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.

 

CNN admits their reports on Fox News anchor were false

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Which ties in with the point I made earlier. The BBC and other outlets reported they were using warrants on other people, and gathering intelligence on other people, when the real target was Trump. So they told the judge they needed a warrant on Person B, when in reality the real target was Person A (Trump). That is why this 'incidental' capture was disseminated, it was not incidental, it was targeted and made to look incidental. This was CONFIRMED to these outlets by sources. So Democrats admitted this was happening and thought it made Trump look bad .. and as soon as it came back to bite them in the ass suddenly the same outlets who were claiming this was happening did a 180 and covered for the Democrats saying there was no proof, after they themselves said they confirmed it.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Even Napolitano's own network disavowed his story, but this is all about CNN conveniently.

The fact is, his report and the CNN report say two totally different things.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jordan77

And when you tie in the MSN CONFIRMED Trump was being targeted by tapping OTHER people's communications, and we do have intel from other countries that was made public against the normal standard .. what the Judge said suddenly gets very plausible.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry wrong. This is like in science when there is supporting evidence for or against something and people try to claim it proves or disapproves the thing. Only your attempt here is worse than that because there's evidence Here that supports an assertion and you are claiming it proves the opposite lol. Laughable.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You don't know that. All you know at this point is that the British did indeed supply intelligence to the Obama administration about trump. You're assuming that it was just normal course of action. Napolitano could absolutely have been right that it was prompted at Obama request through his administration. As I just stated, evidence for something is not proof against it.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jordan77

And when you tie in the MSN CONFIRMED Trump was being targeted by tapping OTHER people's communications, and we do have intel from other countries that was made public against the normal standard .. what the Judge said suddenly gets very plausible.


No such thing was confirmed.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Another angle: The Brits did what Obama asked. When it started to get too hot to continue hiding, they concocted this story.

Yet another angle: it happened just like you said, but was relayed to Napolitano using allusions to malfeasance.

Nonetheless, in lay terms, Trump and Napolitano have both been proven right. And all it takes is enough propaganda to rough up Trumps image (this Russian nonsense) to provide the plausible deniability that the governments need. Amongst all of this the point being missed is we are seeing the results of the mass data collection, and it absolutely is not the "metadata" that we were told it would be. This is outright spying on the public. Putting lipstick on a pig only gives you a pig wearing lipstick, it don't make it any prettier.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is ludicrous, you know nothing about what you speak. Please provide the evidence that your first sentence is accurate. The truth is you can't.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jordan77

And when you tie in the MSN CONFIRMED Trump was being targeted by tapping OTHER people's communications, and we do have intel from other countries that was made public against the normal standard .. what the Judge said suddenly gets very plausible.


No such thing was confirmed.

Are you sure about that?

Here we have Salon saying the second warrant was granted and was about the Trump Tower server.

a private server discovered in Trump Tower was connected to a Russian bank for potentially illegal purposes, the FBI’s counter-intelligence wing submitted two FISA requests about the possible financial and banking offenses connected to the server — the first of which was denied in June (and which named Trump) and the second which was more narrowly drawn up and thus granted in October.

www.salon.com...
Here is the BBC confirming that the warrant did not name Trump, but he was the intended target of the warrant.

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

www.bbc.com...

Here is another source confirming the BBC article.

The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

www.mcclatchydc.com...


Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia

While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates.

heatst.com...

Here we have a warrant issued to look at emails that may concern US persons, which makes it NOT INCIDENTAL since it was done on purpose and treated as incidental.

FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.
heatst.com...


But The Times knew several critical facts: the F.B.I. had a sophisticated investigation underway on Trump’s organization, possibly including FISA warrants. (Some news outlets now report that the F.B.I. did indeed have such warrants, an indication of probable cause.)

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

How's that popcorn Rick.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

How's that popcorn Rick.


Better than the nonsense you continually spout.

Just bought some more for the upcoming senate hearings



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I just love how my long detailed and sourced post silenced everyone.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Hmmm. Sure it is. LOL.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RickinVa

I just love how my long detailed and sourced post silenced everyone.


Almost everyone...at least everyone who knows what they are talking about at least.
edit on R342017-04-20T12:34:27-05:00k344Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join