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.

 

Sara Carter Is Back And She Lets On That Trump Wiretap Traces To The top

page: 13
86
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again. Flynn's name should have never been exposed.




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

lol, I read all of them except the WSJ article. What's the scandal?


Did I say there was a scandal?

Nope.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Yet you've also admitted to not having the solid legal grounds to make a case here since you said it cannot be proven empirically. Looks like bias to me.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again...

Obama was president. He either knew about the "wiretapping" and illegal dissemination of the intelligence collected or he didn't. If he knew about it, he was in on it. If he didn't, he's even more clueless than I thought.

Your opinion on his intelligence isn't really a valid rebuttal against him being guilty. It seriously looks like you have only left room in your head for one possibility here and ALL evidence must fit that possibility or be ignored.
edit on 26-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Being that all of it is classified, yeah, all we have to go on here is media reports. We're not going to win any court cases with the evidence found on ATS.

He's pointing out how absurd you sound. You can't make reasonable assumptions because you don't have all the classified information. It's actually really funny.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again. Flynn's name should have never been exposed.


Except you don't know that.

You don't know what Flynn was or is under investigation for.

What we do know is that he lied to the Vice President, to the American public, about his contact with the Russian government AND was working as a Turkish agent DURING THE TRANSITION, at which time General Flynn and Congressman Nunes met with the Turkish Foreign Minister (not Erdoğan as you mistakenly identified).
edit on 26-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually you did, but you were just quoting the article headline:
"Nunes Exposed in Another Career Ending Scandal - The Bipartisan Report"

I just have to lol at all of this though. Nunes career is ending, Trump is going to be impeached for russians, and hillary will assume her rightful position as heir to the presidency. You guys are delusional.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Another credible source confirms the fact that the Obama Regime spied on Team Trump!


“I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored,” Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. Everyone’s conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.


NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: Trump is Right – Obama Spied



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do know that his name shouldn't have been exposed. The unmasking may have been legal but running to the press, leaking his phone call and identity, are all illegal.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Being that all of it is classified, yeah, all we have to go on here is media reports. We're not going to win any court cases with the evidence found on ATS.

He's pointing out how absurd you sound. You can't make reasonable assumptions because you don't have all the classified information. It's actually really funny.

It's absurd to call people out making definitive statements presenting flimsy evidence for their definitive statements? I'm not the one making the claims of Obama's guilt here. I have merely pointed out the flaws in the evidence presented and have been saying that the conclusion reached is VERY uninformed. If you don't want me to question your quality of evidence, don't make definitive statements using flimsy evidence.
edit on 26-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again...

Obama was president. He either knew about the "wiretapping" and illegal dissemination of the intelligence collected or he didn't. If he knew about it, he was in on it. If he didn't, he's even more clueless than I thought.

Your opinion on his intelligence isn't really a valid rebuttal against him being guilty. It seriously looks like you have only left room in your head for one possibility here and ALL evidence must fit that possibility or be ignored.


I have lots of room in my head. if you can provide evidence that exonerates Obama, who was president at the time of the Flynn wiretap, I'm listening.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether obama ordered it or not, he created the environment that allowed it to happen.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether obama ordered it or not, he created the environment that allowed it to happen.

That isn't a crime.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The best part is, a lot of the people making these claims have seen the classified evidence (or so they claim).



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do know that his name shouldn't have been exposed. The unmasking may have been legal but running to the press, leaking his phone call and identity, are all illegal.


How do you know that his name shouldn't have been exposed ("unmasked" non-"minimized")? The only way you could know that is to know what he is or is not being investigated for. Do you have that information?

Leaking classified information is technically illegal, but as it was used to identify an apparent liar and foreign agent that had been nestled into President Trumps White House staff ... I think we all appreciate leaks that help reveal dirty politicians, right?

Or is that only dirty Democrats?
edit on 26-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG




I have lots of room in my head. if you can provide evidence that exonerates Obama, who was president at the time of the Flynn wiretap, I'm listening.

You want evidence that Obama did not tap Trump's phones?

I want evidence that Trump did not collude with the Russians.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again...

Obama was president. He either knew about the "wiretapping" and illegal dissemination of the intelligence collected or he didn't. If he knew about it, he was in on it. If he didn't, he's even more clueless than I thought.

Your opinion on his intelligence isn't really a valid rebuttal against him being guilty. It seriously looks like you have only left room in your head for one possibility here and ALL evidence must fit that possibility or be ignored.


I have lots of room in my head. if you can provide evidence that exonerates Obama, who was president at the time of the Flynn wiretap, I'm listening.

Come y says FBI and Justice Department have no information supporting Trump's wiretapping claims

"With respect to the president’s tweets," Comey testified at the House intelligence committee, "I have no information that supports those tweets. We have looked carefully inside the FBI."

Responding to a question by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Comey added that the Justice Department asked him to convey that it also had not been able to uncover any information related to such wiretaps.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But it proves he's pathetic either way. He either ordered it or failed as a leader.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Yet you've also admitted to not having the solid legal grounds to make a case here since you said it cannot be proven empirically. Looks like bias to me.


Huh?

Nothing can be proven or disproved empirically here because of the nature of this forum.

We can only rely on the information we have available to us -- news reporting, the Nunes statements, the facts we know about the Obama Regime "wiretapping" Flynn and then illegally releasing the transcripts of that call, and of course the long and established history of Obama spying on his political opponents, allies, and reporters in the past.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The best part is, a lot of the people making these claims have seen the classified evidence (or so they claim).

I don't care what people on the internet say. I care what the people in charge of the investigation are saying.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join