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: 9
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Just when I think the Obama/Clinton Alt-Left can't get anymore disgusting, they prove me wrong.

This is the kind of third world banana republic shenanigans one would expect from an ideology that is based upon confiscating the wealth of others, fake equality, and telling others how they should think.

Of course, I am a middle-age, educated, financially-comfortable, gun-owning, Constitution-believing, straight White man who lives on property in the country, so I'm automatically a "racist/fascist/____phobe" to these sub-literate hate-fueled dimwits.

I swear to Christ -- the more the Average Joe finds out about this Alt-Left collusion to rig the election the more they're going to turn on the already imploding Democrat Party.




posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
My post explained why I would bring the Clinton investigation into this thread. If there is a connection between the two, it needs to be discussed. But then I don't need to explain that to the likes of you.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: apydomis




it seems that they were sharing information with Clinton while simultaneously investigating her. So that would shed some light on the investigation itself being a total sham.
You need to get it firmly in your mind that there are two (investigations) Hillary's which is not a part of this thread and the "one" into the Trump/Russia connections ,..which plays into this thread .

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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

And they can share the contents of those briefings with the Public?




A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August.

www.nbcnews.com...

So I am still not getting it?

Both candidates were getting detailed classified intelligence briefings on the Russian DNC hacks by the intelligence community starting in August.

What is the revelation?


For starters it would be nice to know how Mook knew about it. He had no clearing.



????

You really should read once in a while...here you go again...



A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August.

www.nbcnews.com...


Yes, so we're back to the original OP, before the deflection that Hillary was briefed as part of her intelligence briefings.
With that out of the way, we're back to the IC sharing information with the public about the investigation, whilst it was still running.

Mook said definitively, not reportedly, or apparently or anything that would suggest he is guessing:


"Trump aides were caught talking to Russian agents, and those conversations were captured because the intelligence community regularly taps the phone lines of those Russian agents," Mook said.

"The whole situation is very bizarre that American campaign operatives would be going back and forth so much, not only with the Russian ambassador but other Russian agents as well,"

"The whole reason we are having this conversation is [because] the Trump campaign was talking to the Russians a lot. That's how this got picked up. We need to understand why this was happening."


How does he know such facts? He must have been told either by the IC directly or by Clinton leaking the information from her intelligence briefings.

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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
So, when Obama kicked out the Russians in late December 2016, he was doing damage control. If they were not here on US soil they could not get caught in a net and talk!



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: daveinats
So, when Obama kicked out the Russians in late December 2016, he was doing damage control. If they were not here on US soil they could not get caught in a net and talk!


Man, that is a truly thought-provoking comment and has a total ring of truth to it.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: apydomis




But then I don't need to explain that to the likes of you.
But you did ...which makes me wonder what other conflicts you may have going on .



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Relative to the FISA warrant issue, I may have this wrong but believe that the warrant is only applicable to either US Citizens, or someone within the geographical borders of the US. If the Ambassador is in his embassy, I believe that's sovereign Russian territory, so no warrant is needed. However, if it is a mobile device, and will be used on US territory, I believe a warrant would be necessary. Also, "monitoring" can mean a lot of different things.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

That's his point. If their goal was to monitor other Russian actors, no warrant would be needed. The claim was this was to monitor Russian actors they routinely monitor ... so why the warrant?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This from the large tweet thread ..a must watch



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   



I think the first would be, was the campaign told about this as part of a security/intelligence briefing?

It seems reasonable to assume that Trump's campaign was also told about this and it does not appear that Mook said anything that would indicate the information they were given was earth shattering.



No, I didn't take your words out of context. You seem to think these kind of briefings are normal. Secondly, the disclosure of intelligence by an intelligence agency to benefit a political candidate in favor of another IS earth shattering. Finally, why is it reasonable to assume Trump's campaign was also told about this? You talk a nice game, but you're clearly biased. All of your "reasonable assumptions" clearly focus on diluting the issue at hand by suggesting normalcy or equal participation, based on absolutely nothing. SNIP
edit on 3/9/2017 by Blaine91555 because: Personal insult directed at a member removed.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151



No, I didn't take your words out of context. You seem to think these kind of briefings are normal.


Did you read what I posted? I started with a question. Was the campaign told about this as part of a security/intelligence briefing?

If so, I would think the Trump campaign would also have been briefed on the same info.



Secondly, the disclosure of intelligence by an intelligence agency to benefit a political candidate in favor of another IS earth shattering.


Is that what happened here? Mook did not say what is claimed.



Finally, why is it reasonable to assume Trump's campaign was also told about this?


I would think the info shared with the campaign in those briefings would be very similar in nature.



You talk a nice game, but you're clearly biased. All of your "reasonable assumptions" clearly focus on diluting the issue at hand by suggesting normalcy or equal participation, based on absolutely nothing.


I'm not trying to dilute the issue. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. To do so, we may have to ask tough questions to get the right answers.



You might speak better than Krazysh0t, but you're just as obviously biased.


That's uncalled for.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to reporting, I believe the first FISA warrant request named Trump within the warrant and it was rejected. The second one came a few months down the road but not sure who the target was. Either way, I don't actually think "Russians" were the target. I think they wanted definitive evidence that people around Trump were colluding with Russia during the campaign. But this brings up another curious point, why would Mook even mention any of this to the media? Why would an intelligence official be discussing any of this with the Clinton campaign? FISA warrants and any evidence they may gather is considered secret and proceeding court documents are usually sealed from public view. Federal agencies are not required to notify you if they have you under surveillance with a FISA warrant. This whole thing just raises eyebrows.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Has anyone actually listened to the Fox and Friends interview with Mook?

The only two relevant pieces to this thread's contention are listed below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beginning at time stamp 1:34 (hand transcribed)

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.





Let me highlight the relevant part of that.

"Thats what the intelligence agencies has told us"

Yep thats what he said. The intelligence agencies told us. So he was part of a group told by intelligence agencies that "There was a wiretap of Russian agents, and the agents were communicating with Trump staff ... that's why they were picked up."

Can you show me where the intelligence agencies have publicly said that?

(Note that this claim was very specific, he was part of a group told that there was a wiretap of russian agents that were communicating with Trumps staff. Not a broad "well we are always tapping russians" claim.)

If not, mook is admitting he was part of a group that was told this classified information.

Now he goes on to say that it was widely reported, but he says that is in addition to him being told by intelligence agencies.

If you can find evidence of intelligence agencies publicly stating that, then I will agree with you that this was taken out of context.

Otherwise, when he says they told "us", he is admitting that he was part of a group informed by intelligence agencies about this classified information.





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



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I tried to do my due diligence here and read through this entire thread, so if the following question has already been asked and answered, my bad...

As the Democrat and Republican nominees, Bill Clinton's wife and future president Trump would have been entitled to receive identical national security briefings. My assumption is that when Mook admits the Clinton Campaign knew about the surveillance on "the Russians" it was from one of these briefings.

Wouldn't Trump have been given the same information?

If he was, he then would know that there was an investigation into Russian meddling or hacking.

That makes it even more ridiculous to continue to spread the laughably-dumb LIE that the Trump Campaign was colluding with "the Russians" to somehow affect the outcome of the election.

Even more idiotic is that Bill Clinton's wife and her goons are STILL claiming that somehow "the Russians" caused her to lose the election.

Yes, they are THAT dumb...



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
I tried to do my due diligence here and read through this entire thread, so if the following question has already been asked and answered, my bad...

As the Democrat and Republican nominees, Bill Clinton's wife and future president Trump would have been entitled to receive identical national security briefings. My assumption is that when Mook admits the Clinton Campaign knew about the surveillance on "the Russians" it was from one of these briefings.

Wouldn't Trump have been given the same information?

If he was, he then would know that there was an investigation into Russian meddling or hacking.

That makes it even more ridiculous to continue to spread the laughably-dumb LIE that the Trump Campaign was colluding with "the Russians" to somehow affect the outcome of the election.

Even more idiotic is that Bill Clinton's wife and her goons are STILL claiming that somehow "the Russians" caused her to lose the election.

Yes, they are THAT dumb...





There is no possible way the the intelligence agencies were doing an investigation into trumps team, and told trumps team that they had picked them up on wiretaps they had on Russians, while the investigation of trumps team continued.

The mere suggestions is asinine! Why would you tell the target of your investigation that you had evidence of them talking to Russians on wiretaps? Wouldn't that ruin any further intelligence that they would then want to collect?

If thats what happened, then every intelligence person involved should be fired for the grossest incompetence I have ever heard of before in law enforcement.

Information about Trump people on wiretaps should not have been shared with either Trump or Hillarys team. It is not relevant to a discussion of national security.

I am sure that both teams were updated about Russia hacking, but this does not mean they were told about having Trumps people on wiretaps.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, that's what he said, your interpretation is completely skewed. He said nothing about any group he was part of, and he's very clear that "us" is the American public as he follows up with "that's what's been reported widely" in the same sentence. We have been told that for several months ... we the American public.

No, he didn't say or imply that he was part of any group other than the public.

Did he say "during the campaign" or "as part of a security briefing"? Nope.

Did you listen to the interview? The context is clear.

Other than that believe what you wish. Your entire thread is predicated on something that didn't happen; you read second hand biased reports, got excited, and made the thread.

Anyone can listen to the interview ... anyone interested in the facts of this matter should do so.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   


Even more Ironic is how the media in question seems ok without any factual evidence on what they are reporting.


They have been doing this for months, so why should that be a surprise?




top topics



 
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join