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.

 

Trump Surveilled Before Nomination, Agencies with Info Blocked Nunes for Weeks

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: conscientiousobserver

What info is ok to release?
Sexual proclivities, including fetishes?

Just because we are all being spied upon doesn't mean that it is acceptable.... or legal.




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: xuenchen

I really don't see what the big deal is. All presidential candidates should be thoroughly vetted, including active surveillance.

The issue is when and if this information is then used against the candidate.


Demented Democrats didn't say this when Trump first tweeted that Obama was spying on him. They said...TRUMPS A LIAR!



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The source isn't anonymous. It is Dennis Montgomery a former contractor who worked with Brennan and Clapper. Multiiple threads have been made about this including my own.

Imo this was a big leap for anyone to even go here. Usually politicians never do anything to admit to leaked docs. They know the truth but never acknowledge it. Seems to me this is a step but I await it all being actually acknowledged by any politician.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: butcherguy

The source isn't anonymous. It is Dennis Montgomery a former contractor who worked with Brennan and Clapper. Multiiple threads have been made about this including my own.

Imo this was a big leap for anyone to even go here. Usually politicians never do anything to admit to leaked docs. They know the truth but never acknowledge it. Seems to me this is a step but I await it all being actually acknowledged by any politician.

That is what we all believed, but this news report says that the source that is still working in the IC, and that would rule Montgomery out wouldn't it?
edit on b000000302017-04-01T21:32:56-05:0009America/ChicagoSat, 01 Apr 2017 21:32:56 -0500900000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




I look at the Democrats actions in the last few weeks as supporting coverup and subterfuge....my opinion.

Nope , you got to go all the way back to the 70s or earlier....



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

If Obama directly ordered the wiretaps without court approval to help Hillary. Then yes that would be outrageous, but the wiretaps have nothing to do with Obama.

Trump was being investigated because a Russian mob boss renting the 63rd floor of Trump Tower was being investigated. Which ultimately led to the F.B.I. investigating Trump without Obama being involved in any way. The rest of his administration keeps getting implicated in the whole Russia matter as well. So is it really so hard to believe that the remaining few would be investigated as well.

What's outrageous is that the elections weren't stopped when both nominees were under F.B.I. investigation. One who is still being investigated for possibly having treasonous ties with Russia and the other for obviously trying to hide and delete a lot of damming information. What's even more outrageous is that both sides are possibly getting away with it. Although Trump might not be so lucky.


Also something I have been considering is what If Trump's initial tweet about the wiretaps was a warning to Putin about the investigation. Just food for thought.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: butcherguy

The source isn't anonymous. It is Dennis Montgomery a former contractor who worked with Brennan and Clapper. Multiiple threads have been made about this including my own.

Imo this was a big leap for anyone to even go here. Usually politicians never do anything to admit to leaked docs. They know the truth but never acknowledge it. Seems to me this is a step but I await it all being actually acknowledged by any politician.

That is what we all believed, but this news report says that the source that is still working in the IC, and that would rule Montgomery out wouldn't it?




We’ve learned that the surveillance that led to the unmasking of what started way before President Trump was even the GOP nominee,”Text reported Adam Housley. “The person who did the unmasking, I’m told, is very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world and is not in the FBI.”


So it seems to me it was based on the original info by Montgomery but the source for Nunes was basing the info on his/her uncovering of the info possibly researched after the fact.

source

In the last months, I have held meetings with the House Judiciary Committee, asking its Chairman Bob Goodlatte to inquire of FBI Director Comey about this ongoing investigation concerning whistleblower Dennis Montgomery. I will also call upon the new Attorney General Jeff Sessions to oversee this serious matter.


This info, not details, were sent to many of congress FBI people over two years ago with no response. Two years ago he was given immunity by FBI and they took all info. I know it was said it wasn't FBI but the claim was already out their for others to investigate.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

FoxNews has come up with a story that has Trump under surveillance since before he was even nominated !!
This statement is in conflict with what the article says. It does not say that Trump was under surveillance.



edit on 4/1/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But it matches the information offered by Montgomery, the former contractor for the intelligence agencies. I believe his info says that Bush began the surveillance on Trump. This allows Obama to be truthful when he says that he did not order it.

See, both Dems and Repubs have enemies lists and use everything they can capture, by hook or crook, to find out stuff that would allow them a certain measure of control over those enemies. That is the reason we will never see these intelligence reports released by the collectors. If all the corruption is exposed at once, there will be a "Continuity of Government" problem. Remember also that this swamp has been bubbling for a very long time. The gators get mean when you're trying to deprive them of their food and habitat.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




But it matches the information offered by Montgomery,

Actually, it doesn't.
And what every happened to Montgomery's big reveal? Wasn't the "deadline" the 24th?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

He is a liar because it was not Obama who ordered the wiretaps. The F.B.I.was investigating Trump Tower long before the election. If the the Russian collusion is real then I believe the tweet was just a warning to Putin.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: xuenchen

I really don't see what the big deal is. All presidential candidates should be thoroughly vetted, including active surveillance.

And should the current party in power use that to their advantage when no wrongdoing has occurred? THAT is the problem.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

They'll listen. If it was true and there was anything to discover. Ha ha Ha Ha Ha ha they'd listen.
We're not ignoring things. Don't worry.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Which is why it should be done by a non partisan group of investigators that are allowed to investigate all nominees and release their findings directly to the public regardless of who is in the white house. If the nominees are involved in shady dealings. Then should they really be nominees in the first place?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Anything illegal.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

its not people won't listen it is that the paid for media shills won't put the information out there and then turn around and make people believe that fox news is not a reputable news service. the spill doctors will tell the sheep we have all this info saying trump did this or that which if the info is true IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA HAD HIM UNDER SURVEILLANCE THEN WITH VERY NEXT BREATH WHY TRUMP KEEP ACCUSING OBAMA OF WIRETAPPING HIM THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT. even through they just gave the proof. i don't give 2 donkey biscuits if trumps people talked with the russians i would want them to because obama hillary had us aimed at conflict with them whereas we need to come together with them as friends us and russia make up 2/3rds of the worlds 3 top super powers its better if we come together in friendship then worry about dealing with them as enemies.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: butcherguy

Anything illegal.

What if it is illegal in Alabama but legal in the other 49 states? ( 56 states in Ovama's case)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
Ok illegal federally would be the main focus, but to directly answer you the candidate would have to be in that state committing the illegal action in order for it to be actionable. Otherwise it would be up to the people of that state whether they vote for the candidate based on his or her activities. Rather than just what the candidate lies about.

Simple solution for the candidates don't do anything illegal. Is that too much to ask for.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Which is why the stuff about Clinton being revealed is good.

What you are interested in is NOT what happened here. It was very partisan and designed to hurt Trump for political reasons. What you suggest could be a good thing.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

This is actually good news. They're finally coming around to admitting that trump was right. He was surveilled.







 
64
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join