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.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: whywhynot
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whywhynot
In this case, the ultimate source is identified as Comey himself which makes it substantially different from other articles citing leaks from anonymous sources.
Comey can kill this straight away by saying it's false if he chooses. Furthermore, according to reports from a few days ago, Comey has expressed a willingness to testify before Congress but only in a public. You can imagine that this will be one of the very first questions asked by a Democrat if it hasn't been shot down by Comey before that time.
Comey lost all credibility when he didn't report it in writing when/if it happened.
If it did happen, he may not have reported it immediately because it could be just a smaller part of a much bigger issue/case.
I find the way many are approaching these issues to be highly concerning. We are being told about many problems occurring within the Trump administration regarding the investigations, etc, and far too many people are jumping in to discredit the reports as a knee-jerk reaction.
At what point do the defenders stop with the partisan hackery, take notice of what is going on and wait for the smoke to clear before they jump to conclusions?
At what point will anti trumpers acknowledge an unprecedented attack on the president by the intelligence community and their press allies?
There is a lot of information we simply do not know. What you call an unprecedented attack may be fully justified.
Trump and people around him may be guilty of what is being claimed.
Why would you or I either condemn or defend someone when we do not know the complete truth?
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ketsuko
Yes mentioned that earlier, which is why I hope there are tapes. That way we get resolution.
I fear this is just going to be one word against another though.
I honestly think that if there were tapes trump would turn round and say that they are have been faked by his political opponents in the American intelligence community....... and loads of his supporters would believe it.
I think it is fair to question anti trumpets on their refusal to acknowledge the sustained campaign to remove the President at all costs fair or foul. That should be obvious to all.
That said, if the campaign by the media actually finds something real amongst the swathes of fake news then of course it is no less valid. We will need to wait for more information.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: whywhynot
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whywhynot
In this case, the ultimate source is identified as Comey himself which makes it substantially different from other articles citing leaks from anonymous sources.
Comey can kill this straight away by saying it's false if he chooses. Furthermore, according to reports from a few days ago, Comey has expressed a willingness to testify before Congress but only in a public. You can imagine that this will be one of the very first questions asked by a Democrat if it hasn't been shot down by Comey before that time.
Comey lost all credibility when he didn't report it in writing when/if it happened.
If it did happen, he may not have reported it immediately because it could be just a smaller part of a much bigger issue/case.
I find the way many are approaching these issues to be highly concerning. We are being told about many problems occurring within the Trump administration regarding the investigations, etc, and far too many people are jumping in to discredit the reports as a knee-jerk reaction.
At what point do the defenders stop with the partisan hackery, take notice of what is going on and wait for the smoke to clear before they jump to conclusions?
At what point will anti trumpers acknowledge an unprecedented attack on the president by the intelligence community and their press allies?
There is a lot of information we simply do not know. What you call an unprecedented attack may be fully justified.
Trump and people around him may be guilty of what is being claimed.
Why would you or I either condemn or defend someone when we do not know the complete truth?
So far none of the leaks have been anything so horrendous that impeachment was necessary.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: whywhynot
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whywhynot
In this case, the ultimate source is identified as Comey himself which makes it substantially different from other articles citing leaks from anonymous sources.
Comey can kill this straight away by saying it's false if he chooses. Furthermore, according to reports from a few days ago, Comey has expressed a willingness to testify before Congress but only in a public. You can imagine that this will be one of the very first questions asked by a Democrat if it hasn't been shot down by Comey before that time.
Comey lost all credibility when he didn't report it in writing when/if it happened.
If it did happen, he may not have reported it immediately because it could be just a smaller part of a much bigger issue/case.
I find the way many are approaching these issues to be highly concerning. We are being told about many problems occurring within the Trump administration regarding the investigations, etc, and far too many people are jumping in to discredit the reports as a knee-jerk reaction.
At what point do the defenders stop with the partisan hackery, take notice of what is going on and wait for the smoke to clear before they jump to conclusions?
At what point will anti trumpers acknowledge an unprecedented attack on the president by the intelligence community and their press allies?
LOL
Never has a more corrupt and inept man sat in the Whitehouse...
THAT is not the fault of a free press or those who are sworn to uphold the law and protect the constitution.
Blame LAWS...Blame a Free Press...but whatever you do ...don't blame the incompentent, itchy twitter finger, corrupt imbecile ...Defend that moron unto your dying breath...
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Indigo5
Over 6 million dollars made Comey working for Clintons associates before he became FBI director tells me that he was already a puppet.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Indigo5
Yes I remember the gleaming praise that people on both sides were giving Comey while he was there.
You should read...
The quotes I provided were after Comey was fired...
The leaks are illegal, period. It doesn't matter if they are true or not. So far none of the leaks have been anything so horrendous that impeachment was necessary.
So the deep state is leaking this info at unprecedented rates, which is illegal, and you have no problem with it?
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: whywhynot
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whywhynot
In this case, the ultimate source is identified as Comey himself which makes it substantially different from other articles citing leaks from anonymous sources.
Comey can kill this straight away by saying it's false if he chooses. Furthermore, according to reports from a few days ago, Comey has expressed a willingness to testify before Congress but only in a public. You can imagine that this will be one of the very first questions asked by a Democrat if it hasn't been shot down by Comey before that time.
Comey lost all credibility when he didn't report it in writing when/if it happened.
If it did happen, he may not have reported it immediately because it could be just a smaller part of a much bigger issue/case.
I find the way many are approaching these issues to be highly concerning. We are being told about many problems occurring within the Trump administration regarding the investigations, etc, and far too many people are jumping in to discredit the reports as a knee-jerk reaction.
At what point do the defenders stop with the partisan hackery, take notice of what is going on and wait for the smoke to clear before they jump to conclusions?
At what point will anti trumpers acknowledge an unprecedented attack on the president by the intelligence community and their press allies?
There is a lot of information we simply do not know. What you call an unprecedented attack may be fully justified.
Trump and people around him may be guilty of what is being claimed.
Why would you or I either condemn or defend someone when we do not know the complete truth?
So far none of the leaks have been anything so horrendous that impeachment was necessary.
A whole lot of people disagree...
More Americans support Trump's impeachment than oppose it for first time, poll finds
www.independent.co.uk...
Poll: 48 percent want Trump impeached/41 percent Opposed
thehill.com...
I can move on to historians, legal scholars and Nixon experts if you like?