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.

 

OBAMA Admin Committed Felonies by SPYING and UNMASKING TRUMPs Team For POLITICAL Purposes.

page: 10
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So we have no evidence of any investigation, but a 'trust me nothing to see here'. I am sorry to hear that is good enough for you.

Considering the source, yes it is good enough. It's not like anything damning has been produced that would require the investigators to revisit the Obama/Rice angle.




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We have unmasking. We have leaking to the news agency Rice's husband is part of. We have active admissions they were trying to disseminate as much info on Trump as possible.

There's actually a wealth of evidence which warrants an investigation.

A regime using intel against political opponents is the biggest threat to Democracy of our lifetime.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We have unmasking. We have leaking to the news agency Rice's husband is part of. We have active admissions they were trying to disseminate as much info on Trump as possible.

The unmasking is legal, the news agency relation is circumstantial evidence, and the last thing is a partisan bias.


There's actually a wealth of evidence which warrants an investigation.

And for all you know it has already been investigated and discarded as nothing.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

THANK-YOU for connecting those dots so logically!



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The unmasking is legal

no
it really is not



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The unmasking is legal

no
it really is not

Yes. It really is. You can say otherwise, but it doesn't make it true.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Former Intelligence officials are Aghast that Susan Rice said that she "frequently" unmasks American citizens names.

It's NEVER suppose to be COMMON or FREQUENT. This woman is going down, and will bring others with her. COUNT ON IT.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Former Intelligence officials are Aghast that Susan Rice said that she "frequently" unmasks American citizens names.

It's NEVER suppose to be COMMON or FREQUENT. This woman is going down, and will bring others with her. COUNT ON IT.

Got a source for these former intelligence officials? Of course, it's ALWAYS former when it comes to these opinions. Find some guy who used to work with government who agrees with your partisan slant and use that as definitive evidence that you are right. Great propaganda tool.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep.. the source is an interview conducted by Fox News. I was listening to it in the car. (XM-Sirius) I spend many hours in the car.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep.. the source is an interview conducted by Fox News. I was listening to it in the car. (XM-Sirius) I spend many hours in the car.


Well maybe you shouldn't take "former" anything so seriously. These guys have no more baring on the situation at hand than you or I. Their opinions may be a bit better formed due to their experience, but that doesn't mean they are right. Pretending like they are is just honest and plays into the propaganda.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The unmasking is legal

no
it really is not

Yes. It really is. You can say otherwise, but it doesn't make it true.

Just because some one has the authority to do something does not make it legal.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Trump removed Bannon from the National Security Counsel today.

Donuts to dollars they are trying to put out a brewing fire behind the scenes.

I think Bannon has shown up in communications with Russia.

It's the beginning of Flynn 2.0..

Trump would never pull him from the NSC unless a # storm was brewing.

He was told to remove Flynn..he didn't listen and got his ass kicked.

He is hoping this time that by removing Bannon, the intel community will not leak whatever it is.

Just my speculation...but we will see.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, you may think that I proved your point but that's hardly the case.

The entire set of sources you provided are basically a circle jerk of reporting that the other guy reported something. They're hardly independent stories.

That's how Trump justifies his ignorant tweets.

He hears something on Breitbart and then he hears other news sources reporting that Breitbart has published another delusional story and then all of a sudden, Trump ( like yourself) says it's being reported by multiple sources so it must be credible and newsworthy.

In reality, it's just another circle jerk of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

We'll see who goes down in the end and we'll see who's narrative is vindicated.

All the while, Trump associates continue to drop like flies caught up in a cloud of Raid.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The unmasking is legal

no
it really is not

Yes. It really is. You can say otherwise, but it doesn't make it true.

Just because some one has the authority to do something does not make it legal.


thats the definition of legality, to have the authority to do something, dum dum.

edit: ever notice how the people supposedly breaking the law, in this case, is black? Obama, Rice, not saying its intentional, just an interesting observation.
edit on 5-4-2017 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


All the while, Trump associates continue to drop like flies caught up in a cloud of Raid.


Two items there..

Trump is fighting to keep the "evidence" from the intelligence committee now, despite saying he would share it.

Trump had Bannon step down from the security counsel today.

Who do you think the next fly to drop might be?

He learned from the Flynn experience, that when the IC says they have damning intelligence on your NS advisor...they mean it. This time it looks like he is trying to get ahead of the storm..



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The unmasking is legal

no
it really is not

Yes. It really is. You can say otherwise, but it doesn't make it true.

Just because some one has the authority to do something does not make it legal.


thats the definition of legality, to have the authority to do something, dum dum.

edit: ever notice how the people supposedly breaking the law, in this case, is black? Obama, Rice, not saying its intentional, just an interesting observation.

Uh in this case no
You are wrong
She had authority
She has to have justification.(listed in the fisa law, see unmasking)
The authority alone is not enough.
There will also be records of what she accessed.
She is toast.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Why do you people ignorantly babble the term "felonies" and such around here?.

You know?, there are certain "entities" that have the "authority" to do such things without consequences like you and I would have to deal with...

These terms like "executive privilege" and "states sovereignty" come into play.

You should learn what the fack they mean.

page after page after page of nonsensical opinion spewing doesn't make things the way you think they should be. It just makes money for the companies that supply the electricity you waste on your device.

Go for a facking walk.
edit on ? by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody
she did have an ok from the intelligence community and her job allows her to request names of people under surveillance. the allegation is essentially that she leaked the names, and really how do you prove that?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: shooterbrody
she did have an ok from the intelligence community and her job allows her to request names of people under surveillance. the allegation is essentially that she leaked the names, and really how do you prove that?


It's even worse than that ...

She answered a question about the Nunes' material by saying she knew nothing about that.

She answered a different question about how unmasking actuall works.

There are apparently many who genuinely can't see the difference.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

Please provide the source for the "ok" from the ic.
You are right her job carries that authority. She had no legal justification.
National security advisor is not fbi ,whose job is the investigation,
Or the cia or any other investigative law enforcement agency.
National security advisor is a cabinet appointment a political position not an ic position.
She abused her authority.
She is toast.




top topics



 
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join