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: 7
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah. Correct.
I speculated that the president bases his statements on actual information rather than making stuff up.

My mistake.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah. Correct.
I speculated that the president bases his statements on actual information rather than making stuff up.

My mistake.


...and I speculated that he may have seen planted information as we know the IC can do. I could also speculate that it was politically expedient for him to let it lie at that point.. or I could speculate in any number of ways.

Sticking with what we've seen though, @wishes was correct. We've not seen any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. Moreover, there is some simple information that should not be in any way classified and would provide substantial evidence, but we've not seen that either for some reason.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Moreover, there is some simple information that should not be in any way classified and would provide substantial evidence, but we've not seen that either for some reason.

Interesting. You are an expert on what should and should not be classified. Even if you don't know what that information is.

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



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




Moreover, there is some simple information that should not be in any way classified and would provide substantial evidence, but we've not seen that either for some reason.

Interesting. You are an expert on what should and should not be classified. Even if you don't know what that information is.

No, it's common sense.
It was discussed at length at the time of the rather silly report that was produced in December.

All that is needed to show some really specific evidence is to tie together the dates of the hacked emails with the server logs. We know exactly when the date and time of the first email was in the wikileaks release. If the DNC emails were from an IP address identified in the report supplement then I would expect to see the specific IP address logged on to the server at the same time.
We got nothing of the sort, instead it appears (according to Comey) that the IC had no access to the servers. Says a lot about so called evidence when they produced that report.

I can't see why a portion of a server log would be classified when they already released the IP addresses.
edit on 25/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Interesting. You are an expert on what should and should not be classified. Even if you don't know what that information is.

On the other hand: Would you deny that "national security" has often been used to cover up wrongdoing and incompetence?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

No.
But the whine is "I haven't seen any evidence that it was Russia who stole the DNC emails. Therefore, it's fake."



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

No.
But the whine is "I haven't seen any evidence that it was Russia who stole the DNC emails. Therefore, it's fake."


It's a bit like "I haven't seen any evidence that is was Russia who stole the DNC emails, but the IC told me so, so therefore it is true.".

In actual fact, saying there is no evidence is not saying that it is fake, rather that we should be careful about declaring it as a done deal when no evidence has been presented.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Phage

Interesting. You are an expert on what should and should not be classified. Even if you don't know what that information is.

On the other hand: Would you deny that "national security" has often been used to cover up wrongdoing and incompetence?


Hopefully no one will deny that, because if you can get people to be scared about something then they basically will accept whatever lies you tell them afterwards.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

What's funny about trump using the word wire tapping is that in the original tweet, he put it in quotations. Yet it's been interpreted so narrowly that anything short of a bug on a phone line has been said to be untrue.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rickymouse

What's funny about trump using the word wire tapping is that in the original tweet, he put it in quotations. Yet it's been interpreted so narrowly that anything short of a bug on a phone line has been said to be untrue.


Plus he already clarified it too, but the propagandists take whatever they can latch onto and hold the line of the exact words of a tweet that has already been clarified - just to score political points.

Two things have been clarified, one that he was talking about the Obama administration and two, he was talking about surveillance.

According to Nunes, the Obama administration was indeed spying on Trump.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
And yet there is no evidence, even with all the restatements, clarifications, alterations, adjustments-to-narrative, etc., that supports the absurd claim that President Obama ordered illegal surveillance of Candidate or President Elect Trump.

No evidnece, zero, zilch, bupkis, zippo, nada.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He's not allowed to clarify! If he can't get all the proper context in a single 140 character tweet then he shouldn't tweet! /sarcasm



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: UKTruth

He's not allowed to clarify! If he can't get all the proper context in a single 140 character tweet then he shouldn't tweet! /sarcasm


He can obviously clarify all he wants.

There's still no evidence for the "clarified" tweets.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahhhh, you've added a qualifier now, to CYA. "illegal surveillance". The best part is, it's pretty likely there was illegal surveillance as the unmasking and distributing was probably illegal.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: UKTruth

He's not allowed to clarify! If he can't get all the proper context in a single 140 character tweet then he shouldn't tweet! /sarcasm


Exactly.
The propagandists not only do not allow him any clarification, they also create propaganda off things they interpret when it suits them. No interpretation of the tweet about Obama, but remember the interpretation when Trump said the second amendment people would stop Hillary?... oh, yes, interpreting that to mean he was calling for her assassination was fine for them.
They have no shame... just pure propaganda and hypocrisy.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahhhh, you've added a qualifier now, to CYA. "illegal surveillance". The best part is, it's pretty likely there was illegal surveillance as the unmasking and distributing was probably illegal.


I haven't added anything. What on earth are you talking about?

What evidence do you have of illegal surveillance of Trump? A lot of people in Washington and elsewhere need to know.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahhhh, you've added a qualifier now, to CYA. "illegal surveillance". The best part is, it's pretty likely there was illegal surveillance as the unmasking and distributing was probably illegal.


They will add or interpret when required to support their propaganda and they will take the exact words when required to support their propaganda.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahhhh, you've added a qualifier now, to CYA. "illegal surveillance". The best part is, it's pretty likely there was illegal surveillance as the unmasking and distributing was probably illegal.


They will add or interpret when required to support their propaganda and they will take the exact words when required to support their propaganda.


What evidence do you have of illegal surveillance of Trump? A lot of people in Washington and elsewhere need to know.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who said illegal surveillance, then? Not Trump.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahhhh, you've added a qualifier now, to CYA. "illegal surveillance". The best part is, it's pretty likely there was illegal surveillance as the unmasking and distributing was probably illegal.


They will add or interpret when required to support their propaganda and they will take the exact words when required to support their propaganda.


What evidence do you have of illegal surveillance of Trump? A lot of people in Washington and elsewhere need to know.


Thanks, you just proved my point. You're interpreting when it suits you and taking the exact words when it suits you. Propaganda and hypocrisy.



Trump did not say it was illegal, he was asking a question.

Funny how your approach changes depending on what propaganda you want to spin.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join