mind on what he believes are the facts, then Trump should be afforded that right too? How so?


Sorry, I avoided your question: I'm better than that.

You are equating Robbie Mook's response on a morning talk show with the President of the United States accusing the past Presdient of the United States with high crimes if not actual treason.

Are those equal or not? If they're not, you're engaging in false equivalency.

If they are in your mind, your understanding of relative importance is far, far different than mine.


Relative importance does not change the principal of being able to speak your mind as you see the facts. Given they are both talking about a related subject, I see even less reason to criticise one and not the other.

To answer your question - yes I believe Trump was spreading propaganda and it will remain just that until he, or the investigation, provides some facts to back up his claim.

I do not share your view that Mook was justified in speaking his mind as he saw the facts. For example, if I were to say that 'Clinton has had several people murdered during her career' that would be propaganda, even if it is what I might believe based on my understanding of the facts. Mook should have been clear, instead of attempting to add fuel to the fire for political reasons.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He should have been clear about what ... that we have been hearing for months that the Russians were surveilled and that produced information on contacts with Trump campaign staff?

Isn't that generally true, even if you dispute the source?

So there's no difference in Robbie Mook saying something about the news and one President accusing another President of crimes?

I confess, that's absurd to me.

ETA: I guess we're at the end of our ability to communicate on this issue.
edit on 9-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
114
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join