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.

 

Trump Redeemed - No Russia Collusion and 2 Warrants

page: 15
92
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump is going down in flames! Quick! Deflect on to Hillary!




posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mictain
a reply to: UKTruth

One things for sure is that the people are not buying it. Trump approval ratings are plummeting, so the people are starting to awaken to what Trump and his admin are all bout.



Incorrect.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There were wiretaps.
The answers are tricky, and certain
circumstances overlap.

This gives lots of wiggle room.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump is going down in flames! Quick! Deflect on to Hillary!


NO !

NO !




posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships


This gives lots of wiggle room.


Trump needs all the wiggle room he can get. The only reason that he has not been the direct target of the investigation is because that would create the appearance that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies were dabbling in politics. By investigating people who came across their radar for having shady dealings with the Russians they are simply doing their job. Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burntheships


This gives lots of wiggle room.


Trump needs all the wiggle room he can get. The only reason that he has not been the direct target of the investigation is because that would create the appearance that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies were dabbling in politics. By investigating people who came across their radar for having shady dealings with the Russians they are simply doing their job. Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.



Why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened?


Chuckling at the absurdity of that statement.
Maybe he is denying the conspiracy theories because it's total BS and he knows there is no evidence. Just a thought.
edit on 22/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.


Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.


Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.


You are desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events. This is clearly an attempt to influence others. Please state, flat out, who you are trying to persuade and what you are trying to persuade them of. Your babbling is getting tedious and annoying, and you are virtually the only person contributing to this and several other threads.

Disclosure: I consider Donald Trump to be the first major global crisis of the twenty-first century. He is mentally ill, and in a position of great power. The United States is in the midst of a constitutional crisis because of this. Instability in the United States makes the whole world unsafe. We are on the verge of war with North Korea, something the Kremlin may not have anticipated.

I resent foreign powers manipulating our political process. It is not right when the United States meddles in banana republics, and it is not right when fascist states meddle here.

I am making a stand here on ATS. It is against T&C to call out other members, but don't think no-one has noticed that some of Trump's most ardent supporters here were most vocal in defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.


Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.


You are desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events. This is clearly an attempt to influence others. Please state, flat out, who you are trying to persuade and what you are trying to persuade them of. Your babbling is getting tedious and annoying, and you are virtually the only person contributing to this and several other threads.

Disclosure: I consider Donald Trump to be the first major global crisis of the twenty-first century. He is mentally ill, and in a position of great power. The United States is in the midst of a constitutional crisis because of this. Instability in the United States makes the whole world unsafe. We are on the verge of war with North Korea, something the Kremlin may not have anticipated.

I resent foreign powers manipulating our political process. It is not right when the United States meddles in banana republics, and it is not right when fascist states meddle here.

I am making a stand here on ATS. It is against T&C to call out other members, but don't think no-one has noticed that some of Trump's most ardent supporters here were most vocal in defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine.


You said this on another thread.. but back to the question...

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion?

Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?


Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?



Needless to say, I never made the statement you claim I did.
edit on 22-3-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?


Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?



Needless to say, I never made the statement you claim I did.


Lol, no answer then.
I figured you were just "desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events." when you said quote:



Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.


Classic case of being hoisted by your own petard.


edit on 22/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Lol, no answer then.


I gave you your answer. What part of "I never made the statement you claim I did" did you not understand, Troll? If you can't find where I made that statement, maybe we can add "liar" to your title. Speaking of answering questions: who are you trying to persuade? You are certainly not persuading any of the active participants on this thread. I have made my agenda perfectly clear. Yours is also perfectly clear, but you could at least have the pride to acknowledge it.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Lol, no answer then.


I gave you your answer. What part of "I never made the statement you claim I did" did you not understand, Troll? If you can't find where I made that statement, maybe we can add "liar" to your title. Speaking of answering questions: who are you trying to persuade? You are certainly not persuading any of the active participants on this thread. I have made my agenda perfectly clear. Yours is also perfectly clear, but you could at least have the pride to acknowledge it.





Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.


So' I'll ask again.

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So' I'll ask again.


Why? I have answered you twice.


Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion?



Show me where I said that, Troll. I pointed out that at least two members of his team claimed that they had no contacts with Russian agents. When it was proven they did, they stepped down. Why deny it if it was innocent? Why don't you answer that question?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So' I'll ask again.


Why? I have answered you twice.


Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion?



Show me where I said that, Troll. I pointed out that at least two members of his team claimed that they had no contacts with Russian agents. When it was proven they did, they stepped down. Why deny it if it was innocent? Why don't you answer that question?


I already did show you.



Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.


This isn't the mud pit by the way. I know you are upset, but hold on the personal stuff.
edit on 22/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I already did show you.


Then please link to where I said "Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be collusion," kind sir.
edit on 22-3-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


I already did show you.


Then please link to where I said that, kind sir.


Done. Three times.
Why not just back up up your wild claims, which looked like "desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events.", if you can?
edit on 22/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Once again, let's be clear. You keep dredging up a strawman, that I claimed somewhere that denying collusion is proof of collusion. You still have not done that. Instead, you keep dodging the issue of why Trump followers lied about having contact with the Russians.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
MoA has a new piece up that is a good read . It deals with

The DNC had called in Crowdstrike, a company led by a one Dimitry Alperovich, a Senior Fellow of the NATO aligned "think tank" Atlantic Council. After a short investigation Crowdstrike claimed to found intruding software on the DNC servers that, it says, has been exclusively used by Russian intelligence services. From there followed claims that "Russia hacked the U.S. elections".
When the DNC went public with the Crowdstrike claims the FBI never requested access to the servers to determine if a crime had been committed and to detect the culprit. Access to the servers had been informally denied by the DNC. The FBI simply followed (pdf), without any own forensic investigation of its own, the conclusions Crowdstrike had made.


That in itself was kind of questionable but Crowdstrike has been found to be fabricating another story .

Month later and in a different case the same Crowdstrike investigators claimed (pdf) that the artillery units of the Ukrainian army had had "excessive combat losses" of up to 80% in their fight with Ukrainian separatists. Crowdstrike asserted that Russian intelligence hacked an application used by the Ukrainians to aim their guns.

The hack, it was claimed, enabled well targeted counter-fire that then destroyed the Ukrainian guns. The author of the application denied that any such hacking had taken place. His software was provided only directly from him to Ukrainian army units. Independent cyber-security researchers also doubted the claims.


So when it comes to credibility and claims being verified then Crowdstrike pieces should be well salted

It seems that the whole "Ukrainian artillery hack" claims by Crowdstrike was simply made up. There was no "hack" and the claimed damage from the "hack" did not occur at all. Crowdstrike evidently found a "crime" and "Russian hacking" where none had happened. In the case of the DNC hacking Crowdstrike also alleged a "crime" and "Russian hacking". No hard evidence was ever provided for that claim, no competent police force ever investigated the crime scene and serious security researchers found that the Crowdstrike claims were likely taken from hot air.
www.moonofalabama.org...




top topics



 
92
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join