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: 27
113
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mkultra11


Sure you can get the Trump "lied" in his tweet points because essentially that what his haters care about.
You were wrong. Right?


I think he was saying that he doesn't obsess over 140 characters and instead chooses to look at the bigger picture.
You should try it. It helps one gain perspective.
edit on 26/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah. Because what the president says doesn't matter. Because it doesn't matter if he accuses someone of a crime because he read an article in the MSM, which everyone knows, lies.


edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Well, there you have it folks. Trumps wires were tapped. Plain as day. Incidental collection is part of the terminology used for executing FISA warrants. As the FISA court is unable to authorize wiretapping of American Citizens, those communications must be incidental and are supposed to be minimalized and deleted. So basically Trump was 100% correct about this.



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


LINK

NUNES CONFIRMS THIS WAS DONE WITH A FISA WARRANT LINK< br />
ETA: The FISA warrant will be coming out Friday. Left is about to get REKT.


March 25, 2017

Interesting "back story" here....

""Hours before the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee announced his shocking claims about surveillance of the Trump transition team on Wednesday morning, he practically disappeared.

Rep. Devin Nunes was traveling with a senior committee staffer in an Uber on Tuesday evening when he received a communication on his phone. After the message, Nunes left the car abruptly, leaving his own staffer in the dark about his whereabouts.

By the next morning, Nunes hastily announced a press conference. His own aides, up to the most senior level, did not know what their boss planned to say next. Nunes’ choice to keep senior staff out of the loop was highly unusual.""

Full Story: www.thedailybeast.com...

You think Nunes hopped out of the UBER car and met with a "deep throat" informer in another car?


One can easily speculate that it was a call from some kind of inside source with sown relevant information . I'm tired of the secrecy and unnamed sources. I don't trust the media to tell us the truth and I just can't trust the FBI in that I get the notion that once they investigate something the control the information and basically hide it from the American people.


Since the first Nunes statement on the "new" evidence, I have suspected that there was an inside source -- perhaps a former Obama official.

Whatever it is, something spooked Nunes so badly on Tuesday that he felt compelled to pay President Trump a visit before even informing his own committee.


It all seems like a game to me or a tug of war within in the intel agencies. The reaction to Nunes's statement by his democratic adversaries were harsh. Having no trust in any of them, it's hard to conclude anything until we get the solid evidence. We can only speculate. He said it had nothing to do with Russians, it was legal and was allegedly "incidental." Hearing "incidental" leads me to believe more surveillance was made than needed. Considering the political climate, we can maybe assume that they went fishing on Trump's circle to get some "dirt." It sounds like collateral damage for surveillance, but he did say not damaging to Trump. Nunes used the word disturbed or something like that, so that's seems...disturbing.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mkultra11


Sure you can get the Trump "lied" in his tweet points because essentially that what his haters care about.
You were wrong. Right? Trump did say his phone was tapped by Obama. Right?



I'll take the overall truth that he and his administration was under surveillance which includes phone, email, texts, etc.. and was illegally disseminated.
The only illegal dissemination I know of was the leak of Flynn's conversation. How do you know that came from the Obama admin?


1-No, I wasn't. I was basing it off of Trump initial tweet, but there you go he said later said phones. It's a moot point. It does nothing to dispute my main point so I'll take your response as a concession.

2-So we agree that there was illegal dissemination by someone in intel to the media. I never claimed to know it was the Obama administration, but let's look at it.

-Obama administration implemented the most robust and intrusive surveillance in modern American history and his administration has already been proven to abuse their authority regarding surveillance. Source

-The supposed most transparent administration ever under Obama, was actually the most secretive: "...spent over $36 million on FOIA lawsuits to keep its files secret and granted less than a quarter of public requests for government files in its last year in office." Source

-According to Rogers & Comey, There are roughly 20 people at the NSA that under request can unmask a confidential wiretap and more than that within the FBI. Unless they went rogue, this would be done under request. Those who have the power to request an unmasking Obama his appointees such as Clapper, Rice, Lynch, Yates as confirmed and I don't know the names of anyone else other than say Obama himself maybe? Source

-The you have the the beloved "main stream media " who break the stories with unnamed sources:

Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow

-Then Sally Yates comes up



Sally Q. Yates, an Obama appointee held over as acting attorney general until Mr. Trump’s choice was confirmed, concluded that the disparity between what was said on the call and what Mr. Flynn had evidently told the vice president and others about it might make the new national security adviser vulnerable to blackmail.


Source

There's just one name consistently appearing in all of these and it's Obama. Do you have anything to convince me otherwise up to now?


edit on 26-3-2017 by mkultra11 because: Added source



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mkultra11


Sure you can get the Trump "lied" in his tweet points because essentially that what his haters care about.
You were wrong. Right?


I think he was saying that he doesn't obsess over 140 characters and instead chooses to look at the bigger picture.
You should try it. It helps one gain perspective.


TV news showed a "tweet" that Hillary Clinton put out after the Healthcare bill exploded. The darn thing looked like it was at least 200 WORDS. Does she have a Twitter Waiver or something?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11

It's a moot point.
Why is it moot? Your claim was false. Right? You stressed that Trump never said Obama had tapped his phone. Right? You seemed to think that was an important "fact". Right?



I never claimed to know it was the Obama administration, but let's look at it.
Okay, lets....

Fine, maybe it was former member of the Obama adminstration who leaked the Flynn information. Who knows? Bust 'em.

Do you have anything which indicates that the conversation was captured via direct surveillance of Trump Tower or Flynn?

Do you have anything which confirms "Trump Wiretap?" Because what Nunes came up with sure as hell doesn't. He said so himself.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mkultra11


Sure you can get the Trump "lied" in his tweet points because essentially that what his haters care about.
You were wrong. Right?


I think he was saying that he doesn't obsess over 140 characters and instead chooses to look at the bigger picture.
You should try it. It helps one gain perspective.


Yes, thank you. His tweets are like fingernails screeching on a chalkboard to people the dislike him. I don't obsess over him and just want to look at the big picture instead of bickering about if Trump lied or not in a tweet. I actually really don't like that he tweets so much, but I think he only does because of the reaction it causes, good or bad. I don't follow him on twitter or anything. The only way to stop it is if Twitter goes out of business. Maybe that would be a good thing for everyone.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mkultra11

It's a moot point.
Why is it moot? Your claim was false. Right?



I never claimed to know it was the Obama administration, but let's look at it.
Okay, lets....

Fine, maybe it was former member of the Obama adminstration who leaked the Flynn information. Who knows? Bust 'em.

Do you have anything which indicates that the conversation was captured via direct surveillance of Trump Tower or Flynn?

Do you have anything which confirms "Trump Wiretap?" Because what Nunes came up with sure as hell doesn't. He said so himself.



Just as I thought, you are a waste of time to discuss this with. You asked and I answered your question:


The only illegal dissemination I know of was the leak of Flynn's conversation. How do you know that came from the Obama admin?


and you have nothing to offer in return.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11


You asked and I answered your question:
With...a bunch of quotes which really didn't support your point.
Nevertheless, I responded:

Fine, maybe it was former member of the Obama adminstration who leaked the Flynn information. Who knows? Bust 'em.


Making your statement:

and you have nothing to offer in return.
False. Again.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
WHAT's AHEAD FOR THIS WEEK..when it comes to the Spy-Wiretap-Unmasking-Russian investigations and/or evidence? So far, a lot of guessing and accusations...but nothing warranting criminal charges. Right?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust
Not that we know of.
Unless they bust the Flynn leaker.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust
Not that we know of.
Unless they bust the Flynn leaker.


Would that be significant? Some disgruntled analyst jailed. (yawn...)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

If it's a holdover from the Obama admin? Of course it's significant.

A new guy? Nah.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

If it's a holdover from the Obama admin? Of course it's significant.

A new guy? Nah.


Trump fired an Obama holdover assistant-AG for refusing to enforce his first Travel Ban. There are employees like her in every government agency. Finding and firing them isn't "significant". But I guess that depends on what "significant" means to you.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

What any bureaucrat does is not significant.
Unless I'm trying to get something stamped.

I joke. Of course.

edit on 3/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

What any bureaucrat does is not significant.
Unless I'm trying to get something stamped.

I joke. Of course.


Yeah..when it's close to home, it matters.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
March 31, 2017 ****Breaking News!****

THIS IS YUGE! Nothing "Incidental" about it.

1) Surveillance targeting the Trump team during the Obama administration began months ago, even before the president had become the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials, but he said they were not the sources of any information.

MORE AT: www.wnd.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Watergate huge?

Obama the spy legacy?
edit on 1-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
March 31, 2017 ****Breaking News!****

THIS IS YUGE! Nothing "Incidental" about it.

1) Surveillance targeting the Trump team during the Obama administration began months ago, even before the president had become the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials, but he said they were not the sources of any information.

MORE AT: www.wnd.com...


The media are doing their level best to deflect from this. They ignore the information when it suits, preferring to focus on 'who gave the information' and then switch to focus on the information and ignoring the leakers when it suits. The Flynn witch hunt is all about what he said to Kislyak and how much money he received from lobbying, with no airtime given to who spied on him. Contrast that with Nunes.. all about who gave him the information.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: carewemust

Watergate huge?

Obama the spy legacy?



Much bigger than Watergate.





top topics



 
113
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join