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: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

In your opinion, based on what we know today, should hillary clinton have been taken to trial over her handling of classified information?


No.

Comey was correct in his assessment. There was no information published that could prove intent on her part, legal precedence had been established in such cases as where intent was needed and the longstanding practices within the FBI/DoJ was inline with his decision.

In that particular case, we were provided much information and context that assisted in making an informed decision.




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



Stop with the partisan bull# and quit wasting our time trying to peddle nonsense that even you had to admit could be bull#.


It's not partisan, but ok. Also, I didn't have to admit anything. I admitted it freely as a reasonable person. Your language speaks volumes to your feelings on the matter, even if you don't think it does.



If we were to take the same logic and apply it elsewhere, we could say that Trump and his cronies are in bed with the Russians and should be impeached.


Maybe I haven't seen some of the evidence or statements you have, but from everything I've seen there's only exoneration of Trump there. Even the most liberal outlets have admitted they have nothing so far on Trump.




It only seems bad if you are taking the words of others and not making an assessment based on verifiable information.


So close! Can you actually say the words? "If Nunes isn't lying, this looks really bad for the Obama administration."



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ok, you're as partisan as they come. I sit next to three dyed in the wool blue democrats at work, all of which despise trump and voted hillary. It's unanimous among them that she should have been on trial. They'd even take it a step further and say she should be in jail.

If you can't even admit that she should be on trial, you're too far gone. You aren't a reasonable person. Nice talking to you.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



It's not partisan, but ok. Also, I didn't have to admit anything. I admitted it freely as a reasonable person. Your language speaks volumes to your feelings on the matter, even if you don't think it does.


Exactly. You admit it could be BS. So why the hee-hawing around?



Maybe I haven't seen some of the evidence or statements you have, but from everything I've seen there's only exoneration of Trump there. Even the most liberal outlets have admitted they have nothing so far on Trump.


There's the partisanship. There is plenty of info to suggest Trump's team were involved in things they should not have been. Flynn is a good example.

While we cannot confirm it, we also cannot deny it.



So close! Can you actually say the words? "If Nunes isn't lying, this looks really bad for the Obama administration."


I've already said as much.

At this point it appears you are trying to argue points that have already been addressed and you are coming back full circle.

That's why I asked you to stop wasting our time. You've already conceded on the points I have made but seem to want to keep arguing against that which you have already conceded.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Ok, you're as partisan as they come.


I'm partisan because I informed my opinion based on not only Comey's expert opinion, but also legal precedence and longstanding practice within the FBI/DoJ?

That doesn't make sense.



I sit next to three dyed in the wool blue democrats at work, all of which despise trump and voted hillary. It's unanimous among them that she should have been on trial. They'd even take it a step further and say she should be in jail.


Congrats. Don't waste my time with logical fallacies.

By they way, I didn't vote for Hillary and never supported her candidacy.



If you can't even admit that she should be on trial, you're too far gone. You aren't a reasonable person. Nice talking to you.


I don't care about your illogical assessment.

If you find reason to be unreasonable, that is not my problem. I think I've been very reasonable in simply saying we need to wait for more information. You try to counter that, but cannot, and have to drag Hillary in to this in an attempt to...do...well, I'm not sure.

Deflect?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Dfairlite

If Trump's communications were intercepted as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the election, then there's nothing illegal about that.

If people at Trump tower were talking to Russians during the campaign or during the transition, then intelligence agencies who were investigating these reports had every right to listen to and record those foreigners. If they were talking to Americans while this was happening then that data collection is incidental.

And completely legal.

The dissemination however, I'm not sure of the laws regarding that.

~Tenth


That would be the no-no. He has a right to due process, and for the government to deny him that right cannot be allowed to happen. I mean, we get a hearing with 5 hours of "no comment" because investigations are sacrosanct. You cannot then go throwing a persons information out into the wild with impunity.

But that said, i take it all wit a grain of salt. Nothing is believable anymore.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

In your opinion, based on what we know today, should hillary clinton have been taken to trial over her handling of classified information?


No.

Comey was correct in his assessment. There was no information published that could prove intent on her part, legal precedence had been established in such cases as where intent was needed and the longstanding practices within the FBI/DoJ was inline with his decision.

In that particular case, we were provided much information and context that assisted in making an informed decision.


Yes their was intent and it was proven by people using reddit to trace stone tear email address back to him after he asked how to change a time stamp on an email!



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: digital01anarchy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

In your opinion, based on what we know today, should hillary clinton have been taken to trial over her handling of classified information?


No.

Comey was correct in his assessment. There was no information published that could prove intent on her part, legal precedence had been established in such cases as where intent was needed and the longstanding practices within the FBI/DoJ was inline with his decision.

In that particular case, we were provided much information and context that assisted in making an informed decision.


Yes their was intent and it was proven by people using reddit to trace stone tear email address back to him after he asked how to change a time stamp on an email!


The question I was asked was in reference to Hillary herself.

Not applicable.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

In your opinion, based on what we know today, should hillary clinton have been taken to trial over her handling of classified information?


No.

Comey was correct in his assessment. There was no information published that could prove intent on her part, legal precedence had been established in such cases as where intent was needed and the longstanding practices within the FBI/DoJ was inline with his decision.

In that particular case, we were provided much information and context that assisted in making an informed decision.

Under Federal Law the requirement to prove intent is not needed . In fact , neither is it needed in most cases
You rob a bank , does anyone have to prove intent ?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dfairlite

When Warren runs for president in 2020, it will be okay for Trump to "wiretap" her communications because she has (in the past) met with representatives of foreign governments.



Tsk! Tsk!
Please refer to Warren by one of her proper names:
-Lie-O-Whatta
- Sh#ting Bull
-Spreading Bull
-Fauxcahontas
edit on 27-3-2017 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

In your opinion, based on what we know today, should hillary clinton have been taken to trial over her handling of classified information?


No.

Comey was correct in his assessment. There was no information published that could prove intent on her part, legal precedence had been established in such cases as where intent was needed and the longstanding practices within the FBI/DoJ was inline with his decision.

In that particular case, we were provided much information and context that assisted in making an informed decision.

Under Federal Law the requirement to prove intent is not needed . In fact , neither is it needed in most cases
You rob a bank , does anyone have to prove intent ?


The act itself is proof of intent.

Not a very good example.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Dfairlite

If Trump's communications were intercepted as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the election, then there's nothing illegal about that.

If people at Trump tower were talking to Russians during the campaign or during the transition, then intelligence agencies who were investigating these reports had every right to listen to and record those foreigners. If they were talking to Americans while this was happening then that data collection is incidental.

And completely legal.

The dissemination however, I'm not sure of the laws regarding that.

~Tenth


I think the main point here is that Trump was right that his wires were tapped, and Obama had to know about it. Or he is completely inept and should have been put in a convalescent home years ago. But it makes more sense that he at least knew, and worst, ordered it and passed it on to Hilldog. Once that little transgression is released, I expect some fireworks.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




I think the main point here is that Trump was right that his wires were tapped.

Why is that constantly being repeated as if it were true? There is no evidence that Trump was right. Comey said no evidence. Nunes said no evidence.


It was the phones of others which were monitored, legally. Apparently, sometimes those others were talking to Trump associates and sometimes they were talking about Trump associates.



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

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



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, the right is getting desperate. I can't wait until I see Trump do his Nixon goodbye.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Snowden revelations already prove that everyone was monitored? ("wiretapped") So no it may not have been the NSA or the FBI, I have not heard or read anywhere that the CIA didn't do so. (loophole) I have not read anywhere that President Obama explicitly said Trump should not be monitored.

Consider, the DNC was skewed for Hillary and the MSM, and the fact that the Former Presidents "legacy" was in jeopardy, and it was already revealed other "wiretaps" took place, How "likely" was it the President-Elect Trump was not monitored?

If you believe in the "Russian collusion" then this scenario is just as plausible, and possible even more likely considering the history everyone knows as fact.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Snowden revelations already prove that everyone was monitored? ("wiretapped") So no it may not have been the NSA or the FBI, I have not heard or read anywhere that the CIA didn't do so. (loophole) I have not read anywhere that President Obama explicitly said Trump should not be monitored.


So not ordering the NSA to stop gathering intel is the same as ordering a direct wiretap on Trump during the campaign? More attempts to try and excuse what were very direct accusations by Trump, of Obama specifically. That he ordered wiretaps on Trump, and he compared the act to Nixon / Watergate.

If Trump and Co. can dredge up some evidence, hey.. by all means.. let justice be duly processed. But until they actually provide proof, it's a whole lotta nothing to excuse what were imo, simply another angry social outburst by Trump without clearing it with anyone in his administration first. Seems to me to a lot of people under Trump are trying very hard to find some circular way to provide some circumstantial evidence that might ever so slightly exonerate Trump from his blunder.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Intelligence reports on Trump is kinda ironic. He's clueless and watching this whole fiasco brings me fond recolectionsions of Laurel and Hardy Routines.It's funny! They are clueless! But, they run our government :/
edit on 27-3-2017 by IamALWAYSright because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Anything illegal? Why are you crying?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:21 AM
link   
WOW...I think I get it now. Obama had the information that was collected sent to him, passed it along to others and likely the Clinton campaign and DNC to help Clinton win the election.

So...I guess "Russians" was the secret term referring to Obama, Clinton and the DNC referencing who was trying to illegally influence the election.

Now...will the Dems continue to go after the "Russians"?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Interesting that Obama is so quiet and traveled to a country with no extradition.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join