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.

 

SLAM DUNK Obama abused the Fisa Court to Spy on Trump Advisor Carter Page

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Your title says something, but your no proof as usual says something else.

Durp durp orange crush cheerleading.




posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod


And the evidence just keeps on mounting up.

The evidence that you can't read a news story? Leave it to the fanatics to declare some TERRIBLE news for the Trump crew as bad news for Obama... Lol.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
a reply to: AboveBoard



You stand before a Mt. Everest of evidence against Trump & Co. and are arguing that an imaginary molehill of your invention is equivalent.


Haha Please where is this massive amount of evidence? Because even Washington Post admitted nothing has been found and yet at the same time claim this is the clearest evidence yet of collusion.


Ha ha. Funny thing there that having evidence and seeing evidence is not the same as when that evidence is used to indict and convict.

This is a complex web of intrigue with a lot of threads to follow.

Be patient. Time will show us all they do or do not have. They seem to have a lot.

That you don't see any evidence of this is evidence of bias, perhaps?

It's massive. Right in front of you. A giant mountain.

Flynn, Manafort, Page, Russian Ologarch money laundering and curious banking connections, the Steele diossier proving true a piece at a time in specific terms, suddenly dead Russians who were part of the dossier's references or deduced to be part of Steele's network...and tons more.

Any ONE of those would be enough to send the right into apoplexy if it were Clinton.

Trump is merely rewriting history (I'm being generous saying it that way) to distract the right so they build a false equivalence between a non-indicted Clinton and the criminal and counter intelligence investigations closing around him that could delegitimize his entire Presidency. And it's working.



edit on 13-4-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

the appeal to authority committed is in the ASSUMPTION that because the FBI or other spy agency is investigating Trump it must mean hes guilty of something BECAUSE ITS THE FBI (an authority).

However, just because the FBI investigates someone does not mean they are guilty, thats why its an investigation. I dont see whats so hard to understand about that.

If an oncologist looks at your skin and says theres an irregularity that should be tested does that mean you have cancer? No, obviously not. If the doctor calls you later and says your tissue sample is not normal but we are still conducting tests for possibly malignancy - does THAT mean you have cancer? Obviously not. Is the doctor an authority? Yes. Does his investigation mean you have cancer? No. Does his investigation make it APPEAR there may be something wrong with your skin? Yes. Can a reasonable person CONCLUDE only on the basis of an investigation into what APPEARS out of the ordinary that something is wrong? No.

Joshua is making some giant leaps of conclusion based on wishful thinking and appeal to the authority of an agency as justification for his premature conclusion which is based on ZERO credible, actionable evidence.

Not to mention the GUILT BY ASSOCIATION fallacy which is used to malign someone because of APPEARANCE of unsavory activity or association and almost EVERY SINGLE piece of "evidence" listed is "guilt by association" and isnt admissible in a court of law or can be used to reasonably conclude wrongdoing AT ALL.


Not to mention many of the points of "evidence" cited rely on huge assumptions about what the FBI and other agencies "KNOW" about this or that. How do they know anything? What is the threshhold required for KNOWING?

When whatever "evidence" these agencies have is not released to the public for independent scrutiny and ones only option is to believe the agency BECAUSE its the FBI (after all they wouldnt lie would they?) THAT is an appeal to authority. You are saying "i dont have access to the information but i will believe what they say because they are the experts". Fortunately thats not the only option for skeptics and critical thinkers because we know "experts" and "authorities" are just fancy shmancy names for human beings who make mistakes and can be influenced or bought off in any number of ways.



Please feel free to point out how im wrong.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Sillyolme



However, just because the FBI investigates someone does not mean they are guilty, thats why its an investigation. I dont see whats so hard to understand about that.



Correct, but the FBI also does not conduct large scale investigations, investing significant time, manpower and resources without sufficient evidence that a potential crime may have occurred.

With HRC it was at the request of congress and the investigation involved the risk that highly classified material might have been compromised.

With the Trump Campaign Colluding with a Foreign Government to influence a US Election, it was their own evidence that they gathered during normal Counter-Espionage Investigations that demanded they open a dedicated investigation.

They do not investigate things to satisfy curiousity...they need significant and demonstrable probable cause.

For the FBI's purposes..whether or not Foreign Agents colluding with the Russian government were successful in influencing the election is not relevant. That is politics, not law. They are only concerned if the collusion took place.

There are no CONCLUSIONS/CONVICTIONS in the investigation because it has not been concluded...But of course there is evidence, otherwise there would not be an investigation, and an investigation not requested by congress like HRC's server was...but rather an investigation that evolved naturally from steady, emerging evidence.

We will see, but from what can be publicly gathered and the maneuvering of Manafort, Flynn and Page thus far and recusals of Nunes and Sessions...There is a massive amount of "Smoke".



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Correct, but the FBI also does not conduct large scale investigations, investing significant time, manpower and resources without sufficient evidence that a potential crime may have occurred.


First, lets talk about how you refer to the FBI as a monolithic entity as though the entire agency moves in lockstep with one another towards a common goal. We know this is not the case from revelations after Comeys reversals on Clinton that there was and perhaps still is significant difference of opinions and attitudes of the rank and file agents compared to the leadership. So you've got to figure that well known FACT into ANY characterization you construct of what the FBI is doing, why, and based on what "evidence" you seem to think they have.

Second, you yourself used two words that convey uncertainty in your characterization of the FBI's investigation "POTENTIAL crime MAY have occurred".

Third, your statement is based on a huge ASSUMPTION that the FBI never engages in a "large scale" investigation without "sufficient evidence"

Definitions please: first what is a "large scale" investigation and what differentiates it from a "small scale" or "medium scale" investigation? You seem to know so much about the inner workings of the FBI or believe what a few talking heads are saying about how the entire agency operates, so maybe you can share some official documentation or other evidence that they have only and always engaged in "large scale investigations" with "sufficient evidence" that a POTENTIAL crime MAY have been committed.

Next, what is "sufficient evidence"? Is that the same as circumstantial evidence? Can you detail or example what would be "insufficient evidence" in this case and at what point the evidence became sufficient enough to take the investigation from its initial stages to a "large scale" one?





With the Trump Campaign Colluding with a Foreign Government to influence a US Election, it was their own evidence that they gathered during normal Counter-Espionage Investigations that demanded they open a dedicated investigation.



The "Trump campaign colluding with a foreign government..." ??? Has that been proven and if so what is the evidence the collusion exists and most important, WHEN was that evidence obtained or interpreted to be as such? I noted in my first post that if they had had sufficient evidence collusion existed BEFORE the election they would have been in serious dereliction of duty to allow a foreign influenced person become the POTUS, do you disagree?

So, if they had this "evidence" of collusion BEFORE the election what possible explanation can you offer for why they declined to bring that evidence before the proper authorities before a potential puppet of Russia was elected to the highest office in the land?

And if they didnt have this "evidence" until after the election how could they continue to not bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities to prevent this "puppet president" from doing something that could potentially destroy the USA? Would that not ALSO constitute a gross negligence and shirking of their constitutional oath?

Seems to me no matter which of your possible narratives is correct you have to explain how and why those who took sacred oaths to defend us from "enemies foreign and domestic" could sit on this mountain of evidence they have of collusion and allow us to continue to be put in the utmost existential danger.


Please address each of my points about the definitions if you feel up to it and more importantly please address my questions about how the intel agencies can do nothing to stop a puppet president from sabotaging our country.

thanks in advance



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Indigo5




Correct, but the FBI also does not conduct large scale investigations, investing significant time, manpower and resources without sufficient evidence that a potential crime may have occurred.


First, lets talk about how you refer to the FBI as a monolithic entity as though the entire agency moves in lockstep with one another towards a common goal. We know this is not the case from revelations after Comeys reversals on Clinton that there was and perhaps still is significant difference of opinions and attitudes of the rank and file agents compared to the leadership. So you've got to figure that well known FACT into ANY characterization you construct of what the FBI is doing, why, and based on what "evidence" you seem to think they have.



Anytime someone uses ALL-CAPS to state the word "FACT"...I am suspect..
"Believe me" and "trust me" fall into those skeptical categories of rhetoric.

The stories about dissent in the FBI were loosely based on gossip and promoted by Giuliani..
I entertain the possibility that some at the FBI wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton...
But it has never been established with clarity the who or why of that political reporting.

"FACTS" don't need to be shouted as "FACTS" to be true...they need to be explained and supported.




Second, you yourself used two words that convey uncertainty in your characterization of the FBI's investigation "POTENTIAL crime MAY have occurred".


Sure...because I understand "FACTS"...the facts are that we have no conclusions to the investigation. A massive amount of smoke, but not the source of smoke to tie it together yet. We will see what the FBI has or doesn't have when their investigation concludes.





Next, what is "sufficient evidence"? Is that the same as circumstantial evidence? Can you detail or example what would be "insufficient evidence" in this case and at what point the evidence became sufficient enough to take the investigation from its initial stages to a "large scale" one?



Lord...are you asking me to summarize the "sufficient evidence" despite not being privy to it?

I would argue that what the public knows is much less than what the FBI knows..

And what the public knows warrants official investigation any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And to such an extent that both houses of congress, dominated by the Presidents own party, grudgingly agree.







The "Trump campaign colluding with a foreign government..." ??? Has that been proven and if so what is the evidence the collusion exists


Again...have you not been following the story?

Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Michael Flynn and the Dossier...which is often derided by Trump Supporters, but is credible when examined, more so when viewed in the context of what it predicted and who it named.

Here is a grossly incomplete appetizer..
www.vox.com...



So, if they had this "evidence" of collusion BEFORE the election what possible explanation can you offer for why they declined to bring that evidence before the proper authorities


It was insufficient evidence 6 months ago...now it is not. At least that is what Comey infers?



And if they didnt have this "evidence" until after the election how could they continue to not bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities to prevent this "puppet president" from doing something that could potentially destroy the USA? Would that not ALSO constitute a gross negligence and shirking of their constitutional oath?


??? Are you suggesting they now have damnable evidence, but are dragging on the investigation for some reason?




Seems to me no matter which of your possible narratives is correct you have to explain how and why those who took sacred oaths to defend us from "enemies foreign and domestic" could sit on this mountain of evidence they have of collusion and allow us to continue to be put in the utmost existential danger.



The FBI standard is "Prosecutable" as in a court of law. When the evidence is sufficient for charges or concluding the investigation we will hear about it.




Please address each of my points about the definitions if you feel up to it and more importantly please address my questions about how the intel agencies can do nothing to stop a puppet president from sabotaging our country.



Did my best...As far as " how the intel agencies can do nothing to stop a puppet president from sabotaging our country"...what makes you believe that? They got Flynn to resign lickety split in record time? Sessions to recuse himself? They are still gathering and processing intelligence to see who else needs to go. We are not even 100 days yet...be patient.
edit on 13-4-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

so it is your belief that the FBI, which began an investigation into Page some say in 2015....and which Susan Rice followed and began asking for names to be unmasked in July of 2016 only after Trump had won the Republican nomination, DID NOT have at that time sufficient evidence of wrong doing or collusion but that NOW, six months later, they do???

I dont know how you can believe that the FBI ,supposedly a professional lot who you would think know their jobs quite well, and having had the benefit of perhaps a full YEAR of investigation before Trump was elected, couldnt come up with enough evidence before the election and that somehow SINCE the election they have amassed enough more that NOW they have credible evidence?


Think about the timeline we are talking about here. Think about how much time they had before the election to capture ostensibly ALL the communication between Trump associates and any Russians they may have spoken with, versus how much opportunity they have had SINCE THE ELECTION and you really want me to believe that whatever intelligence they have gathered SINCE the election is definitively more substantial and credible?


NO offense, i think you are straining the credibility of what potential intelligence there even was to be gathered AFTER the election compared to what was available BEFORE it.

By the way, as far as Flynn is concerned it is almost certain that he did nothing out of the ordinary for a person in his position of an incoming administration. Whatever reference there was to sanctions was most certainly not a conversation about sanctions but rather a brief reference to it. If in fact the reference to sanctions was a conversation wherein assurances were made that they might be lifted or changed in some way to benefit the Russians then it would behoove the intel agencies to release at least that part of the telephone transcript if for no other reason than to boost their own case that they actually have more than just empty boogey man accusations and guilt by association. The fact that they will NOT release the transcript relating to sanctions is at bare minimum a lost opportunity to gain the trust of a very reasonably dubious public and at worst a tacit admission that the word was mentioned in passing and nothing more.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Indigo5

so it is your belief that the FBI, which began an investigation into Page some say in 2015....and which Susan Rice followed and began asking for names to be unmasked in July of 2016 only after Trump had won the Republican nomination, DID NOT have at that time sufficient evidence of wrong doing or collusion but that NOW, six months later, they do???



I think the intelligence community and FBI felt the weight of the implications and erred on the side of caution.


If they could not prove collusion in a court of law then don't interfere with a free US Presidential Election.


Does that thinking seem far fetched to you?



I dont know how you can believe that the FBI ,supposedly a professional lot who you would think know their jobs quite well, and having had the benefit of perhaps a full YEAR of investigation before Trump was elected, couldnt come up with enough evidence


Up until relatively recently they were not investigating the Collusion angle.

It wasn't until enough evidence of collusion emerged during incidental intelligence collection of their solely focused Russia investigation that they felt compelled to open a collusion investigation.




Think about the timeline we are talking about here. Think about how much time they had before the election to capture ostensibly ALL the communication between Trump associates and any Russians they may have spoken with, versus how much opportunity they have had SINCE THE ELECTION and you really want me to believe that whatever intelligence they have gathered SINCE the election is definitively more substantial and credible?



Post election and during transition is a fruitful time as Russian Operatives would hypothetically work to negotiate a return for agreed upon election interference efforts.

Maybe through the Countries Chief National Security Advisor Michael Flynn? Or perhaps through a non cabinet official, but close Trump associate like Erik Prince if for some strange reason the Chief NSA was forced to resign for lying about his contacts with Russian Operatives?





By the way, as far as Flynn is concerned it is almost certain that he did nothing out of the ordinary for a person in his position of an incoming administration. Whatever reference there was to sanctions was most certainly not a conversation about sanctions but rather a brief reference to it.


People do not lie to the Public and the Vice President of the United States about "ordinary" conversations..

It was not a brief chat while he was on vacation...Apart from the text messages..

Trump adviser had five calls with Russian envoy on day of sanctions:
www.reuters.com...

That infers Flynn was checking in with someone multiple times...like some kind of negotiation where he needed to get approval as he went...Hmmmmmmmmm



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

you are going through a great deal of effort to believe in something with ZERO evidence as presented to the public, instead preferring or opting to give the benefit of the doubt to intel agencies who may or may not have any credible evidence to prove collusion.

Ill say it again, you are choosing to believe in something that cannot be proven. What is that called? Its called FAITH.

Again, all the phone calls and contacts are nothing but "guilt by appearance" or "guilt by association" and forcing a "hasty conclusion" from them that there was collusion.

"where theres smoke theres fire" is a logical fallacy called a "hasty conclusion"

You are choosing to believe in malfeasance on the part of Trump/Trumps team, are you not?

And what reasonable conclusion can you draw from Flynns resignation? Well, reasonable may be debatable...most people think they are reasonable.

But do we have a public of reasonable, logical, rational, critical thinking people? I personally dont think so. This is why the "optics" of things plays so big in public opinion. Perfect case in point the recent gas/chemical attack in Syria. Show the public some well crafted, well timed media showing innocent children suffering then point them to the bad guy who did it and they cant jump on it fast enough.

Optics are important and have shaped public opinion and judgement in a variety of ways.

You say Flynns resignation is practical proof of wrong doing. I say the BS boogeyman fairy tale of Russian collusion that began dogging Trump WELL BEFORE his election (see last debate Clinton calling Trump a Russian puppet) and colored the revelation of Flynns phone calls with his Russian COUNTERPARTS as part of an incoming administration, something that was HIS JOB as SECDEF, and you have the OPTICS of wrongdoing without ANY PROOF of wrongdoing. Then, compounded by the optics of that, his so called lie to the VP as to the discussion of sanctions and the deal was sealed.

Yes lets talk about his "lie" to Pence shall we? If during his phone calls with Russians he did not DISCUSS sanctions then would it have been a lie to say to Pence that sanctions were not discussed?

Lets go one better. Lets say the way it was put to Flynn was "did sanctions come up in the conversation" and Flynn said "no" thinking that what was meant was "did you DISCUSS sanctions in your conversation". His "no" answer would have been correct in how he interpreted the MEANING of the question, if not correct in the most strict, semantically concrete meaning.

You see, language is a symbolic form of communication much more than a literal one. For that very reason people used to study "rhetoric" because just being well versed in grammar and logic would make conversations utterly boring. So rhetoric was created as a discipline to not only have more fun with language, but to actually USE it for all kinds of reasons. And thats problematic isnt it? Because since MOST people ( i would say 99 percent) dont have a clue of how language works and how to spot manipulation using it, they are very receptive to having their thoughts and opinions swayed by expert, well practiced use of rhetorical devices.

A perfect case in point was how Jeff Sessions was asked about his contact with Russians. Al Franken posed the question in a purposely vague, all encompassing manner, probably knowing full well that as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sessions would have had contact with Russians as a part of his job, thereby using the verbiage of the question to play gotcha semantics with Sessions. Unfortunately for Sessions, as some people often do, he failed to grasp the leading nature of the question and how it was being used to trap him. He answered the question with the understanding that the question could not apply to him since he was not ACTUALLY a surrogate for Trump though some had called him one, so answering the question in the negative seemed both appropriate and factually correct. HOWEVER, the exceedingly broad wording of the question should have tipped him off that what Franken meant was if ANYONE associated with Trump, including Sessions, had ANY contact with Russians no matter what the context or purpose was.

There, i hope that i explained that one example well enough to illustrate how word games, selective interpretation of questions and their purpose, intent and meaning, as well as the OPTICS of how those questions are answered, can indict a person in the court of public opinion through APPEARANCE alone.

It is the OPTICS that are dogging Trump.....the allegation....the insinuation.....the guilt by association and the suggestion of wrong doing, that is poisoning the well of public opinion.

In fact, there is almost no actual substance to prove any aspect of the "theory" of collusion and because of that the spectre of an ongoing, indeterminably long "investigation" is BY DESIGN offered by Trumps enemies to keep that dark cloud of suspicion over him for the ENTIRE LENGTH of his term with ZERO actual charges ever being brought against him.

No charges will ever be brought, I say because there is ZERO evidence to prove collusion. You might prefer to believe its because they dont have enough evidence to WIN in court. However, i can guarantee you that no matter what amount of evidence does or does not exist Trumps enemies will keep the investigation alive until the end of his term as a constant thorn in his side to use against him as they see fit, to sway public opinion and constantly cast doubt on his motives vis a vis Russian relations.

Whats truly sick about the entire thing is with ZERO substance, this boogeyman fairytale which will NEVER SEE the inside of a court room, is being used to sabotage what should be good working relations with the only other NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER in the world for NO OTHER REASON than to spite the man that no one wanted to or thought could win. And while they are playing their little psych warfare games that by now most Americans dont believe or even care about, they are pushing us all closer and closer to something that actually DOES exist..... a potentially dangerous confrontation with a country that is barely hanging on by a thread and increasingly has less to lose by striking out against unwarranted provocation and suspicion.



edit on 13-4-2017 by tribal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tribal

No offense and I am trying to be accommodating...

But debate via walls of text is not my preference...



He taught nothing but reading and writing.

And being a Scot...

believed that the art of writing lay in thrift.

Half as long.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Sorry but the FISA court is there to protect from abuse and they don't grant warrants without merit.

This comment literally made me laugh out loud when I read it.


Some people on here seem to think the world is made of roses and they are all in for the greater good.

It is laughable, much agreed. Seems even people here on ATS dont have any sense anymore.

It would be cleart that the ex President Obama ordered this check, he would have had reasons to deter Trump from winning as anyone in the Presidency seat for too long goes to their head. He would have wanted to see his ideas go ahead and not be squashed like Obama care and his connections to other 'saudi' connections.

I am for anyone that changes the direction and scope of its country rather then feeding the fast food junkies their same old soup every year. Trump is atleast bringing back the classic, Americaaaaa Fu*k YEA! lol



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackProject

Exactly Obama only cared about his Legacy. He wanted his Legacy to be preserved by any means necessary and that includes "Spying" on his Political Opponents to get dirt on them. President Bush wanted to get the uck out of the White House quickly, quietly, and efficiently by allowing the Transition team to be the smoothest ever. We didn't hear a word out of Bush for the Last 8 Years unless asked. Obama on the other hand ucked over Trump by quietly allowing information/dirt that they gathered on Trump during the Campaign/Transition to be shared across 16 different agencies.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Your title says something, but your no proof as usual says something else.

Durp durp orange crush cheerleading.


Thats funny the article said no evidence either



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
a reply to: BlackProject

Exactly Obama only cared about his Legacy. He wanted his Legacy to be preserved by any means necessary and that includes "Spying" on his Political Opponents to get dirt on them. President Bush wanted to get the uck out of the White House quickly, quietly, and efficiently by allowing the Transition team to be the smoothest ever. We didn't hear a word out of Bush for the Last 8 Years unless asked. Obama on the other hand ucked over Trump by quietly allowing information/dirt that they gathered on Trump during the Campaign/Transition to be shared across 16 different agencies.


Exactly Friend.

You detailed it better then me but yes, exactly this. The transition you spoke about with Bush, again exactly. See the uproar that occured when Trump took office. As to those in power hungry positions never saw that coming. They were angry, never have I ever seen such a badly passed over presidency as when Trump tried to do his job.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

What cat?

Oh is this Obama wiretapping trump tower ???



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Who just happen to have a lot of Russian friends...



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

The source isn't fake and neither is the story.
It's your interpretation that this somehow supports trumps claims that's in question.
This in no way supports trumps idiotic claim that Obama wiretapped trump tower.

Truly miraculous goal posts that just happen to be located wherever you kick the ball.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Actually that was Truman. Want to have a seance? Call him out?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
At least I now know why kids always tried to cheat off my paper in school.




top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join