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: 18
114
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Schaffer stated that he had no proof. Binney is a nut-job. Hannity is a talking head.

We're done.


But intelligence community people told him. Hence they told all of us.

Wait a minute.

Your claim on mook was that he was saying the intelligence community told us about Trumps people on wiretaps with russians meant that they had told the american public this. You based this on newspaper articles with anonymous sources from the intelligence community.

Now the lt. general says he has heard from anonymous people in the intelligence community that the cia hacked the DNC.

So by your definition, Shaffer is telling us that the intelligence community is telling us that the cia hacked the DNC.

Why the double standard?
edit on 10-3-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra



link me to the evidence of Russian hacking please.


Why? You want to double check the USIC's work?




Absolutely - Trust but verify.

Our intelligence community has reached a critical mass with their credibility being shot.


LOL, As if they're unaware of their own foot/finger prints. As if the USIC is unaware of the technology that WikiLeaks is now dispersing to the public. You think that they don't know about this stuff, that you just learned about, when their working? Or maybe you just need some non-biased 3rd party to go the over USIC intel to see if they're framing Donald Trump!

Geez, you learn something new, so that means the Intel Community just learned it too? Or because you just learned about some tech, now you're second guessing the patriotism and integrity of the USIC professionals?

Maybe you should get a job as a detective! LOL



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Evidence is still required. Check.

Where does the evidence come from unless it is from a) someone else or b) your own perception?

You're okay with evidence coming from other people then, as long as you believe it?



since when are you and the elft concerned with evidence? There is no evidence to show Russia hacked anything in the Us, let alone colluded with Trumps campaign. Even Obamas own DNI said, again, there is nothing.

I guess we need to start saying the Trump White House / Intel services have medium to high confidence he was wiretapped by Obama.. Thats the BS standard they used that you apparently accept.


Correct - the discussion is NOT about the DNC hacks, it is about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and the sharing of information by the IC with the Clinton campaign about the opposing Trump campaign. It has nothing to do with the hack of the DNC, hence discussions about the IC report (which was with high confidence, a classification that admits they could be wrong) being confirmed is as I said, irrelevant.

edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Schaffer stated that he had no proof. Binney is a nut-job. Hannity is a talking head.

We're done.


But intelligence community people told him. Hence they told all of us.

Wait a minute.

Your claim on mook was that he was saying the intelligence community told us about Trumps people on wiretaps with russians meant that they had told the american public this. You based this on newspaper articles with anonymous sources from the intelligence community.

Now the lt. general says he has heard from anonymous people in the intelligence community that the cia hacked the DNC.

So by your definition, Shaffer is telling us that the intelligence community is telling us that the cia hacked the DNC.

Why the double standard?


It would appear that 'facts' to those that want to attack Trump are whatever news stories support their narrative. That has become abundantly clear. The double standards are plain to see.
edit on 10/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

The intelligence community has told us that the CIA actually hacked the DNC and framed the Russians!

Thats it, game over!


Who should we believe, you?

Trump?

Steven Bannon?

Folks on the internet filming in their parents basement?

LOL


No, these are facts as we understand them... remember that is fine according to you. Or are the rules changing again?



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



This is the actions of a third world dictatorship. (Props to Xcathdra for pointing this out)


Your friend Xcanthra obviously hasn't read The Prince.

This kind of practice is hundreds of years old if not older. Machiavelli summed up politics perfectly in what I call the three S's-spying, subterfuge and sabotage. He believed the end justified the means to protect the common people from themselves or to maintain political power.

The term Machiavellian is tossed around freely by folk who don't know it's significance. The Watergate scandal? Machiavellian. Trump saying one thing then doing another? Machiavellian. Bill Clinton lying about his affair? Not as much Machiavellian as the others but still...

In the end every national leader on the globe will follow the rule of the three S's and if you don't believe it-watch the global news.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What a huge blind spot you have.

A random three letter group (cia, nsa, whoever) monitors Russian spys. Spying is technically an act of wrong doing.

Trumpette"s aide(s) contact known Russian spy. Because the Russian is monitored this contact is known to three letter group. This is called evidence.

Stop blowing smoke up our $ucking a$$'s. Stop repeating things you know are untrue.

Try and not be a bully like Trumpette and maybe you can earn some respect around here.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

and yet there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing / collusion / improper contacts between Trump / trump associates . I also notice you have ignored the fact that Democrats have met the same Russians.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
What I think we may be about to see, is that one turd that gets stuck in the pipe while draining the swamp...refuses to go down and needs to be plunged. I'm just hoping that after that blockage is cleared, that we can get on with our lives and let Trump get some work done instead of all the blocking from the left.

They are obviously afraid that he will succeed, or that he will expose them utterly. But I think the time has come for the truth.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

Is Angela Merkel a spy? We routinely monitored her cell phone. Same for the impeached President of Brazil. What about ever cell call in America? Are they all spies? Being monitored by the Gov't, whether it be by a three letter intelligence group or not, is no indication of wrong doing.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Uhm, monitoring US citizens is in fact illegal without probable cause and a warrant.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is supposed to be. Ever hear of the NSA? Snowden? Is it ringing a bell?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is supposed to be. Ever hear of the NSA? Snowden? Is it ringing a bell?

and the reason he came forward was because it was occurring in violation of the law.

understand now?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand quite well. It's not illegal, in fact it continues unabated. Also, the original debate wasn't over wether or not it was illegal. The original point was the fact that someone was under surveillance meant that they were doing something nefarious. I disagree with that point. Nuff said. Have a good night.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not to mention motivation.
Why would the CIA hack the DNC?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That says "claim" and "may have". Neither of which are declarative statements last I checked.
Opinions.
You know what they say.
Dime a dozen.
That entire conversation is conjecture. A what if by people that are not in the loop of the government. Entertainment.
What did they offer as evidence.
This is a common plea to authority. In your opinion these guys should know because they have titles and rank. But in this argument 2+2 equals 4 whether I say it or they say it.
Their previous employment doesn't mean anything. They are not in the loop. They are offering their opinion. (And wild ones at that...Entertainment...let's see who can be even more outrageous than the president...)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Oh those guys... what's their names again..
No never mind of course it's silly to ask. They're just fictional "our guys" who could...
It's still a story. A "hey it could happen" account that is still fiction.
Don't you get that? They're not making any declarations that something did happen. They're not attesting to any activity they know happened. They're telling you what could have happened.
That is sure not the intelligence community making any statement saying Obama did anything.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He was in on the security briefings that both camps were getting and before you ask why remember who sat in on trumps briefings.
The briefings were to the candidates and their aides and of course they would have covered the Russian hacking.
Jesus, the candidates debated the issue on national TV.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I think that someone should start a meme of Russian Embassador Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak appearing (photoshopped) in the most unusual places in American life as well as with everyone in Washington, to show the absurdity of the "Russian-conspiracy" meme that CNN is still trying to pan off as "news". Just a thought I don't have the time. Post it at reddit as an imgur and watch it go to the top. It would be funny. A Russian invasion of Kislyak, everywhere you look.

edit on 15-3-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join