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.

 

President Trump Fires James Comey

page: 139
144
<< 136  137  138    140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: JinMI

Dunno yet but even House GOP is getting fed up with Trump.


Good! Means he just may be doing something right.


Don't be a buffoon JinMi, if the President tried to influence a federal investigation it is not good and you damn well know it...


If! Think man, the word IF is not based in factual evidence. I'm fully ready to retract this statement upon release of the memo.




posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




The constitution matters. Facts matter. Honesty matters. Integrity matters..The Law matters..


Where did you sit on the HRC investigations then? (Honest question, not playing 'gotcha')

I agree that it matters. Especially right to due process. I'm fully ready for an investigation provided there is evidence to do so. Court of public opinion not withstanding.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Does anyone not see this for what it is?

Yesterday didn't pan out how they envisioned. The WH came out and squashed the rumor. Now if WaPo had actual proof they could have trumped the WH statement immediately, but now.

Now we have a NEW story with NEW facts and NEW unnamed sources!



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Does anyone not see this for what it is?

Yesterday didn't pan out how they envisioned. The WH came out and squashed the rumor. Now if WaPo had actual proof they could have trumped the WH statement immediately, but now.

Now we have a NEW story with NEW facts and NEW unnamed sources!



And no memo yet. If I was a journalist approached with this I'd demand a copy of the memo I could print with my story. Does that not seem like a basic step?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Certainly. What would you do if one could not be produced?

I would ask for names of those who are stating this as fact. Funny thing, no one wants to do that, they either want to keep their jobs or feel as if they are doing some amount of good.

Where does the law sit on leaking of supposed classified information and in turn the media reporting it?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

As I understand it the leaker can be prosecuted but most times the media who received it aren't. A standard memo for record the Director wrote about an unclassified conversation he had with the President isn't classified though. It could've been printed with the story if it exists.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I had assumed it was classified as it is not printed.

There is zero excuse for not putting a source with their claim if this is not the case.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: JinMI

Dunno yet but even House GOP is getting fed up with Trump.


Good! Means he just may be doing something right.


Don't be a buffoon JinMi, if the President tried to influence a federal investigation it is not good and you damn well know it...


If! Think man, the word IF is not based in factual evidence. I'm fully ready to retract this statement upon release of the memo.


I am thinking.

The problem: The President may have attempted to influence a federal investigation.
Your reaction to the problem: Good, he must be doing something right!

Doesn't matter if there is an "if" or your retraction based upon some "if", inference indicates that you support corrupt influencing of federal investigations if it's what you want to have done because it suits you. Not because it allows truth to prevail.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You are misquoting me or taking what I said out of context.

I said to Kali that if Trump is angering the sitting GOP than THAT is good.

Now re-read my posts based on that.
edit on 16-5-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If you ask me, since leaking classified information is a Federal crime, any media outlet that publishes a story that contains leaked classified information should be able to be subpoena'd if an investigation is started. Failure to provide sources should be treated as accessory to the charges and obstructing justice with all commensurate penalties.

This 'unnamed source' crap would stop... fast.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd have to agree.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This is why CNN is not credible...




posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Woodward and Bernstein may have had trouble with the Watergate story if it was not for their leak from Deep Throat who was likely the associate FBI director.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: TheRedneck

Woodward and Bernstein may have had trouble with the Watergate story if it was not for their leak from Deep Throat who was likely the associate FBI director.


Mark Felt - aka Deep Throat.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

If that's true, then I apologize, it just didn't appear that way to me.

ETA: I don't need to re-read your posts, if you say I took it out of context, I believe you.
edit on 16-5-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Fair enough.


I stand by my beliefs that if there is evidence then proceed with investigations and indictments if necessary. So far, I've seen nothing credible even thought the possibility does exists to make it so.


(post by InvoiceFinancing removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 17 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Do you remember when you questioned my use of the phrase "laughing out the other side of you face"???

You're about to get some first hand experience ...



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It is thought he was building a case for obstruction of justice.
He was not under obligation to confront trump in February or reveal what he had.to the DOJ. It was an open FBI investigation and still is. He didn't have to tell the DOJ anything. He was collecting evidence in an open investigation.
Are you in law enforcement? Or the FBI?



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

And get in a time machine so that copies of it that were contemporaneous still wind up on other agents desks in February.
Happy Valentine's day. 💓



new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 136  137  138    140  141 >>

log in

join