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.

 

Confirmed: The Obama White House Received Intel Reports On Trump

page: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Absolutely. Many laws and procedures, actually.


Please provide solid evidence of those assertions and please provide proper context.




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
So wait, since it is "unknown" sources and you scream confirmed, does that mean when a "source" comes forward claiming Trump colluded with Russia, does that also mean CONFIRMED?

Or is it only when it against Clinton/Obama that unknown sources are legit?
edit on 27-3-2017 by Mictain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

No a few big wigs came out and said that they had no evidence that Trump had been wiretapped, as Trump had suggested a few weeks ago.

There are ongoing hearings about the Trump/Russian connection that have not been completed yet. The DOJ and FBI stated last week there were active investigations into Trump's people and various ties.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Ahhh, but this wasn't communications with foreign individuals.


The entire reason members of Trump's team were caught in their surveillance was because they were in communication with foreign individuals the IC were keeping an eye on.

Correct?

Is it correct?
We have yet to see the FISA warrant.
If I remember correctly, the government agencies were on record as saying that there was no FISA Court warrant.


I'm sure all of that info will eventually come out, if true. Perhaps we should wait and get all of the info before we rush to judgement.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

They did, but Comey led people on to believe the investigation is still ongoing.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This article EXPLICITLY says that it isn't confirming anything, so how can you put the confirmed label on the article title?

Before getting too excited about oversharing intelligence, however, let's remember that Nunes is the only member of his committee to actually read these documents. It's possible that other people could have a different interpretation of what they mean or their pertinence to foreign intelligence collection, the legal standard that must be met to unmask the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected by the intelligence community.

The good news is that we will soon get a second and third opinion. Nunes told me that he expects that his committee's members, including Democrats, will be able to read these documents themselves at secure locations outside of Congress as soon as this week.

Read your own article before posting OP.
edit on 27-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You all get your marching orders, don't you. Follow them like a good soldier.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite



Well, here we have it, Obama was getting info on the political oppsoition by using our intelligence agencies against them.


That's not what your source states. Getting updates on current investigations as a sitting president is not the same as using the intelligence agencies against political opponents.

One is normal and expected. The other would be illegal.

The House Intelligence Committee was supposed to be briefed on these matters too.... but it was only quite recently that they were briefed.


Ok.

What your point? Was their a law broken?

Unmasking and disseminating classified information that was important enough that the POTUS was briefed, but the Congress was left out.
Obama wrote an executive order to allow for the information to spread like it never had before.

Yeah, nothing to see here folks... move along.


You think it's proof of wrongdoing on the IC's part, or Obama?

Is it not also possible that is was unmasked and the president was briefed because someone within the Trump team was doing something they should not have been doing?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

No a few big wigs came out and said that they had no evidence that Trump had been wiretapped, as Trump had suggested a few weeks ago.

There are ongoing hearings about the Trump/Russian connection that have not been completed yet. The DOJ and FBI stated last week there were active investigations into Trump's people and various ties.

~Tenth


Ahh ok gotcha.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and I have very different ideas of what "EXPLICITLY" means. The word confirm never once appears in the article.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr



Each day it seems more and more like Obama and Hillary made the whole Russian scandal up. Months of investigations and nothing found. So did they make it up just so they could pull this off in the eyes of those who believed it?


Don't get too far ahead of yourself.

I suspect we are going to learn a lot more in the coming months.

So it would not be wise to come to any conclusion just yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Is it not also possible that is was unmasked and the president was briefed because someone within the Trump team was doing something they should not have been doing?


Not if what Nunes has been saying is true. And I'll admit, he's the only public source and currently has a monopoly on the information, being a politician, maybe he is lying.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Not if what Nunes has been saying is true. And I'll admit, he's the only public source and currently has a monopoly on the information, being a politician, maybe he is lying.


Considering he chose to brief POTUS before the members of his own committee, I'm pretty sure we know whose team Nunez is playing for.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

You all get your marching orders, don't you. Follow them like a good soldier.


I ask for something simple, like evidence to back up what you claim and that makes me a "good soldier"?

Well, if you're going to be that lazy, why did you take the time to start this thread.

Were you not hoping to spark a conversation, or were you wanting only confirmation bias?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

A fair, but non-probvable, accusation. At least as of now.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

We have the former DNI on record as stating no collusion with the russians as of 29 dec 2016.
Unless all this happened between 30 dec and today....



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and I have very different ideas of what "EXPLICITLY" means. The word confirm never once appears in the article.

Yet you put it in your article title.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert




Is it not also possible that is was unmasked and the president was briefed because someone within the Trump team was doing something they should not have been doing?


Not if what Nunes has been saying is true. And I'll admit, he's the only public source and currently has a monopoly on the information, being a politician, maybe he is lying.


What if what he says is not true?

Did you think about that?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The "evidence" is all classified. All of us here have to operate off the public accounts. Asking for something that cannot be obtained in this arena is what is lazy. Further you're the third person banging the "evidence" drum, seems pretty coincidental for three people to have such unreasonable demands.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




What if what he says is not true? Did you think about that?


did you read my whole post? If it comes out that he lied, I'll be the first to change with the evidence of it. But right now, this is all we have to go on.




top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join