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.

 

The President Lied To The American People Again. When Will Enough Be Enough?

page: 28
93
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Gonna just leave this little link right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...




JUST IN: Devin Nunes says President Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through "incidental collection"

You know that is 100% legal right?


Yes, but the OP said the POTUS lied to us and lied that he was being wiretapped. Whether intentional or not, it happened.

Trump wasn't wiretapped. Incidental collection means that someone ELSE was wiretapped and they happened to call someone in Trump Tower. And even if you seriously stretch the definition of what is and isn't being wiretapped, Trump STILL lied because he implied with his tweets that this wiretapping incident was illegal and a conspiracy on par with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Which still isn't true.


Come on do you really believe that? This whole story is just a cop-out to cover their butts. You could be right but I don't believe anyone anymore. Quite sad really.




posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Damn right I believe it. It's not my butt on the line for it being true or false. It's Trumps. Therefore I have no reason to doubt the things being said. If you don't want to believe then just tune everything out. Why even bother paying attention? Nothing released will change your mind anyways.
edit on 24-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Gonna just leave this little link right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...




JUST IN: Devin Nunes says President Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through "incidental collection"

You know that is 100% legal right?


Yes, but the OP said the POTUS lied to us and lied that he was being wiretapped. Whether intentional or not, it happened.

Trump wasn't wiretapped. Incidental collection means that someone ELSE was wiretapped and they happened to call someone in Trump Tower. And even if you seriously stretch the definition of what is and isn't being wiretapped, Trump STILL lied because he implied with his tweets that this wiretapping incident was illegal and a conspiracy on par with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Which still isn't true.


That is a parsing of words, for what its worth. Gowdy even mentions it. To the average person, if you have recorded their call, you have tapped their lines. This is just the way people talk. Until the last week or so, anyway.

It doesn't address him blaming NYT and Fox....but it does adress the term "wiretap" in the common vernacular.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here's the thing. Politically and legally, words and their definitions MATTER. It isn't about common vernacular or what most people believe. It is about the precise definition of the words being used. And not to mention, if you run with this angle it still doesn't excuse Trump of declaring this incident to be illegal, because if he was truly talking about a case of incidental collection then it wasn't illegal.
edit on 24-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
FFS.

Okay, let's give Mr. T the benefit of the doubt.

"Obama surveilled me in Trump Tower."

STILL NO EVIDENCE.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
FFS.

Okay, let's give Mr. T the benefit of the doubt.

"Obama surveilled me in Trump Tower."

STILL NO EVIDENCE.


No need to get frustrated my friend.

Im only urging truth. "Lie" is inflammatory. And is kind of a misuse of the word. I'd hate to see another word end up like "racist" and e left utterly meaningless from overuse and misuse.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here's the thing. Politically and legally, words and their definitions MATTER. It isn't about common vernacular or what most people believe. It is about the precise definition of the words being used. And not to mention, if you run with this angle it still doesn't excuse Trump of declaring this incident to be illegal, because if he was truly talking about a case of incidental collection then it wasn't illegal.


This feels too much like "no real scotsman" to me.

Words are words. Just because some stuffy assholes in DC want to use them for majick does not mean I have to agree with it. And lets not mince words: law is nothing more than majick, incantations created by the modern priest class: lawyers. Only lawyers know the spells and incantations to become head of the priest class. The profane, the unwashed and uninitiated have not place.

Come one, man. Man invented language for common use in day to day life. I know what the lawyers say. I think they are all FOS. Its part of why people voted for Trump: he spoke plainly to them. Didn't let the plastic coat his tongue. You have truck, not a sedan. Of course it operates differently



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Considering how quick people are to label a news story they don't like as "fake news" I think it may already be a bit too late for that.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Trump wasn't wiretapped. Incidental collection means that someone ELSE was wiretapped and they happened to call someone in Trump Tower. And even if you seriously stretch the definition of what is and isn't being wiretapped, Trump STILL lied because he implied with his tweets that this wiretapping incident was illegal and a conspiracy on par with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Which still isn't true.


The problem is the incidental collection stops being incidental when that information is passed further up the chain with names still intact with the information that just happened to be Trumps's transition team. I think this is the direction it will all go that the incidental information not privily to the democrats by law became privily to them.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Why do you continue to ignore my point about how Trump was still wrong about this wiretapping incident being illegal on par with Watergate if he was truly talking about the incidental collection angle?
edit on 24-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Trump wasn't wiretapped. Incidental collection means that someone ELSE was wiretapped and they happened to call someone in Trump Tower. And even if you seriously stretch the definition of what is and isn't being wiretapped, Trump STILL lied because he implied with his tweets that this wiretapping incident was illegal and a conspiracy on par with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Which still isn't true.


The problem is the incidental collection stops being incidental when that information is passed further up the chain with names still intact with the information that just happened to be Trumps's transition team. I think this is the direction it will all go that the incidental information not privily to the democrats by law became privily to them.

No the PROBLEM is if masked names are unmasked without proper cause or need. That is the only case of illegality in a case of incidental collection. There is yet to be any indication that was the case though.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Trump wasn't wiretapped. Incidental collection means that someone ELSE was wiretapped and they happened to call someone in Trump Tower. And even if you seriously stretch the definition of what is and isn't being wiretapped, Trump STILL lied because he implied with his tweets that this wiretapping incident was illegal and a conspiracy on par with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Which still isn't true.


The problem is the incidental collection stops being incidental when that information is passed further up the chain with names still intact with the information that just happened to be Trumps's transition team. I think this is the direction it will all go that the incidental information not privily to the democrats by law became privily to them.

No the PROBLEM is if masked names are unmasked without proper cause or need. That is the only case of illegality in a case of incidental collection. There is yet to be any indication that was the case though.


A transcript of Flynn's phone calls was released to the press. It's a safe bet someone provided those details and unmasked Flynn, no?



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That unmasking was very clearly legal. Just because a name is unmasked doesn't mean it is illegal. Not to mention that the episode of "incidental collection" that Nunes was referring to has nothing to do with this Russian investigation. So Flynn's name being unmasked has nothing to do with what he was talking about.
edit on 24-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That unmasking was very clearly legal. Just because a name is unmasked doesn't mean it is illegal.


How was it clearly legal?
Who was it shared with?
edit on 24/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sure we'll find out when that information is declassified and they release the investigation report. But like I said, your point is irrelevant because Nunes was never questioning the unmasking of Flynn's name there.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No the PROBLEM is if masked names are unmasked without proper cause or need. That is the only case of illegality in a case of incidental collection. There is yet to be any indication that was the case though.


And so what if that information is used politically? You do not find that wrong? My point is I think this is the direction it will all go, you can agree or not, don't care. I do believe it has been stated officially that names that should have been masked were not masked. Flynn's name is just one that we know of.. do you really think this is that far fetched?



edit on 24-3-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've lost interest in the game of whack a mole it all became. Its obvious we are all being played as pawns by 2 powers that are manipulating everything.

If we are down to parsing granularity from a guy who talks out his ass, i have better things to do. Like brush up on my VBA.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

do you really think this is that far fetched?

Yes, because there is no one who matters saying any evidence is pointing in that direction. You can believe this all day, but at the end of the day there is no proof it will be true and is more or less just wishful thinking.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'd rather our government spent time doing something else too, but Trump brought it up and he won't drop it no matter how much he is proven wrong. Then with any little TINY bump in his argument he doubles down and grows more confident he is right even though the net evidence keeps building against him.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If nothing else, its giving lulz.
If you don't get emotionally invested in it.

To me, our country is screwed with the status quo. Because of the IC. And the IC is the "persistence file" that keeps it functioning regardless of who is or is not in the white house. This homogenizes our policies...which is not a bad thing in itself. Its that it now is spying on us, and lying to us.

Our media has never been great. But you can't tell me you haven't noticed the changed since Smith Mundt was repealed.




top topics



 
93
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join