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.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wire tapping trump residence part two

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you notice they keep the data for 5 years?
That should be enough to answer alot of the questions that will come up during these investigaions.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

In an effort to minimize all the unnecessary posturing I will simply offer this:

Heisenberg is driving down 6th avenue in Manhattan well above the speed limit. A cop pulls him over and asks "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?!?!"...Heisenberg replies to the cop "None. But I know exactly where I was"

Descartes walks into a cafe and orders a coffee. The waiter asks if he would like a beignet with his coffee and Descartes says, "I think not" and disappears.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: alphabetaone

In an effort to minimize all the unnecessary posturing I will simply offer this:

Heisenberg is driving down 6th avenue in Manhattan well above the speed limit. A cop pulls him over and asks "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?!?!"...Heisenberg replies to the cop "None. But I know exactly where I was"

Descartes walks into a cafe and orders a coffee. The waiter asks if he would like a beignet with his coffee and Descartes says, "I think not" and disappears.


cute



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It seems to me that those who are constantly beating the "Trump is great" drums are in a strict minority. Thankfully the real registered voters (ie., those whose opinions truly count) see things with a more lucid mind than a lot of the spinning that has been shown to take place here in this extremely protracted thread.




A majority of registered voters are in favor of an independent commission to investigate the potential ties between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government, a new poll finds.

According to a Quinnipiac University survey released on Friday, 66 percent of those polled favor an independent commission, and 29 percent do not.

Similarly, 65 percent consider Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election "very important" or "somewhat important."

The poll also found that 63 percent of registered voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the president's relationship with Moscow.

According to the survey, a majority disapproves of the way Trump is handling Washington's policy toward Russia, 59 percent to 27 percent.



Source



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Spin, spin, spin.

Posters have been saying that Obama broke the law for 3000 pages; where have you been?

So ... tell us, "UK" ... since your memory is so short ...

Is "leaking" the crime your crying about? Or is it "unmasking"?



You were replying to me. I have not said that Obama is going to jail.
Don't let your frustrations boil over to the point where you generalise and make false accusations.

There is no crying about crimes, just the fact that the only crime we know of is the leaking of the Flynn conversation.
Whether there were any crimes committed in the unmasking and sharing of information is to be determined. We only know it happened, not the circumstances.


Now, take it slowly ... I'm going to pull a couple of statements out of your post ... and I'd like you to address that and only that, okay?



Whether there were any crimes committed in the unmasking and sharing of information is to be determined. We only know it happened, not the circumstances.


Even more specifically:



We only know it happened, not the circumstances.


Now that I've helped you focus a bit, "UK" ... what does "it" refer to here? What do you "know" happened?

Take your time.


Or your could stop being a child (probably a lot to ask of you given your performance today) and read the whole paragraph.



Whether there were any crimes committed in the unmasking and sharing of information is to be determined. We only know it happened, not the circumstances.



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



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not craping on the Intel report. I'm saying that new Intel which Clapper did not have access to is making his statement obsolete. He didn't lie. His info is just old.
Right now it's a high stakes tennis match.
Guess we will see how it bears out.

But there's a reason that there are so many Russian connections and there's a reason they all lied when asked about them.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

They?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No I don't. Do you think it's possible that new information that contradicts previous assessment may have come to light since they are still investigating?

And is it possible that Clapper knowing that trump watches a lot of tv said that to keep trump from destroying evidence or trails? To throw him off so to speak?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So as I said previously and you disputed you're really referring to the crimes of leaking and "unmasking."

Good. Progress.

What EVIDENCE do you have for either crime?

You claim that's all you're interested in, so, share it with us.

Please.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
This thread is like listening to my kids argue. It just makes my head hurt and is pointless.

Trump was full of crap unless you spin what he said. His campaign was in contact with Russia. We cannot infer if that had a direct impact on the election. Trump wasn't directly wiretapped, but he or people in his election were careless and stupid and had conversations with people who were legally under observation.

Both are right, both are wrong. Did anything criminal happen? Not sure you can ever prove. If Trump can get away with asking the Russians to hack Hillarys email during a campaign speech and not get reprimanded for encouraging an illegal act then nothing is ever going to happen.

They are all idiots and distracting from the fact that we have a spoiled egomaniac that hasn't ever had to answer to any board of directors or outside influence in his life.

He more than likely will be a terrible president, but the Dems need to quit complaining as they ran the most hated woman in the world against the biggest idiot.

Can we move on now?

Or as I would say to my kids... it's time we went to our room!



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

don't know if he can clear anybody but when i clap my hands he makes the lights go out. but seriously wasn't he replaced after trump took office and why hasn't fbi directer comey been fired yet?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

So as I said previously and you disputed you're really referring to the crimes of leaking and "unmasking."



Believe it or not, I have a problem with both of those terms 'leaking' and 'unmasking', as in my opinion, they are too generic. They also take on various meanings depending on who is processing the vocabulary. Some ascribe 'leaking' and 'unmasking' to professionally accepted intelligence sharing (now that the Patriot Act sponsored by republicans is so worried about little ole us and our safety), while others see it as 'illegally leaking classified information to people without clearance'. If we're talking about criminal behavior, then we can only be talking about the latter and not the former...yet some seem to freely interchange the two distinctions. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with "understood" in the English language (ie., the understood "you" in close the door) but it seems here we are dealings with nitpicky hens and the only way to address that is with reciprocity.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mzinga

Succinct evaluation.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mzinga
This thread is like listening to my kids argue. It just makes my head hurt and is pointless.


Well unlike your kids (hopefully anyway) you can ignore this thread.



Trump was full of crap unless you spin what he said. His campaign was in contact with Russia. We cannot infer if that had a direct impact on the election.


We can infer it, what we can't do is prove it...but I see your point and at the moment, you're right.



Did anything criminal happen?


I think finding out is pretty important.



Not sure you can ever prove. If Trump can get away with asking the Russians to hack Hillarys email during a campaign speech and not get reprimanded for encouraging an illegal act then nothing is ever going to happen.


What can I say...I agree with this, yet do you really think it's productive to resign yourself to simply throwing your arms up in the air, saying "welp, whadda ya gonna do" and not try to affect change or even maybe the code of law?



They are all idiots and distracting from the fact that we have a spoiled egomaniac that hasn't ever had to answer to any board of directors or outside influence in his life.


Well, that notwithstanding, that doesn't disqualify anyone from running for President, but at this stage, he should be all grown up now with 300+ million "children's" welfare hanging in the balance. Talk about absentee parenting.



He more than likely will be a terrible president, but the Dems need to quit complaining as they ran the most hated woman in the world against the biggest idiot.


Agree and Agree!




Can we move on now?


If I have to be perfectly honest with you, I'm gonna wager that you likely do NOT want this to actually happen or you simply would not have bothered responding to this thread. Like I said earlier in the first thread that reached MAX count....one thing I've learned about women is the degrees of losing that I'm willing to accept as a personal win lol



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I'm on mobile sorry for the terse reply.

I don't disagree and would like to discuss your points in detail ...

My point above is that those who have been desperately wailing about evidence are more than happy to make seeping statements without it WHEN it suits THEIR agenda.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

No I don't. Do you think it's possible that new information that contradicts previous assessment may have come to light since they are still investigating?

And is it possible that Clapper knowing that trump watches a lot of tv said that to keep trump from destroying evidence or trails? To throw him off so to speak?


So you are good with the intel report?

Who would be under investigation between 30 dec and today that was not under investigation 29 dec? Do you know of any allegations of collusion or crimes in that specific period?

I posted standards for nsa records being held for 5 years. For those under investigation access to cell, email ect would have been 2011. Russia to manfort, Russia to stone, Russia to page, ect 2011-2016 was available. Foreign targets are routinely collected.

Clapper said no collusion, no crime, no?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I absolutely do not disagree...I replied to your post simply because it was the most recent to begin to make that distinction so we don't (hopefully) have another 5000 posts about how perjury isn't lying.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Just tagging the part 2 thread and dropping of Georges latest where he brings up a bit of info on Montgomery and his appearing on FOX tonight .



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You are correct.
Thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: alphabetaone

You are correct.
Thanks for pointing that out.


No problem! If you need someone to completly confound your day with attempts at being ultra-literal, I'm your man.

ETA: I'm waiting for 200 pages from now where someone thinks they've proven that I'm ultra-liberal
edit on 25-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join