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.

 

FBI Director Comey confirms probe on Russian meddling in US election and Trump Team links

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

He declined to answer if a FISA court approved or denied a surveillance request ...
There is nothing classified about that info.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


Comey wouldn't squeal on himself, LOL.

Is that the best rebuttal you got?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I'm just curious how an investigation into the "Russians" and the Trump team or even President Trump himself occurs without ANY surveillance being done on Trump at all.

So they say in one breath they are "investigating" Trump and the Russians but find no proof of ANY surveillance at all..

So just what kind of investigation is this if they are investigating the subject....Weird..



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: gortex

You did know that Comey answered 2 questions as no , right ?
Did the Russians influence the election in the 3 given states : no
Did the Russians influence the election process : no

Should have ended there , but they have some very stupid folks digging trying to find anything
They have to try and preserve their precious Lefty Fascist Party and find some excuse for a Clinton loss
Poor , poor Hillary .......
Thats what it boils down to
Period
No soup for you....


Those are the questions that were asked and answered. The questions asked by Nunes that were answered "no" weren't about "influence of the election" but rather manipulation of vote tallies. This is nothing but conflation that amounts to a straw man argument.

There have been no serious claims that Russians hacked voting systems that I'm aware of.

I suspect that on some level you understand this but you're playing along, rather disingenuously, because you want it to be taken to mean that there is no evidence of Russian influnence/attempted influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Ummm thats was the questions....
Your posts are exponentially failing as time goes by...
Sounds a lot like a failed attempt at deflection



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Add this:


Rep. Adam Schiff said Monday that in addition to the existence of “circumstantial evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, there’s direct evidence of “deception.”
www.cbsnews.com...







From your source:



the California Democrat and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said that he couldn’t speak in detail about the circumstantial evidence, but he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.


So what's the circumstantial evidence?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.

Trump yelled that he was wiretapped. All the capslock you use in the world isn't going to change that.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I like this one




11:03 AM: Schiff begins asking Comey to comment on Trump’s tweets alleging Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower. Comey says there is no evidence to support Trump’s specific wording in those tweets.


no evidence to support Trump’s, "specific wording"

Damn I hate these people


Well you have to be specific. "wire taps" are very specific tech. they could has used signal capture instead of tapping the phone lines. they could had hacked the server and got the VOIP files. Theres more to it than simple tapping.
The word itself is HUGELY misleading if refrencing all spying.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.

Trump yelled that he was wiretapped. All the capslock you use in the world isn't going to change that.


Trump dont know the diffrence though does he? He i sOld school and as such was thinking they tapped his phone lines. Are you saying Trump is that smart? I thought you thought he was a idiot that coudn ttie his shoes. was i wrong? And I do nto "yell" with caps. i emphasize instead of bolding because bolding is a PAIN IN THE AZZ.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.

imo



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.

imo


Exactly correct. trump should had studied modern surveillance before shooting his mouth off this time and confusing himself and everyone else as to what a wiretap actually is.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.

Trump yelled that he was wiretapped. All the capslock you use in the world isn't going to change that.


Trump dont know the diffrence though does he? He i sOld school and as such was thinking they tapped his phone lines. Are you saying Trump is that smart? I thought you thought he was a idiot that coudn ttie his shoes. was i wrong? And I do nto "yell" with caps. i emphasize instead of bolding because bolding is a PAIN IN THE AZZ.

Well then Trump should learn the meaning of words, because words matter. The law isn't in the business of reading into someone's intentions. It interprets the words said and used. Though if you were to actually read all of Trump's tweets on this situation (besides just the one where he put wiretapping in quotes) you'll see that he very MUCH meant what he said about being wiretapped.

Here's one of them:

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

I'm sorry but if you get "general surveillance" out of that tweet then you aren't being intellectually honest.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.

imo

Hmmm... Now what's worse Trump being a liar or Trump being what you just said? I don't think I'd like either answer...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: gortex

You did know that Comey answered 2 questions as no , right ?
Did the Russians influence the election in the 3 given states : no
Did the Russians influence the election process : no

Should have ended there , but they have some very stupid folks digging trying to find anything
They have to try and preserve their precious Lefty Fascist Party and find some excuse for a Clinton loss
Poor , poor Hillary .......
Thats what it boils down to
Period
No soup for you....


Those are the questions that were asked and answered. The questions asked by Nunes that were answered "no" weren't about "influence of the election" but rather manipulation of vote tallies. This is nothing but conflation that amounts to a straw man argument.

There have been no serious claims that Russians hacked voting systems that I'm aware of.

I suspect that on some level you understand this but you're playing along, rather disingenuously, because you want it to be taken to mean that there is no evidence of Russian influnence/attempted influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election.


With this in mind, I sincerely have to ask, what is this all about?


Either Obama is an idiot, or the FBI is chasing ghosts. But you can't have to both ways.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: gortex

He declined to answer if a FISA court approved or denied a surveillance request ...
There is nothing classified about that info.

You are correct
This would be very bad for obama



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I'm just curious how an investigation into the "Russians" and the Trump team or even President Trump himself occurs without ANY surveillance being done on Trump at all.

So they say in one breath they are "investigating" Trump and the Russians but find no proof of ANY surveillance at all..

So just what kind of investigation is this if they are investigating the subject....Weird..


Exactly. U got it. I see this being a calculated verbal gymnastics show by the Dems and the crooked factions of the intelligence community.

They're preying on the fact that so much of the population thinks Trump is off his rocker with his surveillance claim. They figure if they can publicly snub him, nobody will look deeper into how they're so sure Russian interference occurred.

It's bull.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa



they could had hacked the server and got the VOIP files.


Or, they could have subpoenaed them.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.

imo

Hmmm... Now what's worse Trump being a liar or Trump being what you just said? I don't think I'd like either answer...


I certainly didn't mean to imply he's not a liar!



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz

No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.


In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.

imo


Exactly correct. trump should had studied modern surveillance before shooting his mouth off this time and confusing himself and everyone else as to what a wiretap actually is.

The best and most intellectually accurate post so far



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



So what's the circumstantial evidence?


I think we already know some of it, but:

he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join