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.

 

Trey Gowdy WE FOUND IT ! WIRETAPPING James Comey NO EXPLANATION !!

page: 2
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Do you know that he did? Was there some information that came out that he did? Is there a single source saying that anywhere?


When the "anonymous sources" included former senior government officials it means that Obama would have also been informed... Congressman Gowdy mentions it in the video, and your loved MSM sources stated so... If Obama's senior government officials knew it, and this pertained a Presidential candidate and his associates ex-President Obama himself would have been informed.



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Shillio? Lmao.


Well, you responded in this thread by calling us "Trumpkins" in your attempt to demean those of us who would disagree with your false arguments. So yes, I did call you "shillio" and stand by it.



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Do you not see how irrational your thinking is?

...

Humm... i do wonder, why in the world was the whole argument of the lying mainstream media that because Trump's associates seemed to be working for Russia, as the lying MSM and you yourself have claimed, this would imply as they work/worked for Presidential candidate Trump that it would also mean that Trump was involved?...

Heck, here, one of your own delusional threads in which you stated, and I quote:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Well this is good to know. Now. Our newly minted President-elect and his campaign team did in fact have contact with Russian officials throughout and lied about it, right up to the end.
...

WOW. Russia Confirms Contact With Trump Campaign

Ooops... Did you forget already your own comments?...

And btw shillio, you should also know that the Russian officials also said they had contacts with Hillary Clinton's team
My my... she works for the Russians!!!!

Clinton contacts also met with Russian ambassador, Putin aide says


edit on 26-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add link, excerpt, and comment.




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Didn't you say this exact same thing to Phage the other day? Someone did...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Comey and Obama need 10 years in prison



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

How about Flynn?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


What Nuñes stated is that "there could have been incidental communications of Trump intercepted which had nothing to do with Russia." Which begs to question, why were communications which had nothing to do with Russia being intercepted?


He did? Nunes made that exact statement?

Because I'm pretty sure he did not make that statement which begs the question why you blended multiple different statements into a single statement Nunes didn't make and stuck your creation between quotes?

What Nunes has said (repeatedly) is that there was "incidental collection" which is not at all the same thing as "incidental communication."

Do you understand the difference?

- intercepted "incidental communications" would be unimportant communicataions.

- "incidental collection" refers to collection of communication from a person who is not an deliberate target of surveillance. In other words, if you call your uncle Nino and uncle Nino is under surveillance, your words that were just recorded are... dun dun dunnnnnnn... you guessed it! Incidental collection.

So do you have a source or are you going to concede that you're either misinforming or disinforming our fellow posters — whichever the case may be?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

10 minutes would be about right in comparison to those scum...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The media knew that Obama spied on Trump. The media lied and covered it up, while using what information they had against Trump. We know this with absolute certainty because the media itself spent months telling us so.

Don't stop trusting the media now!



Way back in January, Heat Street, The Guardian, The BBC, and McClatchy all confirmed that he Obama administration sought and/or received surveillance warrants aimed at Team Trump.

Way back in January, The New York Times reported that the Obama White House was looking at wiretap intelligence related to Trump.

Way back in February, The Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News all gleefully reported on private telephone calls that were surveilled by the Obama administration and then illegally made public to the media.

12 Pieces Of Evidence Prove The Lying MSM Knew Obama Spied On Trump

edit on 26-3-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh boy... i missed typing one word, guess that must mean the whole argument is wrong.

Well, let's see...



...

Reporter: So the president of the United Statess personal communications were intercepted in incidental collection, not in a targeted way?

Nunes: Its possible. We wont know until we get the information on Friday. And that’s why, look, I think the NSA’s going to comply. I am concerned—we don’t know whether or not the FBI is going to comply. I have placed a call, I’m waiting to talk to Director Comey, hopefully later today.

...
www.palmbeachpost.com...


...

Reporter: Mr. Chairman, did the president’s conversations or anything about the president appear in intelligence reports, is that what you’re saying?

Nunes: I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show, that, uh, the President-elect and his team were I guess at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in what appears to be raw—well I shouldn’t say raw—but intelligence reporting channels. As best as I can say that until I can actually get all of the information that we’ve requested.
...

www.palmbeachpost.com...

This one is a juicy.



...
Reporter: Can you give us a broader sense of what it was related to?

Nunes: It—look, a lot of it appears like it was, it looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the President-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.
...

Reporter: Specifically are we talking about Paul Manafort, like here and his communications, or any other senior level Trump officials?

Nunes: No, no. This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA, where there was incidental collection that then ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated.
...

www.palmbeachpost.com...

Nuñes says he thinks it was legally collected, but last I checked collecting information which has nothing to do with a criminal investigation, and had nothing to do with Russia, yet the information includes things that President Trump and his transition team did would have been illegal.




edit on 26-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct excerpts.

edit on 26-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


When the "anonymous sources" included former senior government officials it means that Obama would have also been informed... Congressman Gowdy mentions it in the video, and your loved MSM sources stated so... If Obama's senior government officials knew it, and this pertained a Presidential candidate and his associates ex-President Obama himself would have been informed.


Nobody has denied that Flynn was intercepted talking to Kislyak. That is, in fact, the content of the leak that got Flynn fired. Right? We can agree on that much?

The part that you're failing to grasp seems to be that by all accounts, Flynn was not the target of the surveillance — Kislyak, a foreign diplomat of a adversarial regime, was the target. If you had called Kislyak it would have been intercepted and not because the call came from you much less because the President signed off on surveillance of you.


Well, you responded in this thread by calling us "Trumpkins" in your attempt to demean those of us who would disagree with your false arguments. So yes, I did call you "shillio" and stand by it.


How passive-aggressive can you possibly be? Am I a shill or not? Lmao. What do I care if you call me a "shillio?" Out of the two of us, who should be the most ashamed of you having dropped that lame bomb?

False arguments? What have I said that is "false?" You seem to have made up a quote. That's pretty false isn't it? My arguments wreck your arguments. It's like your arguments have a compromised immune system and my arguments are ebola. 100% mortality for your arguments.


Humm... i do wonder, why in the world was the whole argument of the lying mainstream media that because Trump's associates seemed to be working for Russia, as the lying MSM and you yourself have claimed, this would imply as they work/worked for Presidential candidate Trump that it would also mean that Trump was involved?...

Heck, here, one of your own delusional threads in which you stated, and I quote:


Lmao. From your "lying MSM" source:


A claim by Vladimir Putin’s spokesman that people associated with Hillary Clinton also met with the Russian ambassador is the latest detail to cause problems for Democrats who blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions for meeting with the same official last year.

It was immediately denied by a former Clinton campaign spokesman.

Dmitry Peskov said on CNN Saturday that Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s job is to meet with officials on both sides of the political aisle, and to foster “bilateral relations.” He said people associated with Clinton during the presidential campaign met with him too.

“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind,” Peskov said. “There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”


Clearly you are just the sort of clown who shouldn't be exposed to the "lying MSM" because instead of considering what the man actually said, you sponged up the spin from the writer.

He says, "probably see that he had." You do know what "probably" means right? It means he's uncertain. It means he doesn't actually know. Am I wrong? Is that not what he actually said? Then he goes further still (further from your false assertion) and says "people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary [probably had contact]."

Does that sound like the kind of communications claimed by the Russian official in my thread? Maybe you should post those, they're quite suggestive. Here, I'll fix that for you:


“Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Ryabkov said.


That's the Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov talking about how they know most of Trump entourage... obviously.

He also said:


I don't say that all of them, but a whole array of them, supported contacts with Russian representatives.


and if you follow along in that thread, I found a
Reuters article with this:


But in comments that could prove politically awkward for the president-elect, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said there had indeed been some communications.

"There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. "We are doing this and have been doing this during the election campaign."

Such contacts would continue, he added, saying the Russian government knew and had been in touch with many of Trump's closest allies. He did not name names.

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his (Trump's)entourage. Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions," he said.

"I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."


Do you remember what Ryabkov said about contacts with the Clinton team? It's in the thread too. He said the sporadic outreach to the Clinton team wasn't productive. I'll also point out that contrary to this failed argument of yours:


Humm... i do wonder, why in the world was the whole argument of the lying mainstream media that because Trump's associates seemed to be working for Russia, as the lying MSM and you yourself have claimed, this would imply as they work/worked for Presidential candidate Trump that it would also mean that Trump was involved?...


Here's what I said in the thread


I imagine that a certain amount of contact with foreign leaders is actually routine. Just like when Trump met with the President of Mexico.

This sounds far more like back channel — clandestine in fact — communications between Russian representatives and "a whole array of" of campaign staffers.

If it was perfectly aboveboard, why lie?


Perhaps you, dear Trumpkin, can explain this to me? If the communication was so aboveboard why did Hope Hicks lie? Why, when asked about Russia, is the initial reaction (repeatedly) from anyone at any level in Team Trump to lie? And why are you so enthralled with Dear Leader Dishonest Donald that you twitter uselessly about the "lying MSM" in threads with bull# defenses of Donald Trump's lies?

Try having some standards.
edit on 2017-3-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What one word did you mistype? You invented a ficticious quote. That's not one word off. Can you not be intellectually honest? Is it too much to ask?
edit on 2017-3-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Are you saying that you believe that the left wing Washington Post is a legitimate source of REAL news and not a creator and pusher of FAKE news?

Just wanting to make sure that it is very clear how you feel about this. It can't be a pick and choose situation.

Is WAPO legit to you even though it is "left wing"? Will you, and everyone who excepts this article as legit, ALSO except future articles from WAPO as REAL news regardless of what the content devulges?

Respectfully, I think this is a very important question, and it needs an answer in order for you to be taken seriously concerning this.
edit on 26-3-2017 by Argus100 because: Typo



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Nobody has denied that Flynn was intercepted talking to Kislyak. That is, in fact, the content of the leak that got Flynn fired. Right? We can agree on that much?


Everyone was talking to Kislyak, which includes Obama administration officials and Clinton's team...



originally posted by: theantediluvian
The part that you're failing to grasp seems to be that by all accounts, Flynn was not the target of the surveillance — Kislyak, a foreign diplomat of a adversarial regime, was the target. If you had called Kislyak it would have been intercepted and not because the call came from you much less because the President signed off on surveillance of you.


Humm, talk about failure to grasp, you seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that "intelligence had been collected of President Trump, and his team. That the collection, whether incidental or on purpose, included information and activities done by President Trump, and his team that had nothing to do with Russia or any criminal investigation...

You also seem to be completely oblivious that this information was disseminated to newspapers by government officials of the U.S. government which included senior officials of the Obama administration...



originally posted by: theantediluvian
How passive-aggressive can you possibly be? Am I a shill or not? Lmao. What do I care if you call me a "shillio?" Out of the two of us, who should be the most ashamed of you having dropped that lame bomb?


Oooh boy, careful there. It seems your personality disorder is not letting you differentiate between you and me...



originally posted by: theantediluvian
False arguments? What have I said that is "false?" You seem to have made up a quote. That's pretty false isn't it? My arguments wreck your arguments. It's like your arguments have a compromised immune system and my arguments are ebola. 100% mortality for your arguments.


You have got to wonder in what mental state a person has to be to try to make an analogy by claiming "he/she is infecting an argument(not a person) with ebola"... Yikes, you might need your pills by now.



originally posted by: theantediluvian
It was immediately denied by a former Clinton campaign spokesman.


Of course compulsive liars would not admit the truth... Just like Clinton's compulsive liars claimed the FBI never requested access to the DNC servers, when the FBI says they sent several requests to the DNC...



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Clearly you are just the sort of clown who shouldn't be exposed to the "lying MSM" because instead of considering what the man actually said, you sponged up the spin from the writer.


Heck, I was using your own logic. You have claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that Trump and his team were in contact with the Russians from the start to the end and were lying about it and this means there must have been collusion between the two parties. Yet you are totally oblivious and want to dismiss the fact that the Obama administration and Clinton's team were also communicating with the Russians... But since it doesn't help your false narrative you ignore/dismiss the facts...

Heck, as an example of the lies, half/truths and exaggerations made by you, and the rest of the DNC/Obama fans and the lying MSM, one of the false arguments made was that Sessions also communicated with the Russians in September 2016, "hence he must have been working for the Russians". Not to mention the fact that Sessions was a U.S. Senator member and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee of the U.S. government under Obama and several Senators communicated with the Russians including democrats...

Kislyak as a Russian ambassador had communications with Obama officials also in September 2016. Add to that now that Clinton's team also were in contact with Russian officials... Your whole argument goes down the drain together with your "ebola comment"...


edit on 27-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

What one word did you mistype? You invented a ficticious quote. That's not one word off. Can you not be intellectually honest? Is it too much to ask?


wow..even when you are given direct quotes and links you fail to see what's in front of you...



...
Reporter: Mr. Chairman, did the president’s conversations or anything about the president appear in intelligence reports, is that what you’re saying?

Nunes: I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show, that, uh, the President-elect and his team were I guess at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in what appears to be raw—well I shouldn’t say raw—but intelligence reporting channels. As best as I can say that until I can actually get all of the information that we’ve requested.

...

Reporter: You said this was not related to Russia investigations? Can you give us some idea—

Nunes: The information that I have seen has nothing to do with Russia or the Russian investigations. So bluntly put, everything that I was able to view did not involve Russia or any discussions with Russia,s or any trump people or other Russians talking, or, so none of it has to do with Russia—that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means we don’t have it.
...

www.palmbeachpost.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The "Q" would say that "wires tapped" and "phone tapped" are two separate questions. But using the term "hacked" seems ok. We know Podesta 's password was giving up. For them it was just simply logging on.

Like saying because you actually sent money to that prince from Somalia ,that you were hacked.

What term should he have used ?
It was ok when WSJ and NYT times used them.
I'm sure info wasn't gathered going through his garbage and reading his carbon copies.
edit on 27-3-2017 by MajorAce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Trump claimed that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. That implies a lot more than what is stated, for one, that Obama ordered the wiretap and for another that he wiretapped Trump Tower. There is also a heavy implication that Obama did the wiretapping to help Hillary Clinton's campaign, and even that it was illegal, or even unethical, wiretapping.

First of all, Comey has stated that there is no evidence supporting the claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This is probably true. Second of all, so far, the phone calls that were intercepted are of Trump personnel (such as Flynn) having conversations with foreign agents - and those foreign agents were the ones who were being spied on, not Trump and his associates.

However, these legally recorded conversations seem to have gotten the FBI interested in investigating Team Trump's Russian connections. They might have gathered intel from these conversations and then proceeded to go from there - however, this would not be Obama ordering the FBI to do surveillance on Trump, this would be a legitimate criminal investigation. Even so, there is no evidence at all that anything other than Team Trump's conversations with foreign officials were monitored.

What Trump is trying to do with his tweet is this: He is trying to make any surveillance of his activities over the past year be categorized as Obama spying on him to help Hillary win the election. He might have even been tweeting that there was a wiretap on Trump tower to see what the response to the tweet would be - he has now, for example, found out that there WAS NO WIRETAP ON TRUMP TOWER.

How useful is that information for a criminal? Think about it.

If Trump colluded with Russia, he would want to know how much of what he had done had been recorded. He would also want to make it look like Obama ordered the spying on him, and that it was illegal spying, or even unethical.

However - there is no evidence that illegal spying took place. In addition, any spying that took place seems to have been for ethical reasons.


THIS! *points upwards*

This is the best explanation about this the whole of ATS has seen up to now!

Wiretapping foreigners and getting info about people calling them is LEGAL.
Using your position to find out about being wiretapped is WRONG.
Telling anyone that you are NOT wiretapping them is WRONG.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The argument was never that his conversations were not recorded by some manner or means.

The argument is that Obama did not order it, and that, in fact, EVERYONES data is available to the intelligence services at any time, with minimal effort, and that Mr Trump, if there must be a surveillance culture, has no more right to his privacy or anonymity than any regular citizen, regardless of whether he was running for office or not. I can assure you that Obama will have been very closely monitored in the run up to his eventual election to the office, as was Bush, Clinton, and Bush before that, and so on and so forth!

Trump sees Obama administration funny business, I see S.O.P. when a new President is coming in. Its terrible, wrong, and all manner of crazy, but to couch it in terms which even refer to Obama, or the previous administration even a little bit, is disingenuous, because the intelligence agencies variously spy on EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY their own leaders, and everyone elses leaders, and everyone else, and their cats, dogs, ponies and pet Goddamned fruit bats.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

People keep fruit bats as pets?
Seriously?

edit on 3/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Trump claimed that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. That implies a lot more than what is stated, for one, that Obama ordered the wiretap and for another that he wiretapped Trump Tower. There is also a heavy implication that Obama did the wiretapping to help Hillary Clinton's campaign, and even that it was illegal, or even unethical, wiretapping.

First of all, Comey has stated that there is no evidence supporting the claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This is probably true. Second of all, so far, the phone calls that were intercepted are of Trump personnel (such as Flynn) having conversations with foreign agents - and those foreign agents were the ones who were being spied on, not Trump and his associates.

However, these legally recorded conversations seem to have gotten the FBI interested in investigating Team Trump's Russian connections. They might have gathered intel from these conversations and then proceeded to go from there - however, this would not be Obama ordering the FBI to do surveillance on Trump, this would be a legitimate criminal investigation. Even so, there is no evidence at all that anything other than Team Trump's conversations with foreign officials were monitored.

What Trump is trying to do with his tweet is this: He is trying to make any surveillance of his activities over the past year be categorized as Obama spying on him to help Hillary win the election. He might have even been tweeting that there was a wiretap on Trump tower to see what the response to the tweet would be - he has now, for example, found out that there WAS NO WIRETAP ON TRUMP TOWER.

How useful is that information for a criminal? Think about it.

If Trump colluded with Russia, he would want to know how much of what he had done had been recorded. He would also want to make it look like Obama ordered the spying on him, and that it was illegal spying, or even unethical.

However - there is no evidence that illegal spying took place. In addition, any spying that took place seems to have been for ethical reasons.


Good Post. Basically, what you are describing is incidental collection NOT wire tapping, despite what CHOTUS believes. Wiretapping is a specific, directed surveillance at a target. Trump himself was not under surveillance, it was the Russians his staff was contacting that were under surveillance, for obvious reasons. Trump's people were picked up because they were communicating with targets under investigation.

It happens all the time at lower levels of law enforcement for less national cases. Lets say your town had a local drug lord who the cops were able to get wiretap warrants on, and they were tapping the drug lords communications. Now lets say you, on the otherhand, decide you want to buy some drugs from this guy, so you call him up, text him, whatever. Before, you were a nobody to the cops. Now, you pinged their radar because you are contacting and having repeat private dealings with said individual. How, you have become worth investigating.

Same thing here. You wouldn't believe how many times incidental and accidental collection of information during seemingly unrelated investigations has lead to even bigger cases getting busted open.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The argument was never that his conversations were not recorded by some manner or means.

The argument is that Obama did not order it, and that, in fact, EVERYONES data is available to the intelligence services at any time, with minimal effort, and that Mr Trump, if there must be a surveillance culture, has no more right to his privacy or anonymity than any regular citizen, regardless of whether he was running for office or not. I can assure you that Obama will have been very closely monitored in the run up to his eventual election to the office, as was Bush, Clinton, and Bush before that, and so on and so forth!

Trump sees Obama administration funny business, I see S.O.P. when a new President is coming in. Its terrible, wrong, and all manner of crazy, but to couch it in terms which even refer to Obama, or the previous administration even a little bit, is disingenuous, because the intelligence agencies variously spy on EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY their own leaders, and everyone elses leaders, and everyone else, and their cats, dogs, ponies and pet Goddamned fruit bats.



I think this is not far from the truth - every Administration is spying on adversaries home and abroad.
Trump has a habit of lighting a fire under the things we know about, but seem to turn a blind eye to despite it being a major issue.

edit on 27/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Unfortunately so.

Although some fruit bat keepers only ever take in fruit bats who, for one reason or another, cannot be put back in the wild, human beings who have a mind to, have a tendency to want to collect animals, rather than doing what is necessarily the best for them.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join