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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You understand nsa has all the calls, emails ect?
You understand Rogers has been described as cooperating with the investigation?

This is all going to come out.
It will not be pretty for many in our government.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

You understand nsa has all the calls, emails ect?
You understand Rogers has been described as cooperating with the investigation?

This is all going to come out.
It will not be pretty for many in our government.


Well it was widely reported at the time (early Dec 2016) that Obama ordered an investigation into Russian interference in the election. Actually more than reported, it came directly from the Whitehouse through a spokesperson. The report was to be completed and handed to Obama before he left office.

Then, before Obama left he issued his EO to allow more widespread dissemination of information.

IF these reports that Nunes is referring to are linked to that effort by Obama, then it will be the case that Obama ordered the surveillance that ended up in those reports AND the reports will have been shared with Obama.

Perhaps Comey was at the Whitehouse yesterday to come clean - and maybe even cut some kind of deal?
edit on 25/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress is doing it's own "investigations" (4 to be exact.) Irrelevant.

Which report didn't Congress read?

Partisan politics? You mean you think the Democrats are still secretly controlling the FBI and the DOJ?

My opinion is valid for me, your's for you ... and the facts of the matter should be plain to both of us.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

The one thing I actually do trust in all this mess is the people at the ic that do the actual "work". They are very good at their jobs. With the tech they have at their disposal not alot gets missed.



Since when does having available technology become tantamount to being genuine in what they report are the conclusions drawn from them?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Perhaps Comey was at the Whitehouse yesterday to come clean - and maybe even cut some kind of deal?


And you have even the tiniest bit of evidence of this?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

"... and then I hit this Planck in the street."



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: alphabetaone

"... and then I hit this Planck in the street."


LOL....I see what ya did there...


ETA: I think I gotta pull my LR1200 outta the garage and go turing the country too while I'm at it.
edit on 25-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

As I understand it the one doing the "collecting" is not the same one doing the analysis.
The reports do not come from the "workers".

Perhaps you have a better understanding than I do, if so please help me understand.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: alphabetaone

Perhaps you have a better understanding than I do, if so please help me understand.


I do. But that's neither here nor there.

What *I* responded to was your assertion. That you "trust" them because they have the available technology to ensure a high level of efficacy, which the two are totally unrelated. If they have the available technology to DO the job, doesn't equate to the agency reporting it in any trustworthy fashion. It also does not mean they wont report on it in a trustworthy fashion.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: alphabetaone

"... and then I hit this Planck in the street."


LOL....I see what ya did there...


ETA: I think I gotta pull my LR1200 outta the garage and go turing the country too while I'm at it.


I think I'll stop before I become a Bohr.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Congress is doing it's own "investigations" (4 to be exact.) Irrelevant.

Huzzah
Investigate away



Partisan politics? You mean you think the Democrats are still secretly controlling the FBI and the DOJ?

No I do not, nor did I state such.
The gop has the majority; this gets sideways it is on them.



My opinion is valid for me, your's for you ... and the facts of the matter should be plain to both of us.

Valid does not mean relevant.
The more facts the better.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: alphabetaone

"... and then I hit this Planck in the street."


LOL....I see what ya did there...


ETA: I think I gotta pull my LR1200 outta the garage and go turing the country too while I'm at it.


I think I'll stop before I become a Bohr.


I understand your trepidation. Often our principles can leave us with an uncertainty .... it happens



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The requirements for minimization are part of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

Alpha has brought this to our attention before.

A decent (but dated, 1979) scholarly discussion of the relevant questions can be found here: The Minimization Requirement in Electronic
Surveillance: Title III, the Fourth Amendment, and the Dread Scott Decision


(Please note that this is not referring to Dred Scott.)



In Scott v. United States,95 the Supreme Court ruled that in some circumstances monitoring officers can knowingly and willfully ignore the minimization provision of Title III altogether.


The "unmasking" complaint that the right-wing media and the echo chamber keeps chanting about just isn't as clear-cut as they would like, and certainly doesn't suggest that Barack Obama is "guilty" of anything.

Unsurprisingly, the "who knew what and when" argument is still just smoke and mirrors.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

Perhaps Comey was at the Whitehouse yesterday to come clean - and maybe even cut some kind of deal?


And you have even the tiniest bit of evidence of this?



No, but then the words 'perhaps' and 'maybe' would have given that away.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Oh goody. More pointless nitpicking.

My opinion is relevant to me by the very definition of the word.

We'll wait on the facts then. Best.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Jello is way too sticky tho...

I think I'll skip the epic mud pit this time around...maybe some highlights will make it over this way. I see the thread has expanded quite a bit since the wee hours...



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

Perhaps Comey was at the Whitehouse yesterday to come clean - and maybe even cut some kind of deal?


And you have even the tiniest bit of evidence of this?



No, but then the words 'perhaps' and 'maybe' would have given that away.


Right. So now you're posting wild suppositions based on nothing more than your opinion, yet, you condemn others for even voicing opinion in their posts, or pretend that their statements are invalid because something doesn't match with your agenda of "truth"?

You know, down heah, we call that being a blatant hypocrite. What do you call it in the "UK"?
edit on 25-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




I do. But that's neither here nor there.

Please enlighten me.
I am interested in what you have to add.



What *I* responded to was your assertion. That you "trust" them because they have the available technology to ensure a high level of efficacy, which the two are totally unrelated. If they have the available technology to DO the job, doesn't equate to the agency reporting it in any trustworthy fashion. It also does not mean they wont report on it in a trustworthy fashion.

I see.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I trust the ones that day to day do the actual collection. IMO they do an outstanding job and do not miss much. What is done with what is collected is another story.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

Perhaps Comey was at the Whitehouse yesterday to come clean - and maybe even cut some kind of deal?


And you have even the tiniest bit of evidence of this?



No, but then the words 'perhaps' and 'maybe' would have given that away.


Right. So now you're posting wild suppositions based on nothing more than your opinion, yet, you condemn others for doing so in their posts, or pretend that their statements are invalid because something doesn't match with your agenda of "truth"?

You know, down heah, we call that being a blatant hypocrite. What do you call it in the "UK"?


Thoughts expressed as thoughts are perfectly reasonable.

Claiming facts without evidence is not, which appears to be your wheelhouse



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
I see.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I trust the ones that day to day do the actual collection. IMO they do an outstanding job and do not miss much. What is done with what is collected is another story.


That's a little better. Now THAT, makes sense. To which, I agree.







 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join