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 Wiretap Confirmed "Incidental Collection" Becomes the Scapegoat for the Lying Media

page: 24
113
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: IamALWAYSright
a reply to: SBMcG

He's a transparent snake oil salesman. Only the most feeble minded are still buying what he's selling.


All Politicians are transparent snake oil salesman




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Martin75

That does not seem to address "unmasking" of names of US persons which are incidentally intercepted.


Ok it was half right. Its not illegal to unmask BUT it IS illegal to leak it since its classified material. And that is why it is purged because it is classified info.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Annee

Well apparently there are no standards when Trump is involved on both sides.


Not sure what that means.

Trump is self serving and a bully with a childish mentality. He seems to believe he can live and do by his own rules. He's a complete amateur at this level in this arena.

While, I'd say, all "higher ups" are self serving to a degree - - - professional politicians - - - know the "game" and adhere closer to the rules within that game.

As far as over all surveillance - - must we still live in naivety and denial - - - that this is a regular occurrence?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Yes. We know the leak about Flynn was illegal. But this is what you said:

There is such a thing called LAW and we have to follow it. It was against the law to unmask the names of the US citizens in said intelligence. remember the law is about SPECIFICS and Not Personal feelings.


I wonder about the "leak" to Nunes.

edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


Yes. We know the leak about Flynn was illegal...
I wonder about the "leak" to Nunes.

What you don't seem to wonder about is the implications of privacy abuse and the misuse of "national security" as a device for corruption. Are you American?
edit on 23-3-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

I don't talk to Russian ambassadors much, but I am a US citizen.

I see no implication of widespread abuse, at this point. But I do think that the leaker should be pursued and prosecuted.

edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Yes. We know the leak about Flynn was illegal. But this is what you said:

There is such a thing called LAW and we have to follow it. It was against the law to unmask the names of the US citizens in said intelligence. remember the law is about SPECIFICS and Not Personal feelings.


I wonder about the "leak" to Nunes.


Clarification needed eh? I would edit it to onclude this new info but... Any my amended post would be thus.

There is such a thing as LAW and we have to follow it. IT was NOT against the law to Unmask the names in said intelligence BUT it is Illegal to release them to the public and or leak them after they are un masked. Remember th elaw is about SPecifics and not personal feelings.

There we go all amended.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I don't talk to Russian ambassadors much, but I am a US citizen.

I see no implication of widespread abuse, at this point. But I do think that the leaker should be pursued and prosecuted.


Or potentially leakers... all of them should be found and punished.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I don't talk to Russian ambassadors much, but I am a US citizen.

I see no implication of widespread abuse, at this point. But I do think that the leaker should be pursued and prosecuted.


20 people have the power to do it. so its a short list to investigate in reality.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

You seem to be confusing unmasking with leaking.
Again.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I don't talk to Russian ambassadors much, but I am a US citizen.

I see no implication of widespread abuse, at this point. But I do think that the leaker should be pursued and prosecuted.


Or potentially leakers... all of them should be found and punished.

Sure.
Including the (apparent) leak to Nunes. Right?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I don't talk to Russian ambassadors much, but I am a US citizen.

I see no implication of widespread abuse, at this point. But I do think that the leaker should be pursued and prosecuted.


Or potentially leakers... all of them should be found and punished.

Sure.
Including the (apparent) leak to Nunes. Right?


Nunes is authorised to see the information, so the person who gave Nunes the information is in the clear.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I suppose.

Odd it wasn't presented to the committee though. Still hasn't been as far as I can tell.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Including the (apparent) leak to Nunes. Right?

Whether true or not too early to tell, but I believe Nunes indicated he received the information legally. Maybe too early to call it a "leak."

Hell, if it was info that was disseminated far and wide then that makes it being brought to Nunes attention something less than a leak it would also seem and. rather, evidence of illegal acts perpetrated on American citizens to include the President of the United States.

I wanna see everyone lay their cards on the table: Evidence, or lack thereof, of collusion AND evidence, or lack thereof, of illegal misuse of the national security apparatus.

As of now, the evidence seems much stronger for the latter. Game on.
edit on 23-3-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I suppose.

Odd it wasn't presented to the committee though. Still hasn't been as far as I can tell.


It's my understanding it was presented to the entire committee. Each member got the same letter.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: annabanana




It's my understanding it was presented to the entire committee. Each member got the same letter.

Your source?
Because everything I've heard says different.

Nunes on Wednesday told reporters and the White House that he had learned from a source that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of Trump’s transition team and then “widely disseminated” the information internally.

But Democrats on the committee were blindsided, as were many Republicans.

thehill.com...



SCHIFF: No, I don't. I've certainly talked to the chairman, but whatever information he has reviewed he hasn't provided to the committee, not his own members, certainly not our members. So at this point, the only people who do know are the chairman and the president.

www.npr.org...
edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: annabanana




It's my understanding it was presented to the entire committee. Each member got the same letter.

Your source?
Because everything I've heard says different.

Nunes on Wednesday told reporters and the White House that he had learned from a source that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of Trump’s transition team and then “widely disseminated” the information internally.

But Democrats on the committee were blindsided, as were many Republicans.

thehill.com...



SCHIFF: No, I don't. I've certainly talked to the chairman, but whatever information he has reviewed he hasn't provided to the committee, not his own members, certainly not our members. So at this point, the only people who do know are the chairman and the president.

www.npr.org...


You may well be correct, the intel committee does act like they were clueless.
And I'm sorry but I'm unable to add further links at this time...but seems I remember seeing the "distribution list" of all the committee members' names when I read the copy of the letter that had been sent to Nunes.
Here is the link to the letter itself. Pages 5-8

www.freedomwatchusa.org...


edit on 23-3-2017 by annabanana because: added link

edit on 23-3-2017 by annabanana because: added page #s



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes Phage that is Odd how Adam Schiff knew what was in the document that was not presented to the committee, Very very odd...



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

What?
All he knew, like us, is what Nunes said.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thedigirati

What?
All he knew, like us, is what Nunes said.


He seemed very concerned saying the President needs to see this straightaway like it was urgent.



new topics




 
113
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join