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: 29
93
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Heh. Can't argue with that... I can't wait until Hollywood buys the movies rights.




posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xtrozero
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.


Flynn was incidental, his name wasn't masked as this incidental information went up the chain, the information was then fed to the Washington post...

Come on dude.... lol

When the names are not masked and people see that information that should not see it because of political reasons it is no longer incidental information...it is now Watergate level crap.
edit on 24-3-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Like I said. Wishful thinking. All incidents of incidental collection discussed by Nunes yesterday refer to an incident from 3 years ago. So you are conflating what Nunes said with an angle you wish will be pursued and has smoke behind it. Yet there is no one singling that Flynn's name was demasked illegally. Though if you want to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to read a source that is suggesting the investigation is investigating if Flynn's name was demasked illegally.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Heh. Can't argue with that... I can't wait until Hollywood buys the movies rights.


Black Mirror seems to have done some prediction with their Waldo the Blue Bear episode. That was totally Trumps campaign, minus the f-bombs into a microphone.

I'd love to see them pick a few things out of current affairs and run with it. THey need to do a 2 hour "Orwellian Future" episode.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xtrozero

Like I said. Wishful thinking. All incidents of incidental collection discussed by Nunes yesterday refer to an incident from 3 years ago. So you are conflating what Nunes said with an angle you wish will be pursued and has smoke behind it. Yet there is no one singling that Flynn's name was demasked illegally. Though if you want to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to read a source that is suggesting the investigation is investigating if Flynn's name was demasked illegally.


Could you please link where it states what Nunes talked about was from 3 years ago. I could of swore he stated during the transition.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So could you please put up a link to showing what Nunes was talking about this week was from stuff 3 years ago ???



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No, it's not. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded.

Let's say I tapped your boss's phone. Your boss's phone was being constantly monitored under a totally legal and legitimate warrant as part of an investigation.

You call and talk to your boss.

Since your boss's telephone conversations are being monitored and/or recorded, does that somehow mean you are being 'tapped". Was YOUR phone line specifically being constantly monitored?

No, of course not. This isn't parsing words. If I have a video camera pointed at my front door and someone walks by and they're recorded, would you make the ludicrous claim I had that person under surveillance? No, of course not. That person isn't the target.

Point blank, Trump's own phone lines weren't being monitored or recorded.
edit on 24-3-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu
There is also the situation where, if your boss said over his shoulder while talking on the phone, "Hey Fred, bring me that Rubble file." Which more and more seems like what the "smoking gun" may mostly consist of. "US persons" mentioned in monitored conversations.


edit on 3/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There is also the situation where the New York Times
publishes a Headline that reads:
Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides




posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Yes. That's sort of obvious. How can you monitor phone conversations without a wiretap?

What's your point? Does the article say that Trump's phone was tapped? Who's phones does it say were tapped?

edit on 3/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

What's your point? Does the article say that Trump's phone was tapped? Who's phones does it say were tapped?


My point is you do not remember anything
you say on the boards.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships




Either they printed falsehoods as truth, or they are right.


Please show where the New York Times claimed that anyone tapped Trump's phones.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Didn't I just repeat that request?

Does the article say that Trump's phone was tapped?

edit on 3/25/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

Didn't I just repeat that request?


Are you losing your mind?


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships




You named them. I never said they reported a wiretap.

No. Trump named them as one of the "sources" for his claim. But, see, The Times never said anything resembling his claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Are you losing your mind?

No.

I will ask again. Does the article say that Trump's phones were tapped?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

The article specifically says:

It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself.


The answer to phage's question is no. He already knows that of course. The question is rhetorical.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




The question is rhetorical.


It was more of a quiz.

edit on 3/25/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Does the article say that Trump's phones were tapped?


The headline does, to which you wrongly denied.

Full article.










edit on 25-3-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Okey dokey.
Because, as we all know, headlines are the only thing the president is capable of reading (badly).

I failed to take that into consideration. Mea culpa.

edit on 3/25/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Even the headline says "Trump aides" not "Trump". Then the article says that the NYT didn't know if Trump was targeted.

So no, neither the title nor the content of the article say that Trump's phones were tapped.


edit on 25-3-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

You are technincally correct.

But that isn't how people would commonly understand that term prior to 2 weeks ago when it became a part of the national spotlight. Prior to the mobilization of talking points that educated the public on the difference. So now, 2 weeks later, we all have the benefit of this education.

Comey and Gowdy cover this:


COMEY: Can I -- can I just add a response to what you said? I agree with you, Mr. Gowdy. Two things folks at home should know; first, an unauthorized disclosure of FISA is an extraordinarily unusual event so be assured we're going to take it very seriously because our trust, the American people, and the federal judges that oversee our work, is vital.

And second, that this conversation has nothing to do with 702. Folks often mix them together. 702 is about targeting non-U.S. persons overseas. Pursuant to the FISA statute, the FBI can apply to collect electronic surveillance in the United States but it's a different thing from 702. The conversation you and I are just having is about this which is vital and important, but I just didn't want to leave folks confused.

GOWDY: Director Comey, you are 100 percent correct and I am 100 percent correct in saying that that is a distinction that doesn't make a difference to most of the people watching television. You are exactly correct. What we are reauthorizing this fall has nothing to do with what we are discussing other than it is another government program where the people consent to allow government to pursue certain things with the explicit promise it will be protected.

So you're right, they're different but in the eyes of people watching, it is the U.S. government officials' leaking the name of a U.S. citizen and if it can happen here, it may happen there. Trust me, you and I both want to see it reauthorized. It is in jeopardy if we don't get this resolved


Im sure you can find a transcript source (my browser is acting up, and changing tabs is giving me trouble), but if not, i can link up later.

Point being: you are making technical distinctions that, prior to this whole circus, the overwhelming majority of people would have been ignorant to.

For whatever its worth, I view it as an inarguable point. Other words that get misused similarly, by people who similarly (and commonly) do not know better:

- "clip". Other than the M1 Garand (and a few guns similar), guns to not use "clips". They use "magazines".
- Xerox. A ubiquistus term for "photocopy". Falling out of use....but not among older people.
- theory. To the average person a theory is a plausible guess. To a scientist, its actually testable.







 
93
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join