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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


The illegal part was the leaking to the press of the Flynn conversation - that has been discussed endlessly.
The unmasking and sharing of information may or may not have been legal - though Nunes suggests the unmasking was legal. The sharing may be different. We'll see once the investigation is complete.

I am pleased that the committee are now focused on the real issue.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not.
I believe the standards you inquire about are listed in the link I posted.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


You do seem awfully upset.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Everything is "fake news" ... as defined moment by moment ... that seems to contradict or threaten Trump.

Fake News is an article of faith in the Cult of Trump.

(So, yes, the AP laid it out quite clearly and factually ... I'm sure it's "fake" too.)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not.
I believe the standards you inquire about are listed in the link I posted.


The link you posted is internal procedures from the NSA.

That's not law.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, leaking is the crime, not "unmasking" then? Which is it?

Wasn't Obama going to jail a few posts back for "unmasking"?

You're really all over the place on this.

Nunes' Committee is a side-show.

Wouldn't surprise me if he were replaced ... Paul Ryan has enough egg on his face at the moment, he doesn't need another Trump surrogate messing around like an amateur.
edit on 25-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Apostrophe correction



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, leaking is the crime, not "unmasking" then? Which is it?

Wasn't Obama going to jail a few posts back for "unmasking"?

You're really all over the place on this.

Nunes' Committee is a side-show.

Wouldn't surprise me if he were replaced ... Paul Ryan has enough egg on his face at the moment, he doesn't need another Trump surrogate messing around like an amateur.


Who said Obama is going to jail?
Seriously fella, get back on to the meds, you're embarrassing yourself.
edit on 25/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

16 Intel agencies didn't clear anybody either.
No one's been cleared. The investigation didn't end on Jan20 when Clapper last had eyes on.
It's continued and that statement of no collusion isn't quite as black and white as it was thought.


Intel agencies never "clear" anyone...as can be seen in the last year with thousands of hours of available observation of their modus.

These people appear to "claim" things and then never back it up..so they just want to keep the narratives going..forever



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

16 Intel agencies didn't clear anybody either.
No one's been cleared. The investigation didn't end on Jan20 when Clapper last had eyes on.
It's continued and that statement of no collusion isn't quite as black and white as it was thought.


Intel agencies never "clear" anyone...as can be seen in the last year with thousands of hours of available observation of their modus.


Sure they do. They clear them of suspicion, so that the relevant authority can clear them of any pending charges based upon those suspicions.




These people appear to "claim" things and then never back it up..so they just want to keep the narratives going..forever


Yes, it seems some of you people do.
edit on 25-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
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"?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

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.

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



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Questions for you..do you believe these intelligence agencies are doing a good job?

How can absolutely nothing be clear and concise in this matter..or any other matters apparently?

Why do we even need threads like this....



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I replied to your post. Numerous posters have said that Obama is going to jail, and variations on that theme.

Your memory is too short. Did I claim that "UKTruth" said anything specifically?

If not, you're just doing the same ol' shuffle you always do.

You "know it happened" ... is that "unmasking" or "leaking"?

Be specific now.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Gryphon66

Questions for you..do you believe these intelligence agencies are doing a good job?

How can absolutely nothing be clear and concise in this matter..or any other matters apparently?

Why do we even need threads like this....


Answer for you: What kind of question is that? How ... general, baseless, irrelevant, pointless.

My answer would be in like kind to your question: "Sometimes."

Your understanding is that nothing is clear or concise in this matter or any matters.

I do not share your understanding; apparently, others don't either.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I replied to your post. Numerous posters have said that Obama is going to jail, and variations on that theme.

Your memory is too short. Did I claim that "UKTruth" said anything specifically?

If not, you're just doing the same ol' shuffle you always do.

You "know it happened" ... is that "unmasking" or "leaking"?

Be specific now.


I already have been specific, but your day is going so badly, you may have missed it.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I only missed it because you haven't said anything.

You said that you "know it happened" ... what is that?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I only missed it because you haven't said anything.

You said that you "know it happened" ... what is that?




www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

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.
edit on 25-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



That's not law.

Those are the standards used to be compliant with the law, which is section 501 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

Section F of the standards provides some interesting paper trails.



F. Approximately every thirty days, NSA shall file with the Court a report that includes a statement of the number of instances since the preceding report in which NSA has shared, in any form, information from the CDRs t~at contain United States person information, in any form, with anyone outside NSA, other than Executive Branch personnel receiving such results in order to enabIe them to determine whether the information may be exculpatory or otherwise discoverable in legal proceedings and personnel of the Congress of the United States, NSDiDoJ, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or the applicable Offices of the Inspectors Generai receiving such results in the performance of their lawful oversight functions. For each such instance in which United States person information has been shared, the report shall include NSA’s attestation that one of the officials authorized to approve such disseminations determined, prior to dissemination, that the information was related to counterterrorism information and necessary to understand counterterrorism information or to assess its importance.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Gosh, you don't think the NSA has ever disregarded their own regulations now, do ya?




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join