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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Oh goody. More pointless nitpicking.

All style no substance?



We'll wait on the facts then.

Sure to be here as they are released.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
More on the reporting at the time Obama ordered the investigation into the "election related hacking".


White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters “the president wants this done on his watch because he takes it seriously.” He said the report “will be looking at all foreign actors” and not Russia alone and that “we’re going to make public as much as we can.”


www.bloomberg.com...

Nunes says his reports are not related to Russia... he could have been handed reports from an investigation directly ordered by Obama, reports which included unmasked American names.


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



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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


Right. Thoughts expressed that you agree with are okay. LOL. Like I said: hypocrite.

As far as your snide little personal comment, you're just lying again.

I've never claimed one single statement as fact without evidence to my knowledge.

Whether you liked the evidence or not is irrelevant to me; you've proven that your agenda is more important than the facts.


edit on 25-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

"could have been"

is even less believable than

"unnamed sources say."

More blatant hypocrisy.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

So nothing to add on your understanding of the process?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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


Right. Thoughts expressed that you agree with are okay. LOL. Like I said: hypocrite.

As far as your snide litter personal comment, you're lying again.

I've never claimed one single statement as fact without evidence to my knowledge.

Whether you liked the evidence or not is irrelevant to me; you've proven that your agenda is more important than the facts.



Lol, you've slipped into that self-justification mode again.
Very telling.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: alphabetaone

So nothing to add on your understanding of the process?


I addressed what I was responding to, nothing more to add.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

"could have been"

is even less believable than

"unnamed sources say."

More blatant hypocrisy.




Not feeling well?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

... and you're deflecting with personal commentary.

Not telling; blatantly obvious.

Sorry to call out your hypocrisy so abruptly.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You have the better understanding, please by all means help a fellow member understand.



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

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

"could have been"

is even less believable than

"unnamed sources say."

More blatant hypocrisy.




Not feeling well?


More irrelevance.

You wish to speculate on might-have-beens when it suits your purposes.

Anyone who attempts to have a discussion with you knows this.

Again, blatant hypocrisy.

Next?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


www.nsa.gov...



MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES USED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTION OF CALL DETAIL RECORDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 501 OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, AS AMENDED

I will drop this off here.
It may be useful for some.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Slightly more on topic.

Can you tell us what law you think was broken by this "unmasking" that you and the Echo Chamber are so excited about?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

"could have been"

is even less believable than

"unnamed sources say."

More blatant hypocrisy.




Not feeling well?


More irrelevance.

You wish to speculate on might-have-beens when it suits your purposes.

Anyone who attempts to have a discussion with you knows this.

Again, blatant hypocrisy.

Next?


Why don't you have a nice nap... you're obviously very triggered right now.
Perhaps it's you're narrative slowly dying that has got you so upset?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Did you have evidence of someone in the NSA ignoring the in-house procedures for minimization?

Are you trying to relate this to legal standards in some way?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And now I'm "triggered" ... LOL.

Whichever "side of your brain" that is typing your posts today is not the sharpest tool in the shed, is it?

Keep talking about "could-bes" and "might-bes" Snowflake.

LOLOL.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I can't help but to wonder if the Associated Press falls under the umbrella of "FAKE NEWS" now too.




WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's accusation that his predecessor ordered snooping of his communications has fallen apart, slapped down by the FBI chief and again by the Republican leading the House intelligence committee, a Trump ally. The president gave up on arguing that Barack Obama tapped his phones, and he doesn't give up on anything easily.
A look at how that sensational charge and a variety of other statements by the president — on the failed "Obamacare" replacement bill, Russia, immigration and more — met reality checks over the past week


Some more highlights:




THE WIRETAP THAT WASN'T

Trump now says he never meant that Obama literally had his phone tapped. "When I said wiretapping, it was in quotes," he told Time magazine Wednesday." It is just a good description. But wiretapping was in quotes. What I'm talking about is surveillance."
THE FACTS: Several Trump tweets stated flat out that Obama tapped his phones, no quotation marks involved.
— "I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
— "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
On a few occasions, he hung quotation marks around the word. Says one Trump tweet: "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
House intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said it was conceivable that U.S. surveillance of foreign entities might have picked up communications involving Trump aides or Trump himself through "incidental" collection." Trump claimed vindication — "so that means I'm right" — and Republican campaign offices sought to raise money from the episode, with the National Republican Campaign Committee telling people in an email pitch: "Confirmed: Obama spied on Trump."
But Nunes only confirmed the opposite, that Trump and Trump Tower were not targeted by the Obama administration.
"We know there was not a wiretap on Trump Tower," Nunes said early in the week. "That never happened," he said later in the week.



"The week when Trump's wiretap accusation died" .... epic
edit on 25-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
8 pages in less than 24 hours?

I hope someone will start a thread when EVIDENCE is found or delivered.

Won't be able to find it buried in here!



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

PS:

Can you tell us what law you think was broken by this "unmasking" that you and the Echo Chamber are so excited about?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
8 pages in less than 24 hours?

I hope someone will start a thread when EVIDENCE is found or delivered.

Won't be able to find it buried in here!



So you add to the post count?

Reasonable.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join