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: 5
114
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Is not acceptable, but after 8 yeas of the Obama he had the advantage to have all his huntsman's within the spying agencies, I am sure that as today he still have the agencies full of them and still probable is getting information as we speak.

Is rather funny that Obama after Trumps allegations have not been seen or heard beside his spoke people




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



I sincerely doubt Trump was kept up to date about the investigation. If he knew all along, why would he make the tweet.


Trump does many things that are questionable. But we do have to ask if they were given the same info.



But even if he was kept in the loop, what a horrible way to run an investigation! The FBI lets the target of an investigation in on the details of what that investigation is finding? Absurd!


Were they told the details? Based on what Mook said, they were told about the Russians being tapped.



Even if obamas people just told Hillarys team about the wiretaps, that is too far. They had no right to any of the information that the rest of the public wasn't allowed to see. Letting Hillarys team know this allowed them to smear Trump having possible connections to the Russians and would provide her a strategic advantage in the election.


Again, what exactly were they told? We don't know what was said and how much of what Mook said was his extrapolation.



Why would they risk these situations? Keep in mind, there is no possible benefit to the investigation by telling HIIllarys people this at all. The only possible reason for this was to help HIllarys campaign, and that is ridiculous.


It's all you can think of based on the very little information and context you have.



But it appears that Mook has given us proof that the investigators were discussing the case with Hillarys team, and thats enough for the public to be outraged.


Did they discuss the investigation with her team? It appears they only said the Russians were being wiretapped.

We need a lot more info before we call for public outrage.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

"It seems It seems reasonable to assume that Trump's campaign was also told about this that Trump's campaign was also told about this"

Seems a bit strange coming from a poster who always demands proof of everything.


I would like proof before coming to any conclusion.

That would include whether or not Trump's team was also told.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I disagree with you. Everything I posted is true given the best case circumstance for the Obama admin, that they only told the Clinton campaign that there were wiretaps on the Russians.

Mook has admitted at least this. This still would lead to all three of the problems I outlined.

I don't how to make this more clear.

Any conversation between Obama intelligence investigators and Hillarys team on this matter, no matter how few details were given, is grossly inappropriate.

I fail to see how you just saying we don't know exactly what was said answers anything in my post.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

"It seems It seems reasonable to assume that Trump's campaign was also told about this that Trump's campaign was also told about this"

Seems a bit strange coming from a poster who always demands proof of everything.


I would like proof before coming to any conclusion.

That would include whether or not Trump's team was also told.


Then by your standards, I want you to provide proof positive that Trumps campaign was also told about this.

We all know what happens when a person assumes something. That little jingle about how assume means making making an ass out of yourself and me.

You and I spent more than a few discussions about Hillarys emails being classified when went sent and received and you denied it until the very end because there was no "proof". Until Comey stated it to be a fact.

Seems you have double standards depending on which candidate is being discussed.

Just an observation.
edit on R402017-03-09T10:40:48-06:00k403Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412017-03-09T10:41:41-06:00k413Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Is all in the mind of the beholder, who got what and how much,


Mr. Clapper said that career intelligence officers would conduct the briefings, and that neither he nor any other political appointee would attend.

“As a legal matter, the president can tell the nominees as much or as little as he believes is necessary or prudent,” said Susan Hennessey of the Brookings Institution, adding that President Obama had indicated that he would allow intelligence officials to make the determination about what information Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will receive.

“With all forms of sharing classified information, there is a strong tendency to err on the side of caution,” she said.


www.nytimes.com...

Soo, the president was the one that decides what kind of information was to be released to the candidates and how much.

Does anybody see the problem here? I am sure or let say I bet that Hillary was the one getting the favors with Obama



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Everything I posted is true given the best case circumstance for the Obama admin, that they only told the Clinton campaign that there were wiretaps on the Russians. Mook has admitted at least this. This still would lead to all three of the problems I outlined.


Everything you posted could be true, but we do not know. Remember, Mook only said that the campaign was told the Russians were being tapped. Everything else he said could be his own extrapolation.



I don't how to make this more clear. Any conversation between Obama intelligence investigators and Hillarys team on this matter, no matter how few details were given, is grossly inappropriate.


Was it against the law, if true?



I fail to see how you just saying we don't know exactly what was said answers anything in my post.


I fail to see how you can say the things you said as being true when we have a huge information gap.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043

Does anybody see the problem here? I am sure or let say I bet that Hillary was the one getting the favors with Obama


Yes, there is a big problem here, Obama's actions were inexcusable.

Three words from Obama come to mind.

"I'm with Her"

Period.

He continued to campaign for her while she was still under
a Criminal FBI investigation, that alone is unprecedented!

When have we ever had a sitting president campaigning for
a person who is suspected of breaking national security laws?




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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Then by your standards, I want you to provide proof positive that Trumps campaign was also told about this.


I'm sure we will find out. I have no way of knowing, but if this info was part of regular security/intel briefings to the campaigns, I would think Trump was also told.

If I remember correctly, Trump didn't pay attention to those briefings and explains why he was so surprised recently.



You and I spent more than a few discussions about Hillarys emails being classified when went sent and received and you denied it until the very end because there was no "proof". Until Comey stated it to be a fact.


I never denied anything and I turned out to be correct.



Seems you have double standards depending on which candidate is being discussed.


Actually, I'm taking the same approach to this issue. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the topic and refrain from your tendency to make these issues personal.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Excellent post. thanks. The NWO thought they had this package all wrapped up but the strings seem to be unravelling.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Oh, but see it doesn't matter how the crap roll and in which side some here will come back over and over to rant that is not truth.

Yeah right. No favoritism at all.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
So?

I bet trumps campaign got the lowdown too.
Weren't they both getting the same security briefings during the campaign?


So, you have no problem with a President who was campaigning
and sharing secrets with a person who was under a criminal FBI investigation???

Remember, James Comey cleared out the koolaid when he
went on record and said

"We dont do security reviews"



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Was it against the law? yes I would say off the top of my head yah. Even with Obamas EO on sharing information would not allow for sharing with a Presidential campaign of an opposing party.
Sick as all get out, but that's what weve had for the last 8 years.... a banana republic.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I don't think you are seeing what I am saying.

Ok, let me try to be as clear as possible.

We know there was an investigation into Russia hacks, and Trumps teams connections to the Russian. We can both agree on that I hope.

We can both agree that the Obama administration was aware that Trump was running against Hillary clinton I hope.

Now lets take the absolute bare minimum of what we know by Mooks statement. Intelligence people told him that they had wiretapped Russians in their investigation. Nothing more, literally just that statement.

That statement alone is an outrageous violation of public trust, and would lead to all of the problems I listed in my post.

It is sharing classified info (albeit the most minimal amount) with the opponent of a person being investigated. You may say well maybe the statement that they were wiretapping the russians in this investigation wasn't classified. Of course it was, or it would have been public knowledge.

We don't need to wait for an investigation to be outraged by this. Now I do agree that we definitely do need an investigation to see how much was shared, and with who, but again, any communication in this manner, no matter how small, is totally unacceptable.

Oh and edit to add,

we will have to see about the legality. But even if someone they can squirm out saying it was legal, it is still an outrageous unethical abuse.


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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


You were wrong and you know it,,,, all that stuff about retroactively classified was pure bunk.

I told you more than once that the only way information can be retroactively classified was if that information had been publicly released as unclassified by the government, which Hillarys emails never were.

Information that is deemed classified after the fact, due to what ever reasons, is called upclassified, which means that it may not have been classified at the time but to due circumstances, it became classified at a later date.

And you were wrong, the FBI director directly stated that some of Hillarys emails were indeed classified when they were originated, not at some later date.

All old news, and that's all I have to say about it. It not personal in any way, simply pointing out that you seem to have double standards depending on which candidate is being discussed.

ON topic, I can't wait for the senate investigations to begin.

Comeys calling out to the DOJ to refute Trumps claims, which they failed to do, would appear that the FISA warrant came straight from the DOJ and not the FBI.

stock upon popcorn, it is going to be a wild ride.

edit on R172017-03-09T11:17:26-06:00k173Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R272017-03-09T11:27:51-06:00k273Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292017-03-09T11:29:14-06:00k293Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R302017-03-09T11:30:05-06:00k303Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So much corruption, not a single god-damned indictment.



The problem is that to get an indictment, the media needs to put pressure and spotlights on it.

Or else, no one will know. No one will care. No one will be mad at it!

And since they control the media, what hope do we have?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
Comeys callig out to the DOJ to refute Trumps claims, which they failed to do, would appear that the FISA warrant came straight from the DOJ and not the FBI.

stock upon popcorn, it is going to be a wild ride.


Great point there Rick, indeed I have a feeling that
if there were comments from Comey to the DOJ, they
were not supposed to be made public and then someone
leaked the twisted version to spin it in favor of the other side.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou




And since they control the media, what hope do we have?
How about we play our Trump card ...It worked on the Benghazi Witch .It seems to be working towards the 20th ...



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

McCain bought out by Soros... Rubio gang of 8, Reid self explanatory Feinstein same



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join